SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[wimpycat]

I can still recite the lyrics to "Ruby" even twenty some years later.

That's the saddest song in country music, IMO. You want me to sing it for you?

ahem! la! la! ahem! do-re-mi-fa-so-la-si-doooooo! lalalalalalalalaaaaa!

You've painted up your lips and rolled and curled your tinted hairrrrrrrrr!
Ruby, are you contemplating going out somewhere?
The shadows on the wall tell me the sun is goin' down...
Oh, Ruuuuuuuuubeeeeeeeeee!.......Don't take your luv to town!

[Houmatt]

I don't know. I believe what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business, as long as it is not patently illegal.

With this case, I have been, and will continue to be, nonchalant about it.

If the homosexuals try to use this ruling to bring homosexual sodomy into the public arena, however, we are going to see a big problem.

[OWK]

Tweeeeeet! Flag on the play. Comparing your opponent to the Nazis. 15 yards and loss of argument.

Objection over-ruled. The comparisson is not invalidated by overuse.

It applies well here.

[Elsie]

Hey! They were on private property by then!

---

Anyway, he was drunk and the girls saw their only chance at gettin' away just go up in smoke!

[MineralMan]

"Isn't my income a private matter?"

Not really, unless you're able to generate income without interacting with anyone else. Say, for example, that I buy a product for resale from you for $XX.XX. Since I don't have a problem with paying taxes, I report that purchase as cost of goods sold to the IRS, and have your receipt as proof that I bought it. Your privacy is gone, you see, in that instance, since I have a record of the purchase.

If you work for an employer, your wages or salary is also a business expense that is reported as a cost of doing business. Again, no privacy.

But...if you can manage without interacting with anyone else, then I suppose your privacy should be respected. You won't make much money, though, since each exchange involved an interaction.

Indeed, who does the money belong to in the first place. I think Jesus about covered it when he looked at the money of the day and saw Caesar's picture on it. It was, apparently, Caesar's money, so he just told folks to render it back to Caesar.

Same thing here.

[jimt]

Logic, please!!!

The logic is simple. Based on the Constitution, the SCOTUS should strike down un-Constitutional laws, whether they're made by the feds, the states or any other government.

I hold that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual, and has no other legitimate purpose. The old Declaration of Independence thing.

Cities or counties or states have no more rights than you do. They get their powers from our consent. None of us want to be raped, murdered, robbed, defrauded, etc. It's very logical for us to band together and pay people to stop the knotheads who think those activities are acceptable. There's no individual right to rape or murder so we're violating no one's rights by our using government to stop those activities.

But two consenting homosexuals doing their (admittedly disgusting) thing in private are violating no one's rights. Therefore those of us who disapprove of this activity may not use government to stop it.

[CholeraJoe]

Seriously, though, you should try doing a Google search for Ernst Roehm and homosexual.

Yeah? Whatever happened to Ernst? Don't hear much about him after "The Night of the Long Knives."

[af_vet_rr]

I'd also point out that if there is a right to privacy, how can the government institute am progressive income tax based on how much money I make. Isn't my income a private matter?

I'd point out that some would argue whether income taxes are even Constitutional to begin with, lol.

Many times we all think back and wish we were much younger, but could you imagine being 20 years old right, what the country will look like when your much older, and how much less privacy/freedom you would have as you get older? I'm not talking about the TIA/Pentagon's little project to compile data on all Americans either, just in general.

Would not suprise me to see the government try and phase out cash as much as possible over the next few decades, be much easier to track our finances, etc.

[NittanyLion]

Lke I said, the "sickness is good" crowd is here and all jazzed up. Good to see the list is not changed except for a few recent additions. I'll wave and smile as I drive in perfect health past the AIDS clinic.

So you equate defense of this SCOTUS verdict with the above? You must live in a strange world.

BTW: A biological malfunction is not an "orientation". It's a sickness and a DISorientation. Sick people cannot be reasoned with.

Can you show me where I claimed that? It appears you're so upset about this verdict you're incapable of arguing in a logical manner and have resorted to ad hominem attacks and strawmen. I'd suggest you take a day, compose yourself, and then come back and post again.

[OWK]

I'd point out that some would argue whether income taxes are even Constitutional to begin with, lol

They are certainly immoral.

[Clint N. Suhks]

The subjugation of rights is no more morally justifiable at the state or local level, than at the federal level.

Only to the whining Liberaltarian who ignores the constitution. But what would you know about morality anyway?

[Elsie]

.........as long as it is not patently illegal.

Define patently, please.

---

Is that like a LITTLE bit pregnant?

[Antoninus]

2) Jefferson was often quite the hypocrite. (he owned people for example)

Way to bash a Founding Father when he doesn't agree with you. Thank you! Personally, I look at Jefferson as more a product of his time and less as a hypocrite.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you took your exact argument on the buggery issue that you're attempting to make today and tried to make it 50, 100, 150, 200 years ago, people would have laughed at you or called you a pervert. The only thing that makes this argument even possible is the sexual revolution of the 1960s. I know less and less people who think that this radical shift was a good thing.

To my mind, this whole burst of libertinism is the direct result of this 1960s crowd coming into power in all levels of society. However, the generation following them doesn't buy into that garbage to the same extent-- and those that do are generally second-rate intellects. Therefore, enjoy your victory for the moment. It won't last long.

[OWK]

Only to the whining Liberaltarian who ignores the constitution. But what would you know about morality anyway?

How could anyone stand before the power of such a well-constructed argument?

Had you only ended it with something profound like "nyah nyah"... it might have been one for posterity.

[Elsie]

None of us want to be raped, murdered, robbed, defrauded, etc.

I don't want to be told how FAST I can drive either (on an open road) or how many cars I park in my yard, or how loud I play my music, too.......

---

I know, the price of 'civilization' is submitting ourselves to the LAW of the majority........ [and sometimes the minority, as well.]

[OWK]

Way to bash a Founding Father when he doesn't agree with you.

How is the admission that Jefferson's ownership of human beings cast confusion on his admittedly profound observations "bashing"?

Spare me the grade school stuff.

[MineralMan]

"Would not suprise me to see the government try and phase out cash as much as possible over the next few decades, be much easier to track our finances, etc.
"

The government doesn't have to. We're rapidly doing away with cash right now, as individuals. I haven't carried more than $10-20 in my wallet for years. I used to keep a couple hundred in there. I don't even use my checkbook that much anymore. I pay all my bills online, use my debit card for almost all purchases.

About the only time I use cash these days is when I buy stock for my business at big shows. Since a lot of the folks there are trying to hide their sales, cash is the only currency they'll accept. I force them to give me a receipt, though, or don't buy from them. I've got to be able to show that I bought the stuff, since it's a cost of goods sold expense. I've only had one dealer refuse. No big whoop.

[vin-one]

exactly, acts of moral deprevity(sp?) that occur between consenting parties(adults)
versus those that harm, or cause harm, to others.
is how I define it.

[Sandy]

You said: Initial reading of the decision by Steve Centari on Fox News said the ruling was based on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

You then proceeded to highlight the following:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But that's not the Due Process Clause. The Due Process Clause consists of the second phrase only: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Phrases 1 and 3 are known respectively as the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

[Elsie]

how can the government institute am progressive income tax based on how much money I make. Isn't my income a private matter?

Whenever the gummint decides to rob Peter to pay Paul, it can ALWAYS count on Paul's support!!!!!!!