Top Massachusetts court refuses to throw out anti-sodomy laws but limits enforcement

AP ^ | 2-21-02

[Oldeconomybuyer]

BOSTON (AP) -- Massachusetts' highest court on Thursday upheld two anti-sodomy laws but limited enforcement to cases when specific sex acts occurred in public or weren't consensual.

Gay activists said the Supreme Judicial Court ruling clarified for the first time that anti-sodomy laws don't apply to private, consensual sex.

[zoyd]

Do you like the idea of the government deciding your sexual activities for you?

[JMJ333]

Should we legitimize incest?

[counterrevolutionary]

Actually, I oppose anti-sodomy laws.

[zoyd]

If you're talking about adults, I'd say that putting consenting incestuous adults in jail doesn't make much sense. Sorry to disappoint you. Of course, incest is a bad idea for any number of psychological and genetic reasons, but if two 25-YO's want to have sex with each other, I'm not going to toss them in jail because they're related.

Now, would you care to answer my question?

Heterosexual sodomy. Be CONSISTENT.

[zoyd]

Just making a 'Constitutional' point, then?

[counterrevolutionary]

Just making a 'Constitutional' point, then?

Precisely. I can hardly complain about judicial activism on abortion, and then accept it in regards to laws I oppose.

[JMJ333]

Putting them in jail at this time in the culture is stupid. I agree with the judge on limiting the enforcement. I am, however, for the citizens of a community deciding what societal standards they want for their community. If they don't want sodomy legalized then it should be respected.

And I didn't ask you about putting people in jail for incest. I asked you if it should be legitimized as normal--like the homosexuals have done with sodomy. And I understand that many heterosexuals engage in sodomy, but these court cases are just more attempts to try and normalize deviant behavior.

Should incest be legitimized like homsexual behavior?

[Libertarian Billy Graham]

Please quote the Constitutional provision which forbids a state legislature to pass a law against sodomy.

Maryland Declaration of Rights Article 45:

"This enumeration of Rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the People."

Please quote the state constitutional provision which delegates to the state legislature the power to send hither perverted snoops like J. Edgar Hoover's vice squad.

[JMJ333]

****crickets****

[tpaine]

You seem to be rambling.

Rambling? I have obeyed your commands, yet you have no snappy comeback? - Tough.

Certainly neither a homosexual nor a heterosexual can be punished without due process. But that has literally nothing to do with the point at issue.

-- - Yep, the point you have failed to rebut. - Tough on you again. - You have a problem? Take a position.

You have clearly fallen into the leftists' trap of believing that whatever you want to be the case must be in the Constitution, whether you can find the actual words in there or not, as if the Constitution was somehow meant to establish God's Justice (or at least your justice) on earth.

Your flawed opinions on mine are of little interest. -- And your opinions on God/constitution? -- Save them for your friends at church. - Make a rebuttal to my point, or quit whining.

[counterrevolutionary]

Leaving aside the fact that this is a Massachusetts case, not Maryland:

A) I've dealt with general provisions such as that (e.g., the Ninth Amendment) in previous posts. Yours raises no further issues.

B) As far as I know, neither the Massachusetts State Constitution nor the US Constitution authorizes the Massachusetts legislature to forbid murder. If it is your position that state legislatures only have those powers specifically granted to them, you should begin a campaign to free all the murderers from Massachusetts jails.

C) Massachusetts may well someday put a sodomy protection in their state constitution. But we were discussing provisions of the US Constitution.

D) If you don't like a law, but can't find a constitutional provision forbidding it, why don't you try behaving like a citizen of a republic and attempt to get it repealed through the legislative process?

[zoyd]

Putting them in jail at this time in the culture is stupid. I agree with the judge on limiting the enforcement. I am, however, for the citizens of a community deciding what societal standards they want for their community. If they don't want sodomy legalized then it should be respected. And I didn't ask you about putting people in jail for incest. I asked you if it should be legitimized as normal--like the homosexuals have done with sodomy. And I understand that many heterosexuals engage in sodomy, but these court cases are just more attempts to try and normalize deviant behavior. Should incest be legitimized like homsexual behavior?

