Is there is constitional right to homosexual sex??
Its a natural right, just like "heterosexual sex". No piece of paper can give it, or take it away. Busyboddy's wishes notwithsatnding.
Rights do not emanate from the constitution. And they need not be enumerated there to exist.
People have the right to engage in activity that makes them happy provided it does not violate the rights of others.
The words of the Ninth and Tenth are very clear, straightforward -- yet the ignorance of them is nigh total...
Amendment IXThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
U.S. Supreme Court
BOWERS v. HARDWICK, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)
478 U.S. 186
BOWERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GEORGIA v. HARDWICK ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 85-140.
Argued March 31, 1986
Decided June 30, 1986
After being charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom of his home, respondent Hardwick (respondent) brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute insofar as it criminalized consensual sodomy. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the Georgia statute violated respondent's fundamental rights.
Held:
The Georgia statute is constitutional. Pp. 190-196.
(a) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Pp. 190-191.
(b) Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious. Pp. 191-194.
(c) There should be great resistance to expand the reach of the Due Process Clauses to cover new fundamental rights. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily would take upon itself further authority to govern the country without constitutional authority. The claimed right in this case falls far short of overcoming this resistance. Pp. 194-195.
(d) The fact that homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home does not affect the result. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, distinguished. Pp. 195-196.
(e) Sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an inadequate rationale to support the laws. P. 196.
760 F.2d 1202, reversed. [478 U.S. 186, 187]
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BURGER, C. J., post, p. 196, and POWELL, J., post, p. 197, filed concurring opinions. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 199. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 214.
Remember this case was only decided back in 1986, The liberals consistantly say of Roe V Wade which was decided in 1973 that if the court were to overturn such a recent decision it would be putting itself to shame, yet the liberals don't say that about this much more recent decison.
The above case delt with sodomy laws, which apply to both homosexuals and heterosexuals, it found those laws Constitutional, and SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HOMOSEXUAL SODOMY!!
It takes 4 Supreme Court Justices to hear a case. I suspect those 4 are Breyer, Ginsberg, Stephens and Souter.
Stephens dissented on the above case, he will vote to overturn the Texas Statute, you can probably put Ginsberg, Souter and Breyer with him.
Rehnquist and O'Conner both voted to uphold the Georgia law in Bowers. You can throw Thomas and Scalia on their side.
That means the case will be Decided by Kennedy.