SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[LanPB01]

A lot of people on this board seem upset that they weren't consulted to add their brilliant legal input. Look out, there's a queer behind every tree! And they've brought along their dogs, NAMBLA, and incestuous desires with them!

[sinkspur]

Prove the animal didn't give consent, the woman sticks it in the air and the animal jumps on thats consent, and that's what we are heading for

You think Americans just can't wait to start having sex with animals? .

[Jonathon Spectre]

So, can I smoke pot in the privacy of my home?
Can I molest my children?
Can I make bombs?
Where will the line be drawn now?

>singing< One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just does not belong...

[Kevin Curry]

It is NOT the same thing and Santorum was 100% wrong on this. I hope the wacko NAMBLA types who are the REAL PERVERTS in America try to push for legalization of child rape. They will be slapped back sof ast it will amke their heads spin.

SCOTUS has crippled state legislatures' power to deal with sexual offenses by making "adult consent" the touchstone of future legislation. States will not be allowed to enact more stringent legislation--only more permissive legislation. Future attacks will be square on the definition of "adult."

It is entirely possible that in future challenges, SCOTUS, employing today's and Roe v. Wade's quasi-judical legislative power, might well substitute its own definition of what age consitutes "adult capacity to consent" and force the states to accomodate pedophiles who love children if the children are not younger than--say--12 years old, and that children between 12 and 16 must be rebuttably presumed to have capacity to consent etc (c.f., the first, second, and third trimester rationales in Roe v. Wade).

SCOTUS has placed a one-way ratchet lock on state power. Ya just gotta love all that federal judical activism in the name of Griswold-Roe v.Wade privacy.

[rintense]

My question is, how did the cops know these guys were having sex? Were they in their own house?

Most gays believe they have the *right* to have sex anywhere, not just in the privacy of their own home. That assumption is completely wrong. What you do in your own home is your business, but don't even think that means you have the right to have sex in a gay club, fitness center, public bathroom, etc. Dime to donuts they think this ruling will allow them this 'freedom' to have sex wherever they want. But having sex wherever you want whenever you want is NOT a right. Period.

[Xthe17th]

This is sad, because the porpose of the anti-sodomy laws aren't to invade anyones privacy, but to allow schools to banish the promotion of homosexual activities. With them, they could disalow Gay/Lesbian clubs, meetings, clothing, parades, etc. since it advocates an "activity" (yuk, never thought I'd call it that) that is against the law.

[Under the Radar]

Why is killing people wrong? Just asking.

You know, HV, I am a consenting adult, and you are a consenting adult. If I ask you to kill me and you do, how can that be wrong?

[LN2Campy]

"This is just one more bullet in the heart of federalism and state-reserved powers under the 10th Amendment"

just like all those federal drug laws you love so much

[jgrubbs]

You think Americans just can't wait to start having sex with animals?

Before the Internet this was something I only heard about, I am totally sickend by the beastiality spams that show up in my inbox. There are some real sick people in this country.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

One can disagree with this ruling without engaging in full blown hysterics.

You would think so, but that hasn't been demonstrated on this thread yet.

[jimt]

No, it's the whole truth.

You misquote the Constitution.

The tenth amendment actually says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The SCOTUS has said that what two consenting adults do privately in their bedroom is not within the power of the Fed or the states to regulate.

While I may find certain practices disgusting and morally wrong, they don't violate my rights or anybody else's.

The SCOTUS took a stand for individual rights - which is why Libertarians are cheering.

[Jonathon Spectre]

How about all of us list our sexual practices in the bedroom here on this thread?
Then we'll all decide what's appropriate, and what should regulated by the government?
Who wants to start?

Bravo.

[The Red Zone]

When a court can manufacture "rights" out of thin air, there is no end to the mischief that can result.

Well the SCOTUS has manufactured "wrongs" out of thin air for years too. Exhibit A: the cancerous commerce clause.

[MaxPlus305]

"Most" gays think they have a right to have sex anywhere? Can you cite a statistic about this?

BTW, the cops entered the house on the suspicion that there was a gun inside. Instead, they found two guys having sex.

[toothless]

"How about people's barns as well?"

When someone gets a case about doing their cow to the USSC and wins, then we can talk. Until then, you are just creating strawmen.

[CholeraJoe]

In Griswold v. Connecticut:

'' 6 Thus, while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment, apparently to support the thought that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg, concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment.

[GreatOne]

Absolutely revolting. What about stare decisis, which Justice Souter said was so important in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Oh, forgot - stare decisis is only for liberal scumbag decisions.

Where in the freaking constitution does it say that we can't have laws which "demean" people? People who engage in behavior which has (or, at least until know, had), with rare exceptions, been universally condemned for 5000 years deserve no special protection from having their feelings hurt (poor widdle butt-plugging babies).

In the next 10 years, we will see the following: sodomite marriage, marriage between siblings, and the lowering of the age of consent.

I can't say anything else without cursing violently - I'm so damn angry!

[B Knotts]

I believe a neighbor called the police, claiming that there was a violent domestic dispute taking place in their apartment.

[steve-b]

The problem with the Texas law, as noted in several of the amicus briefs arguing for upholding the statute, was that it gave the appearance of discrimination by forbidding only homosexual sodomy.

The problem with Clinton, as noted in several of the exposes of his administration, was that he gave the appearance of corruption by accepting money in exchange for pardons.

The problem with Jack the Ripper, as noted in several of the police reports drawn up at the time, was that he gave the appearance of psycopathy by brutally murdering people.

[jimt]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

SCOTUS sided with individual rights, including private perversion between two consenting adults.