Are you going to answer my question tonight?

You actually bring up a good point -- how do we get people to live good lives? I say, if you don't like your neighbor's coffee table filled with Hustler and Penthouse magazines, then STOP BEING FREINDLY WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR. The answer is NOT to pass a law barring pornography.

Same with incest. If I knew anyone who was in an incestuous relationship, I can guarantee you that I wouldn't remain friendly with them for long.

But I wouldn't turn around and demand they be shackled and jailed for it.

Communities don't have 'rights'. Individuals have rights. I just don't understand this knee-jerk reaction to 'pass a law' against everything you personally don't like.

Me, I'd like to have a victim before I'll call it a crime.

Bottom line: just because something is legal, doesn't mean you have to embrace it. I don't like bondage magazines, I don't like incest, I don't like the idea of cheating while married -- but I don't want to make it illegal.

The rationale behind making sodomy illegal is the same rationale behind making divorce illegal, or making adultery illegal. Society is 'harmed' by all three, so why not make all three illegal?

I don't LIKE divorce, I don't LIKE adultery, but I'm not in favor of running to my 'community' to make those things illegal.

So, once again: Do you think it's ok for your 'community' to decide that heterosexual sodomy is illegal?

Remember, be consistent. You want your local sheriff deciding your sexual positions (well, Missionary is ok, but doggy style is the work of the Devil)?

[zoyd]

****crickets****

*** DINNER ***

[breakem]

States are prohibited because people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happeness. All the rights of people are not delineated in the constitution. That does not give the states the right to restrict human rights. What next, they tell you what to have for breakfast and when to use the bathroom? Don't recall that in the constitution either.

[tpaine]

Hey, - ask what you want, and imagine that I'm upset. Knock yourself out.

The fact remains that the constitution, on rights, is deliberatly vague. The founders didn't want to list specifics, because they knew that people, - like you, - would assert that anyhing not listed was not a 'right'.

Instead, they tried to outline the principles of a free republic. Tough sell to many here.

[counterrevolutionary]

I don't think I can be blamed for not recognizing that "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" was an attempt to answer my question: "Care to give me a list of everything that Amendment 14, Sec. 1 forbids states to outlaw, and everything it doesn't?"

Number one, it doesn't actually answer the question.

Number two, even gramatically, it makes no sense as an answer to the question.

Number three, no one has suggested that people arrested under an anti-sodomy law are not entitled to due process. People arrested under anti-murder laws are also entitled to due process. Does that make anti-murder laws unconstitutional?

And now this discussion has gotten annoyingly silly, and so I will be saying goodbye, then, sir.

Goodbye, then, sir.

[zoyd]

Who's the victim when sodomy occurs?

Aren't laws passed to protect rights?

Whose rights are violated when two consenting adults get freaky?

I'd say, therefore, that sodomy is a 'liberty'. Plain and simple. Show me a victim, and maybe I'll change my opinion.

Murders have victims. Robberies have victims. Sodomy does not.

[JMJ333]

*****DINNER****

ROFL! Okay..my bad!

[counterrevolutionary]

The fact remains that the constitution, on rights, is deliberatly vague. The founders didn't want to list specifics, because they knew that people, - like you, - would assert that anyhing not listed was not a 'right'.

OK, one more post, because I'm a masochist.

Do you honestly think that the Founders intended for judges to be able to pass final judgement on all laws, based not upon whether they were explicitly unconstitutional, but only upon whether the judge approved or disapproved? Because that is the issue here.

Under your scheme of things, a judge can overturn literally any law based merely on a whim. Is that really what you want?

Personally, I prefer to live in a republic, where the representatives of the people have the legislative power, restricted only in limited and clearly defined ways.

[zoyd]

Yeah, I was beginning to wonder if you disagreed with my eating dinner... ;)