Posted on 12/02/2002 10:18:20 AM PST by polemikos
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide a challenge to a Texas law that makes it a crime for gays and lesbians to have consensual sex in their own homes, agreeing to consider overruling its 1986 decision that upheld state sodomy laws.
The high court said it would hear an appeal by two men convicted of engaging in "homosexual conduct." They argued the law violates constitutional privacy and equal protection rights, subjecting gays to criminal penalties while allowing different-sex couples to engage in the same conduct.
The justices also said they would consider overturning their 5-4 ruling in 1986 that handed gay rights advocates a defeat by declaring that homosexuals have no constitutional right to engage in sodomy.
Any activity that does not directly harm, take from, impose upon, or place burden upon another person is a constitutionally supported right. There you go.
Well, in all fairness, Austin is a strange town. :P
This is a particularly inane statement. I am not familiar with any statutes that prohibit flying by telekinesis, decreasing the entropy of a closed system, writing three numbers such that A<B, B<C, and C<A, or otherwise violating the laws of nature.
A member of city coucil is openly homosexual. There have been no attempts to catch her in violation of state sodomy laws. There was an investigation a few years back where much of city coucil was caught in a sting operation for taking money under the table for civic bids. If she is regularly committing a felony and there were any concern about it, don't you think that investigators would pursue catching her?
There are many laws on the books that are not or selectively enforced. The legislature removes them from the books on occasion. It is not for the courts to do.
I think our discussion is about whether Sodomy is a constitutional right. The supposed 'right' to 'pursue liberty and happiness' is not in the constitution. It is a statement in the Declaration of Independence. As such, it has no constitutional weight.
The constitution doesn't include a RIGHT eat the foods of your choice. Does that mean if some legislation decides to pass laws that mandate what you can eat and when, that this would be constitutional as well?
The states regulate what you can eat all the time. Health laws, labeling laws, laws making various chemicals illegal (even food supplements). At the state level, these laws are almost certainly constitutional.
Rights are not subject to plurality vote.
Well, this begs the question we are discussing. Is sodomy a constitutional right?
Have you considered moving to Holland? Donkey shows and kiddie porn are no big deal over there. Can't have the government meddling around in people's sex lives, you know!
Cause face it -- the days of arresting gays in the U.S. are over.
More's the pity.
< sarcasm > I can't wait until incest, kiddie porn, and necrophilia are decriminalized, too; then we will truly live in Utopia. < /sarcasm >
Cases like this are just mopping up.
So the Sexual Revoution is over, Comrade? Well, hurrah! Now right-thinking people of all races, creeds, and sexual preferences can walk shoulder-to-shoulder into a brave new world where every human being is free to use any other human being of any age, sex, or condition as a living receptacle for their basic animal desires.
Pardon me if I don't stand up and cheer.
Even AppyPappy likes it that this law isn't enforced.
What do I care? My opinions aren't based upon your tides-of-social-progress theory or upon what my fellow Freepers think. The fact remains that if the state has the right to regulate one sort of private, consensual sexual activity (e.g. incest) then it logically has the right to regulate other forms of private, consensual sexual activity (e.g. sodomy).
Face it: all law is legislated morality. The only question is which morality we will have as the basis of our laws. I choose traditional Judeo-Christian morality, which always and everywhere condemns same-sex intercourse as intrinsically disordered (i.e. immoral). I will continue to defend that tradition of moral thought no matter how much "mopping up" occurs or how many people disagree.
Is that what you really want?
You wrote: May I ask why you think the government has a role in the issue of adults have sex with each other?
As I said in the post to which you responded, I think sodomy laws are silly and worse, completely unenforceable. But that is not a CONSTITUTIONAL argument. It is an argument for the legislature. This thread relates to the constitutionality of the sodomy laws. That should be a complete no-brainer. But, given the composition of the Court, I fear another assault on the integrity of our constitution in the breeze.
The number of such places is expected to decrease in the near future, via "regime change".
They have it coming, to be sure. If they'd wanted to stay in the 7th century, they ought to have slapped down their worst goons before they poked the hornet's nest one time too many....
Others have said it well here and I tried to do so also. The constitution does not address it nor was it intended to list all human rights. In fact it says that.
I believe it is your problem to explain why this is a government power and why you are willing to allow your government corntol of you or your neighbor's behavior in this area.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Now, if the majority of a STATE voted to keep sodomy, witchcraft, or drugs illegal, it would not seem that it would be a right retained by the people of that state, would it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.