[pittsburgh gop guy]

"...this is not a federal issue, and the SCOTUS never should have heard the case. States should be free to regulate nonfederal issues, or not, as the populace of those states sees fit."

HA-BANG! You hit the nail on the head. But, instead of not hearing the case and issuing a liberal ruling, the Supremes decided to push the homo agenda and set it up so that gay marriage is acceptable, at least according to their ruling.

All you freepers that are happy with this ruling should ACTUALLY READ THE WHOLE opinion of the majority, and the scathing dissent by Scalia. O'Connor's opinion is just plain nuts and goes against the majority in the Bowers v. Hardwick case - WHERE SHE WAS WITH THE MAJORITY!!!! And the majority ruling, while destroying stare decises vis-a-vis the Bowers ruling, mentions ROE and ACTUALLY STRENGTHENS ABORTION RIGHTS!!!! YEP!!! So all you suckers saying this is a good ruling - read the damn thing!!!!

Scalia is right when he points out that this decision could lead to:

1. The Boy Scouts having to allow homosexuals.
2. Gay marriage.
3. The end of the U.S. military's not allowing gays to serve.
4. Legalized prostitution.

Before any one defends this decision - READ IT! And absorb what Scalia is saying... and predicting. And ask yourself, were there really the "SEX POLICE" going around and breaking into people's homes in the middle of the night and arresting them for having sex with each other, or monkeys or whatever. The answer is no. That whole argument is just BS that was put out by the homo lobby.

This decision is the worst one since Roe v. Wade.

[sinkspur]

And ask yourself, were there really the "SEX POLICE" going around and breaking into people's homes in the middle of the night and arresting them for having sex with each other, or monkeys or whatever. The answer is no.

Then what was the value of laws against sodomy? And why are you and Scalia so frantic because some unenforced laws are no longer in effect?

[Polycarp]

Sink, since you refuse to address the substance of Scalia's opinion as I have excerpted it for you, could you at least respond to someone else's post, like that of pittsburgh gop guy in post 82 above? Thanks.

[Jorge]

Scalia is right when he points out that this decision could lead to:

1. The Boy Scouts having to allow homosexuals.

Why should the idea that we don't want the sex police monitoring and arresting adults for what they do in their private bedrooms.... mean the Boy Scouts or any other group must rewrite their core beliefs and accept anyone into their private organization?

I'de say the opposite is true. It defends the right to private beliefs and values.