SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[jwalsh07]

I don't cheer the decision. But it's not unexpected.

That's not good enough. They could have written a decision based on "equal protection" because the law did not apply to heterosexuals as well. I would have understood that.

They didn't, they used Roe, bad case law, as a precednt for a privacy right nowhere to be found in the COnstitution. The Constitution is amendable, taht's how you change it.

I can't stand judicial activism, it reeks of elitisma nd hubris and pisses me off.

[MineralMan]

"In your haste to applaud judicial activism and edicts from the Duma, you have failed to notice that those laws have been overturned in almost every state by the duly elected legislators."

Almost. Not all. There's a nice map upthread.

[Cathryn Crawford]

I don't like it simply because I think they interfered where they had no right to. As a Texan, I can say - we're capable of handling it ourselves. Leave it to the states.

[Dead Corpse]

Now the Marlboros are where the Kools should be.

That's not bad for a beginner. Let us know when you reach truely "New Kids on the Block Christmas Album" type Eeeevvil.

[freeeee]

Nice try, but it fails in several counts.

1. Who owns the land? You never say. If the land in your small society is privately owned, those who own it can tell gays or anyone else to leave for any reason, or no reason at all.

If the gays own some of the land in the city with no pre-existing contractual restrictions against their behavior, they have a property right to stay on their land. Under libertarianism, they cannot be forced to leave their own property for actions that do not initiate force or fraud.

2. And by doing so they insult the informal, voluntary rule-structure of society.

Are you asserting that the gay men are breaking a rule they consented to? This is a profound breakdown of logic on your part.

3. A libertarian society cannot have laws that initiate force or fraud, no matter if everyone there agrees to them. The gay people in your example never initiated force or fraud in their actions. Exiling them by force is initiation of force, hence your theoretical society was never libertarian to begin with, and its failure cannot be attributed to libertarianism.

Here is the exception: Libertarians could form a private community with voluntary rules, such as a homeowners association. If these gays previously agreed by contract with whomever they bought their land to refrain from their behavior, and they break that contract, they have committed fraud, and can be ejected from the community. Note that this is not initiation of force or fraud, it is contract enforcement, which is very libertarian.

It sounds like you have a lot to learn about libertarianism before you refute it. OWK's post #1077 covers free association in libertarian societies. I suggest you re-read it.

[I_love_weather]

Ummm yeah right...

THIS IS A PRIVACY ISSUE...NOT A STATE ISSUE

It is very simple...

[RAT Patrol]

You are mandating amorality. You take it further and call for the public condemning of morality as it has been defined for as long as history has been recorded. These words aren't that tough to define unless your name is Bill Clinton.

[MineralMan]

"Would you mind FReepmailing me the screen name of the FReeper you described? I've gotta check this out.
"

I would, but I can't remember. It was in another of these interminable threads a week or so ago. Sorry.

[I_love_weather]

Ummm yeah right...

THIS IS A PRIVACY ISSUE...NOT A STATE ISSUE

It is very simple...

[Im Your Huckleberry]

Do you, Todd, take this gerbil, Lemmywinks, to be your loving rodent...to cram and to hold, in your rectum and in health, so long as Lemmywinks can breathe...answer now, by saying, I do..."

"And do you, Lemmywinks, take this creep, to be your loving pervert...to gasp and to choke, in his rectum while you can breathe...answer now by squeaking..."

That's where we're headed...

[only1percent]

The marriage amendment has a shot. 2/3 of each House of Congress would be likely to pass it as presently constituted IF there were a provocation (such as the Massachussets or New Jersey decisions being handed down imposing gay marriage).

37 states would have to ratify, but they'd have 7 years to do so, and would only have to do so by a simple majority vote in each house of the state legislature.

To get to 13 states refusing to ratify, you have to start with a hard core (MA, CT, RI, NJ, NY, MD, CA) and then add six more which would never find an amenable legislature once in seven years.

Is there any doubt [marriage amendment] would pass??? imho, plenty of doubt.

in fact, i'm willing to say you will _never_ get it passed by 2/3 of the senate or 3/4 of the states. you should have tried it 10 years ago - so it goes.

[MineralMan]

"Would you mind FReepmailing me the screen name of the FReeper you described? I've gotta check this out.
"

I would, but I can't remember. It was in another of these interminable threads a week or so ago. Sorry.

[jwalsh07]

Different issues.

[jmc813]

I think it's right on this thread. Do a user search for Lazamataz.

[fooman]

Very, Very well written essay.

I am all for privacy, but this behaviour has costs. We just spent 15 Billion for Africa AIDS. The people who engage in this poor behaviour demand that society pay for thier deeds.

[HumanaeVitae]

Your example fails, because the folks in your case in point aren't libertarians. They're authoritarians. Your example is centered around a majority denying a right to a minority. That is not Freedom, it is authoritarian rule. There is no right to not have your sensibilities offended. (l)ibertarians understand this.

Actually, no, my example does not fail. You're thinking it fails because it destroys libertarianism right before your eyes and you don't want to believe it. If you assert the right to homosexual sex, I can and will assert the right not to be around people who engage in homosexual sex. I assert it to the point that I do not wish to be in the same society as people who practice it. The people who practice it cannot survive by themselves and thus need people to support their behavior. I do not wish to support their behavior.

There is a conflict between the "right to homosexual sex" and the "right to free association". What homosexuals really want is the "right to homosexual sex while violating everyone else's right to free association". Thus they have to find a way to force people who don't want to be around them to accept them while still engaging in behavior that hurts people who do not engage in it. They want to have their cake and eat it too. So, they have to "initiate judicial coercion" against non-compliant heterosexuals via the SCOTUS. Because if the state of Texas ignores this decision, there will be consequences. Financial and so on.

The SCOTUS just violated the "force, fraud, coercion" principle of libertarianism by initiating coercion against the people of Texas.

Happy Day, huh libertarians?

[Xenalyte]

I emptied my granny's pantry, soaked all the labels off the cans, and put the tunafish labels on the catfood.

Then I took the tuna. Catfood is good enough for the old bat.

[jethropalerobber]

This behavior damages society in that way because it breaks a taboo of society, namely that sex is for procreation inside of monogamous marriage.

i imagine that within 20 years gays will have both state recognized monogamous marriages and the ability to reproduce directly with each other.

i assume you would have no problem with them at that point in time, correct?

[jwalsh07]

Almost. Not all. There's a nice map upthread.

And because they won't do it or didn't do it in your timetable, you favor federal intervention from the group of 9?

Did you favor O'Connors decision regarding the finding of "diversity" embedded in the penumbra yesterday?

Or does judicial activism come in flavors?

[MineralMan]

"(And while there are adultery laws on the books they are never enforced).
"

Neither were those sodomy laws. But...where a law remains on the books, it can be enforced whenever someone has some axe to grind, or when it suits a political purpose.