SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[HumanaeVitae]

What was the compelling state interest to regulate heterosexual sodomy until 1960?

Cultural norms. It's hard not to notice that all kinds of sexual deviancy, and the effects thereof, took off in the 1960s.

[El Gato]

Actually, you should familiarize yourself with the Bill of Rights. It is equally dismissive of “democracy” for the same good reasons.

In fact neither the word "democracy", nor any varient such as "democratic", appear in the Constitution, including amendments thereto. The word "republican" does however, in Art. IV Sec. 4

". The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

[tdadams]

Someone forgot to tell the extremely scary guy I saw on Market St. I consider myself a pretty tough and jaded city dweller and never get the least bit skittish about the various people I cross paths with on the street. But I swear, this guy looked like some post-apocalyptic Rob Zombie type from a Mad Max movie and was pointing and staring at people looking like he was about to start shooting. That was the only time in my life I can remember conciously thinking to myself, "Walk away, don't look at him."

[Grando Calrissian]

Gotta be Market Street between 5th and Van Ness. One of the worst stretches in the City. It's like Blade Runner come to life.

[Action-America]

Although I have no use for or respect for Queers, I must agree with the Court.  The reason is simple.

Homosexuality is either a mental illness, a physical disease or a birth defect.  Those are the only possible, rational explanations.  If we punish these sick people for their sickness, all that we are doing is opening the door for the persecution of other people with different diseases or defects.

Punishing a person with cancer or heart disease does not help them or us.  Neither does punishing people whose particular disease or defect causes them to want to have deviant sex with others of the same sex.

Rather than wasting time, effort and taxpayer money, trying to punish queers for deviant sex between consenting adults, we should be spending that same time, effort and money trying to cure them.  After all, if we can find a cure for homosexuality, there will soon be no need for laws against it.

 

[El Gato]

States' rights, fugghedaboudit. Except, of course, for the "compelling interest" of "diversity." Aaargh.

That's a "compelling state interest", where "state" does not necessarily mean one of the several States, but rather "Government". BTW, States have no rights, only powers.

[A Navy Vet]

Darn, the missus and me were thinking of moving to Idaho.

[george wythe]

It's hard not to notice that all kinds of sexual deviancy, and the effects thereof, took off in the 1960s.

Chicken or egg?

Which came first, the state courts and state legislatures jettisoning sodomy laws, or the debauch “sex, drugs, and rock’n roll” of the 1960s and 1970s?

[Clint N. Suhks]

Are you claiming that the state has a power to invade a queers home to see if some sort of incest is being practiced? -

Intersting sophistry I didn't see before. Nor am I claiming that the state has a power to invade an incestuals home to see if some sort of perversion is being practiced? -With out probable cause.

[tdadams]

You got it. San Francisco's own Harlem.

[Clint N. Suhks]

So why isn't it a 9th right, Roger Dodger?

[Cathryn Crawford]

Hey, I just cut and pasted and italicized what you and he both said. My only personal comment was about the two of ya'll's love for one another.

[tpaine]

Why is consensual incest, and let's make this real easy, homosexual incest, not a (9th) right devoid the power of the state (10th)?
1,349 -suhks-


Nonsense question. Are you claiming that the state has a power to invade a queers home to see if some sort of incest is being practiced? - Weird idea.
-tpaine-



They can't without reasonable cause.
-suhks-


Of course they can't.
Same principle applies to the sodomy issue.
Which leaves us hip deep in your BS "obfuscation issue".
-- Whatta sorry clown.

[HumanaeVitae]

Valid question. It is a chicken and egg question. You could make a strong argument that WWII was the culprit. Morals, from what I understand, tend to decay after major wars. Having said that, the case for enforcement of the public morality is still valid whether or not people want the public morality enforced. If they do not want it enforced, however, it won't be. The people themselves are the enforcement mechanism

[El Gato]

In my opinion, the way is being cleared for same-sex marriages.

I think it will happen very quickly too. But it will be on equal protection grounds. And the courts will ignore the purpose of marriage and all the laws relating to the state of being married, which is to protect the basic unit of society, that is, the family, and thus to protect society itself. However most of those laws are state laws, and they should remain so. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government any power in this area.

I won't be surprised if the Supreme Court hears a homosexual marriage case before it hears a second amendment case.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Of course they can't. Which leaves us hip deep in your BS "obfuscation issue".

Not really, you didn't answer the question did you?

[tpaine]

You are apprently under the delusion that you framed a question on the 9th?

-- Where? What is it?

[ffusco]

They think gum is for wimps.

[tpaine]

Reframe the nonsense that you imagine to be a "question".

[Clint N. Suhks]

We don't invade homes to find consensual incest either so why are you a hypocrite when it comes to regulating it?