Skip to comments.
SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban
FOXnews
Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
SCOTUS sided with the perverts.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0amanreapswhathesews; 0bedroomkgb; 0godwillnotbemocked; 1aslimmeyslope; 1scrotus; 1slimmeyslope; 3branchesofgovt; activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ageofconsentlaws; aides; aidesincreasetaxesup; aidesintheusa; aidesupinsuranceup; aidsalert; antibiblecountry; antichristiantrolls; antirelgiontrolls; antireligion; antireligionbigots; antireligiontroll; aregayapparel; arroganceofscotus; ascrotus; assthumpingidiots; biblethumpingmorons; biggovernmentcorrupt; bluenose; blueoyster; bohica; bowtothesecularstate; bowtothewelfarestate; bugger; buggered; buggerer; buggery; busybodieslose; buttpirate; buyvaselinestock; catsdogsmice; celebratesin; chickenlollipoppers; christianbashing; civilrights; clintonlegacy; constitutiontrashed; crazyfundies; culturewar; davidsouterisafaggot; deathoftheusa; deathofthewest; degeneracy; depravity; destructionofusa; devianceuptaxesup; deviantsex; donwenow; downourthroats; downwenoware; druglaws; endofcivilization; evilinactivistcourts; evilinrighttoprivacy; falalafalalalalala; falalalalalalalala; farkinqueers; fecalcontact; fools; fudgepackersdelight; fundiesinthecloset; fundyhysteria; gay; gayagenda; gayarrogance; gaybashing; gaycheese; gaycivlrights; gaydar; gaygestapo; gaykeywords; gaymafia; gaymarriage; gaymoose; gaynarcissist; gaypride; gayrights; gaysarevictimtoo; gayscelebrate; gaysholdusacaptive; gaysoutofcloset; gaysremakeamerica; gayssuppressthetruth; gaystapo; gaytrolldolls; gaytyrants; gayvote; getoutofmyroom; goawaymrsgrundy; godless; godsjudgement; godswrath; governmentschoolsex; hatecrimelegislation; himom; hitlerywins; homeschoolnow; homoapologists; homophobes; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexualagendawins; homosexualvote; hyperventilating; ihavearighttosin; ihaverights; incestlaws; indoctrination; itsjustsex; itsunatural; jeebuslovesgays; keywordwarsaregay; kitcheneducation; kneepadbrigade; lawrencevtexas; legislatinghate; legislatingsin; legislaturemakeslaws; lewinksys4all; lewinsky; lewinskys; liars; liberalagenda; libertariansareevil; libertines; lotsdaughters; lpcausesbo; makejeebuscry; manboylove; manboyloveassoc; manholeinspectorjoy; menwithmen; moralrelativism; moralrelativistinusa; msgrundypatrol; mycousinknowsclay; nambla; namblawillwinnext; onepercentrulesusa; oralsex; ourgayapparel; paulwellstone; pcdecision; pederasty; peepingtomgovt; perversion; perverts; preverts; prisoners; privacyprotection; prostitutionlaws; publichealthhazard; puritanslose; readtheconstitution; relgionbashing; religionbashing; romans1godswrath; rosieishappytoday; rosietypes; rumprangers; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage; samesexmarriages; scotusknowsbest; scotusmakeslaw; scotustrumpsgodslaw; scotustrumpstate; scotustyranny; scrotus; sexeducation; sexindoctrination; sexpolice; sin; singlorified; slimmeyslope; slipperyslop; slipperyslope; slouching; slurpslurp; snitchonyourneighbor; sodomandgomorrah; sodomites; sodommites; sodomy; sodomylaw; sodomylaws; spyinthebushes; statesrights; stronginthesouth; supremecourt; swalloworspit; talibanintheusa; talibannedtrolls; texassodomylaw; thefunpolice; thegayelite; thegayvote; thisisevil; tisseasontobeunhappy; tistheseason; tobejolly; usathirdworldcountry; vicesnowvirtues; victimlesscrime; victimsofaids; victimsofhepatitus; weakinthehead; whatstatesright; womenwithwomen; zscrotus; zslimmeyslope; zzgoodruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,221-1,240, 1,241-1,260, 1,261-1,280 ... 1,721-1,734 next last
To: Cathryn Crawford
Cussing is a sign of an underdeveloped vocabulary yet your's is well devloped. Why the conundrum?
To: jwalsh07
But in this case you're OK with the SCOTUS making new law because it runs parallel with your ideology.No I'm not. The funny part is that I agree with the fundamentalists on this case to the extent that the FedGov should NOT have this power over the states.
It is enjoyable, however, to see many of the same people who defend the Federal Drug War come to these threads and start spouting off about the Constitution. It exposes their hypcrisy.
Again, I'm not refering to you. You seem like you know what you're talking about Constitutionally.
1,242
posted on
06/26/2003 2:32:55 PM PDT
by
jmc813
(If you're interested in joining a FR list to discuss Big Brother 4 on CBS, please FReepmail me)
To: MineralMan
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 Good point. Of course, I don't think they have any business being on the books in the first place.......
