SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[janette]

see, that is my proplem not reading the entire thread.
I will try to answer you, after reading most of this... thanks

[El Gato]

I suggest you give it more thought as to why you think states need prohibitive powers.

It not necessarily a question of "need", but for one thing the general lawmaking power devolved to the states, not to the federal government, they don't or at least didn't, need a specific grant of power to pass most laws, as long as those laws were not violative of their own Constitution, nor of the body of laws known as the Common Law. There is of course the public health conderation. Are states granted the power to quarentine individuals for the good of the communitY? They certainly did it, and occasionaly still do.

I suggest you give consideration to the "need" for states at all.

[Clint N. Suhks]

I don't think you realise what little sense this statement makes. Wanna try again? …Again, I can't find a point to answer.

Great logic and facts here, I’m sure you convinced some one? Just wondering, is there any deduction to your reasoning or just equivocation?

[Clint N. Suhks]

see, that is my proplem not reading the entire thread. I will try to answer you, after reading most of this... thanks

OK, Sorry...

[janette]

Clint, I didn't talk about abortion, we talked about Sodomie.
In our ancient past things where very much complicated than nowerdays!!!!

[Clint N. Suhks]

LOL! Justice Souter would probably say it should be!

Given his mandate, ALL consent should have EQUAL standing.

[janette]

read your post again
, before you go to bed!
You might need some better insight.
We are Freepers

[Clint N. Suhks]

Clint, I didn't talk about abortion, we talked about Sodomy.

Sorry, remedy for consensual conduct is usually discussed, then why is incest less equal to homosexual conduct?

In our ancient past things where very much complicated than nowadays!!!!

How is this different ?

[Mitchell]

Libertarians may pretty much all disapprove of sodomy laws. I would hazard the guess that there are many of them who do not approve of the reasoning of today's decision.

Could you clarify what you mean? (I've read news articles on the ruling, but not the ruling itself.)

[janette]

It's 2.22 at night.
I would love to talk to you, but my body guared doesn,t,like me,

[A CA Guy]

This ruling was not the hole in one anyone cared to know about!

[El Gato]

8? - Maybe 9? Weird reply.

The draftsman of the bill said eight, but I'm willing to give the 9th the benefit of the doubt. As was he, when pressed, IIRC, but I haven't had a time to search out that quote.

I don't think you realise what little sense this statement makes. Wanna try again?
...
Again, I can't find a point to answer. Maybe you should get a fresh start on this tomorow..

Maybe so, but I'll have one more go at it
In these posts one must assume some degree of knowlege, I guess I assumned too much. The Supreme Court basically invalidated the intent of the 14th amendment. Later to repair the damage, they made up the bogus "incorporation doctrine", which said that protection of a particular right, say the right to be free from unreasonable searchs and seizures, was not "incorporated" against the states by the 14th amendment's "privileges and immunities" clause, until they said it was, and even then they used the due process clause rather than the P&I clause. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) and Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

These are only two such "14th amendment" cases of that era which happen to touch on the RKBA, there are others that also, but I don't have them at hand. The basic notion is that the rights in question were not created by the Constitution, but are merely protecte by it, and so are not "priveleges and immunities" of national citizenship, and thus are not protected against state infringment by the 14th amendment. Even though the actual intent of the 14th amendment was to do just that.

Under this doctrine they have not yet incorporated the second nor the seventh, or some aspects of the fifth amendments.

[Coronal]

"The issue is this: laws define the morals of a society. "

But if a law is worth having, shouldn't it be enforced to the best of the enforcing authority's ability? Saying "we want this law, but we're not going to enforce it" undermines respect for law. If sodomy laws were fairly and vigorously enforced, they would have been overturned by legislatures years ago.

[RAT Patrol]

I admire your loyalty, but you've got blinders on.

[tdadams]

The more "sexually liberated" a society gets, the bigger and more intrusive its government gets. Government was smaller, less intrusive, and taxes were lower back in the sexually conservative fifties.

Correlation does not equal causation. Surely you know that. I could probably produce a study showing that cigar smokers earn 50% more than the national average, but it doesn't mean my income will necessarily go up if I start smoking cigars.

[tdadams]

Now any adult can have sodomized sex in the park and not be arrested?

Yep, that's right. In the park, on the city bus, in the diners and coffeeshops. Hell, they can even demand that you give them a spot on your dining room table and you'll be arrested if you don't comply.

< /sarcasm> Quit trolling.

[Skywalk]

LOL! good response, MUCH better than my post to oreolady.

[NittanyLion]

People who become obsessed with sex as a form of "liberation" lose their actual liberties. The rot their behavior creates in the society requires massive government intervention, and in fact invites it.

The lack of personal responsibility created by massive government intervention invites these behaviors. It can easily be argued that socialistic policies create irresponsibility - not vice versa.

[fooman]

Wow, over two thousand years these laws existed and beyond.

But you have libertarians on this thread advocate brother/sister incest, prostitution and poly mo fo.

Seems like anarchy to me. Why have marriage at all?

[kegler4]

"That law was probably invalidated by today's decision. Maybe you could be the test case in your state?"

Story this morning says this decision almost without question invalidates it. It wasn't ever used EXCEPT when gays were caught doing things in public. Heterosexuals caught doing such things in public were never charged under the law, even though it also applied to them. One guy who had been fighting the law for years said that state legislators could now do what they were doing anyway with their wives and girlfriends, except that now they wouldn't be hypocrites and criminals.

If the state still needs a test case I'll confess to being a multiple offender.