SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[jwalsh07]

Paine, address the fact that you think the 14th Amendment confers rights to everyone for everything from an overly strong central government and yet you defer to federalism for the unborn or go away.

Don't be a coward Paine, address it.

[El Gato]

The constitution is pretty silent on sexual activity.

Which, by the tenth amendment makes it a state matter. Unless of course you want to argue that a privacy right protecting homosexual activity existed at the time as is a right retained by the people, as specified in the 9th amendment.

That's not to say that if today's decision hadn't happened, that the police could go breaking down doors looking for homosexual sodomy in progress, the fourth amendment would prohibit that. I agree with Justice Thomas that the law is pretty silly and mostly unenforceable, but that it's a matter for the states, including state courts applying state constitutions, not for the federal courts.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

LOL.

I didn't read all your replies.

I am probably a little slow today as it was 96 degrees here today and it's still 88 degrees here right now 8:15 pm! We SF people don't have air conditioning as heat like this is unusual so my little family (hubby, cats, myself) are SWELTERING!

[88keys]

It's one thing to be against sodomy laws, say as bad public policy, and quite another to assert that homosexual behavior is the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right.

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make, the other point being the Supreme Court ruling seems to go further than simply finding a specific State law "un-Constitutional"...I expect I should actually read the decisions and dissents (!), but the general concensus seems to be that an across-the-board "right to privacy" has been "discovered" (or interpreted)...

As I mentioned earlier, any such "blanket decision" will surely open a huge can of worms for obvious reasons. I'm dubious that this type of a general ruling is even within the Supremes' jurisdiction; they could have made a good argument for "equal protection" (or actually the lack thereof) in overturning the state law (not to mention it is a "silly law" as Justice Thomas stated!) but instead they go with "privacy", which really is not a Constitutional right, also for obvious reasons...I wonder why?!

[tdadams]

Wow, that's staggingly hot for SF. I was bundled up in a sweater and coat there just four weeks ago.

[tpaine]

The BOR's still apply to ALL levels of government. - Always have.


Nothing has changed but some control freak laws against sodomy.

[Action-America]

If over 3000 years of prohibition don't indicate some sort of 'victim' problem to you, you are drinking the KoolAid that O'Connor promotes...

Actually, in many countries - some of them based in Christianity - sodomy and prostitution were legal as recently as 350 years ago.  Furthermore, just because a particular society prohibits an act, doesn't, of its own merit, make that act wrong.  It only makes it prohibited at that place and time.

But to simply ascribe it to "illness"...

So, are you saying that those people are normal ? ! ? ! ?

Gimme a break.  A simple look at nature will tell you otherwise.

1. Each species continues to exist because of a natural drive to engage in heterosexual sex, resulting in reproduction.
2. It is not natural to engage in homosexual sex, because you can't reproduce via homosexual sex.

Therefore, people whose drive is to engage in homosexual sex have some wires crossed.  Be it mental or physical, acquired after birth or a birth defect, it is still a sickness.  Many diseases that have been around since the beginning of recorded history have been virtually eliminated by human research.  There is no reason to believe that if our researchers put their minds to it, they can't cure whatever it is that causes the disease of homosexuality.

are the johns of whores "ill?"

No.  Just hor%y.

There's no "victim" there, either--except for the people who have to live in the neighborhood where these crimes occur...along with all the OTHER criminal activity that seems to follow.

Strangely enough, that "other criminal activity" that you speak of, only seems to follow, in those areas where prostitution is illegal.  In places like Las Vegas and the many other countries of the world where prostitution is either legal or officially overlooked, that "other criminal activity" is strangely absent.  That's because the prostitutes and their pimps don't want to risk their gravy train by drawing the attention of law enforcement, by committing some other criminal activity or allowing the johns to do the same.  So again, your argument doesn't wash.

The fact is that homosexuality is an aberration that is not going to be cured by punishing people for having that disease.  You don't punish sickness.  You cure it.

Furthermore, the Texas law was written in such a way that it clearly was a violation of the 4th Amendment.  At least with the SCOTUS coming down on the side of the 4th Amendment, in this case, there is hope that whenever the Patriot Act reaches them, they will do the same and overturn that piece of garbage, too.

 

[tpaine]

Don't be a coward jw07, address the fact that you have the insane idea that I think "the 14th Amendment confers rights to everyone for everything from an overly strong central government" and that I "defer to federalism for the unborn or go away"..

Whatever that means.

You are incoherant, my boyo. Get some new rants & find a new obsession.

[jwalsh07]

Coward.

[Sparta]

I abhor this decision today. The Supreme Court once again attacked States' rights. The Feds should've never gotten involved in the case in question. This case will create too many slippery slopes.

Having said that though, I would support repealing the sodomy laws on the State level. The government has no business getting in the bedrooms of two consenting adults and telling them what kind of consenting sexual acts they may practice.

[tpaine]

You are the coward.
Make your point. Post your proofs that I am your constitutional 'enemy'.

Quite simply, you cannot. You are insane with an irrational rage.

[El Gato]

Should the people of Texas have the right to legalize marijuana?

The State of Texas, or any other state, can do that today, under the terms of the 21st amendment, section 2.

Or they could before today. Now I guess as long as one does their brewing and/or cooking in private and consumes it that way, they can't. Nor can they prohibit marijuana culitivation for private use, nor a host of other things which come under the rubric of "privacy".

Intesting times and and interesting social experiment the court may have unleashed. If they'd merely used "equal protection" as O'Connor did, but the other 5 did not, it wouldn't be a problem.

[Sparta]

That's not to say that if today's decision hadn't happened, that the police could go breaking down doors looking for homosexual sodomy in progress, the fourth amendment would prohibit that. I agree with Justice Thomas that the law is pretty silly and mostly unenforceable, but that it's a matter for the states, including state courts applying state constitutions, not for the federal courts.

Just want to repeat it again.

[El Gato]

Do you happen to know where I can find O'Connors' opinion on the web?

All of the opinions are at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102

[Sparta]

One more indication of America's slow agonizing death.

We survived the Civil War. We survived legalized cocaine and marijuana. We survived legal Tommy Guns. We survived Pearl Harbor. We survived 9/11. We survived FDR, LBJ, and Bill Clinton. We'll survive this decision.

[El Gato]

I actually think they used the "priveleges and immunites" portion of the 14 amendment to apply the 4th amendment to the states. I don't know as that is a proper reading of the 4th amendment though, since the 4th only protects "privacy" against unreasonable searches and siezures", not in general.

I was wrong, they used the due process clauss and a rather strange notion of "liberty" and rights. Scalia ripped 'em bad, but since he was in the minority, it doesn't count for anything.

[Sparta]

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?

Just a question: Have there been any takers so far?

[jwalsh07]

Quite simply, you cannot. You are insane with an irrational rage.

Yup, Crazy John, that's me.

[El Gato]

The states have never had the power to prohibit such activities, under our constitution.

Under the 10th amendment, the states retain whatever powers they had and are not explicitly forbidden to exercise. Where are they explicitly forbidden to exercise the power to proscribe certain types of sexual conduct? Since you said never, you must refrain from pointing to the 14th amendment, since that wasn't passed until after the civil war. However I don't think even the 14th amendment prevents them from passing such laws. That doesn't mean I necessarily think such laws are a good idea, Justice Thomas doesn't think so either and in general I tend to agree, mainly on enforceability grounds.

[Sparta]

You have the same rights and privileges as the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah.

And you risk suffering the consequences of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah when you answer before God. However, the Federal government has more important things to do than to make sure we don't act like the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah.