SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[jethropalerobber]

What are you 12, 13 maybe?

check my profile, missionary.

[gcruse]

Libertarians are cheering.

Yay.

[tpaine]

Thane_Banquo
. The 10th amendment guarantees to the states and the people themselves all powers not granted to the federal government.
The Constitution does not give the power to the federal government to regulate in this area.
-TB-


Wrong. The 14th protects our rights to life, liberty, and property from violations by ANY level of government, fed/state/local.
1,071 -tpaine-


The 14th amendment does not define those rights, but references them to be part of the rights of individuals protected from federal government action by the other portions of the Constitution.
The Constitution does not state that one has a right to engage in homosexual sex.
-TB-


The issue is not 'defining' life/liberty/property. -- It is that fed/state/local governments cannot violate those self-evident rights. The 14th clearly makes that point, which you deny..

Why do you WANT government to have the power to prohibit individual freedoms? It makes no sense.

[MineralMan]

"That's really clever! What are you 12, 13 maybe?"

It was put in juvenile language, but the point remains. If you look at the map where sodomy laws include both heterosexual and homosexual couples, it's surprising. There are a lot of folks in those states who are committing sodomy on a regular basis, since sodomy definitions generally include oral-genital sexual activity. I wonder how they'd feel if they were interrupted in bed with their heterosexual spouse by the police who came bursting in in response to a false complaint by a neighbor?

These laws are stupid, and need to be thrown out.

[Antoninus]

I'd submit that those advocating the criminalization and subsequent identification and imprisonment of homosexuals have unfortunately drawn the comparisons themselves, in spite of the old addage about such comparisons.

So it follows then, that Thomas Jefferson was a Nazi too, right?

[OWK]

I can see that the Nobel Lauriates have arrived.

This is my cue to exit.

Have a nice day.

[vin-one]

I think we are on the same page here.

good points,

[OWK]

So it follows then, that Thomas Jefferson was a Nazi too, right?

Or a hypocrite.

I'd go with hypocrite.

[MineralMan]

"The Constitution does not state that one has a right to engage in homosexual sex.
"

Nor does it state that one has a right to engage in heterosexual sex.

[Roscoe]

The Liberals and Libertarians are both in bed on this issue, cheering judicial legislation.

[aristeides]

What will the Supreme Court's decision mean for the military?

Today, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution protects the liberty of homosexual persons to engage in "intimate conduct" in accordance with their personal preferences. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy effectively demolished the Court's precedent from Bowers v. Hardwick, expressly overruling it and its holding that states could regulate the conduct of homosexual persons.

What does this mean for the current law banning gays in the military?

That ban exists as a matter of federal law -- 10 U.S.C. 654 -- and presumably can be overruled by a decision of the Supreme Court. I think that one of the first effects of Lawrence will be to trigger a challenge in U.S. District Court to the current policy banning gays in the military. That challenge will essentially cite Lawrence for the proposition that homosexual conduct is a fundamental right that the state cannot burden without some compelling interest -- and that the restrictions must be narrowly tailored to that compelling interest. The plaintiffs will argue that this policy (the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy) burdens the right of gay soldiers to engage in the conduct they want to, and that such a burden on a fundamental right is unconstitutional. Given the Court's holding today in Lawrence, I think that a lower court would almost certainly side with the plaintiffs.

The only possible savior for the military's ban will be the "national security" deference sometimes given to the Executive Branch and the military by the courts. In recent cases, such as challenges to President Bush's war on Iraq, the courts have expressly deferred to executive judgment on military matters, and left such issues to be decided by the political branches. Such "national security" deference was also invoked by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States, where the Court upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

However, I don't think such deference will save the ban on gays in the ranks. The Court has held in religious freedom cases that the military can curtail certain personal freedoms, such as the right of Jews to wear certain religious garb. However, this is different. This ban places much more of a burden on the rights of gays than the military's uniform policies do, and this ban has a much more drastic effect (automatic discharge). After reading the Court's opinion in Lawrence, I think it's likely that this ban will be struck down as unconstitutional.

posted by Phillip at 8:21 AM

http://philcarter.blogspot.com/2003_06_22_philcarter_archive.html#105664089655662077

[Sandy]

O'Connor seemed to have changed her mind about her vote in the 1986 Bowers case

She didn't. She wanted to let Bowers stand and strike the Texas law on equal protection grounds.

[Houmatt]

Define patently, please.

No problem.

patently
SYLLABICATION: pat·ent·ly
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: ptnt-l, pt- KEY
ADVERB: In a patent manner; openly, plainly, or clearly: a patently false statement.

[Dead Corpse]

A country of libertinarian(sic) would have been easy prey for the Nazi war machine and would have ended up under Nazi domination.

How is anyone going to conquer a nation where EVERYONE carries their firearms with them everywhere whenever they want? You really don't know much about libertarians, do you...

[wardaddy]

Not in my book.

[dmz]

you seem to know a lot about what "most" gays want. and you came by that info how?

a lot of heteros believe they can have sex anywhere as well.

let's burn them all at the stake.

[Clint N. Suhks]

This is my cue to exit. Have a nice day.

Come back when you can handle the truth OK? Maybe then you can answer why Madison and Jefferson disagrees with you, maybe why the state doesn't have the power to determine the extent any right may be exercised. Looking foward to seeing you again.

[MineralMan]

"You really don't know much about libertarians, do you..."

Could be he/she thinks libertarians are all a bunch of stoners. That thinking seems to be going around.

[OWK]

Come back when you can handle the truth OK?

I'll be sure and do that.

Nuthin like a good brow-beating by Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel, to put the fear of God in ya.

[Clint N. Suhks]

The Liberals and Libertarians are both in bed on this issue, cheering judicial legislation.

That's why they are Liberaltarians. Change society for their selfish needs.