1,243
posted on
06/26/2003 2:33:50 PM PDT
by
gdani
To: Trace21230
I practice law for a living, and constitutional law is an area in which I've practiced. If you think I, Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas are simpletons, so be it.
To: gdani
(Many of the same people who hate that SCOTUS struck down this law would have no problem with SCOTUS doing the same to assisted suicide laws).Gay marriage too. Hypocrites.
1,245
posted on
06/26/2003 2:34:28 PM PDT
by
jmc813
(If you're interested in joining a FR list to discuss Big Brother 4 on CBS, please FReepmail me)
To: jmc813
No I'm not. The funny part is that I agree with the fundamentalists on this case to the extent that the FedGov should NOT have this power over the states. OK good. It's nice to find principle.
To: jwalsh07
No, cussing is a sign of extreme anger. Sometimes simple words won't do. More emphasis must be used. I cannot yell or throw things over the internet. Therefore, I cuss.
To: jmc813
No, I'm against this vote because the people of Texas have a right to regulate their society for the greater good. As I detailed in the longer post, there are both profoundly negative public health and public morality implications for the public acceptance of homosexuality. I would try to make this case to the people of Texas or anywhere else if I could. If they blew me off and voted otherwise, there's not much I could say.
If the people want to go to Hell, they're going to Hell, sodomy statutes or no.
To: jmc813
That's one of the funniest things I've ever seen. :)
To: jmc813
Gay marriage too. Hypocrites Ahhh - I never even thought of that one.
Bu then, Free Republic (and society in general) is full of hypocritcal people who say they want limited Govt but contradict themselves through their words & actions.
While I'm definitely not a Libertarian, I have to admire them for their consistency.
1,250
posted on
06/26/2003 2:37:57 PM PDT
by
gdani
To: jethropalerobber
They gay/bi debate was over by the 80s. You can now be gay bi transgendered poly mo fo.
BTW since beastiality is a sexual orientatio, how long do you it will be before we have a case about it.
1,251
posted on
06/26/2003 2:38:57 PM PDT
by
fooman
(Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
To: RAT Patrol
You are mandating amorality. exactly how is this scotus decision forcing you to engage in behavior you find immoral?
To: HumanaeVitae
I can and will assert the right not to be around people who engage in homosexual sex. If the land isn't yours, you have no such right under libertarianism. To assert such a right on land you do not own, or is publicly owned is initiation of force or fraud.
It's really not that hard to understand.
Under libertarianism you do have a right to free association. That means you do not have to do business with, give money or aid to, or be friends with anyone you don't want. It does not mean you get to banish anyone you can get a majority to vote out. That's democracy, not libertarianism.
To: Liberal Classic
I believe Lousiania is the only state with an 18 drinking age.
We just raised to ours to 21. And it was under the threat of losing our Federal highway funds.
1,254
posted on
06/26/2003 2:40:25 PM PDT
by
Sparta
(Tagline removed by moderator)
To: Thane_Banquo
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.
I do not believe state legislatures should pass laws against private, consensual sex when no money is involved, but I also do not believe the federal courts have the Constitutional power to regulate in this area.
You deny the 14th amendments clear restrictions on government power? Why?
Even though I agree with the ends, I disagree with the means. If the 14th amendment is meant to protect a broad continuum of rights, then who defines these supposedly self-evident rights?
Ultimately, the people. They rejected the power to prohibit booze. - The 18th was soon repealed.
The liberals have since FDR claimed people have the right to freedom from want, which they have used to justify state-sponsored plunder and redistribution. I believe if any branch of government is to define what the 9th amendment means by other rights, it should be the voters themselves and their elected representatives, not unelected justices.
As long as the laws written or 'defined' do not violate individual rights, we agree.
1,255
posted on
06/26/2003 2:40:49 PM PDT
by
tpaine
(Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
To: RAT Patrol
"You are mandating amorality. "
That's funny. How does this decision force you to do anything you consider immoral? Are you suddenly going to be forced to perform homosexual acts? How silly.
To: HumanaeVitae
No, I'm against this vote because the people of Texas have a right to regulate their society for the greater good.Should the people of Texas have the right to legalize marijuana?
1,257
posted on
06/26/2003 2:41:15 PM PDT
by
jmc813
(If you're interested in joining a FR list to discuss Big Brother 4 on CBS, please FReepmail me)
To: RAT Patrol
"You are mandating amorality. "
That's funny. How does this decision force you to do anything you consider immoral? Are you suddenly going to be forced to perform homosexual acts? How silly.
To: RAT Patrol
"You are mandating amorality. "
That's funny. How does this decision force you to do anything you consider immoral? Are you suddenly going to be forced to perform homosexual acts? How silly.
To: RAT Patrol
"You are mandating amorality. "
That's funny. How does this decision force you to do anything you consider immoral? Are you suddenly going to be forced to perform homosexual acts? How silly.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,221-1,240, 1,241-1,260, 1,261-1,280 ... 1,721-1,734 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson