SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[dmz]

Get me off this sinking ship.
_______

as dad used to say, write if you find work.

[fooman]

Best post on this thread.

We can use the constitution to say that 'free love' equals liberty, but society is then expected to pick up the pieces.

[Xenalyte]

Libertarians are cheering.

Actually, we're not. We're pretty distressed at the usurpation of state authority. The SCOTUS should never have agreed to hear this case.

[Dead Corpse]

We can use the constitution to say that 'free love' equals liberty, but society is then expected to pick up the pieces.

Why compound your stupidity by advocating more socialism as well?

[Dead Corpse]

Why not? It ran through the courts here in Texas, and the defendants hada right to appeal to the Supreme Court did they not?

Slice it anyway you like, but this law in Texas did in fact violate the "equal protection" clause.

[Xenalyte]

Slice it anyway you like, but this law in Texas did in fact violate the "equal protection" clause.

The case should have stopped at the Texas Supreme Court. The Texas law did in fact violate equal protection, and the Texas Supremes should have done something about that.

Let me make myself clear: I don't care what two consenting non-related adults do in private. Not one bit. But in 1971 (I think), the Texas Supremes removed the hetero element from the law in question, and they should have removed the whole thing when this case came before them.

[fooman]

Obviously you dont know me. What are you talking about?

The last thing I want is socialism.

[dmz]

I'm old enough to remember the bra burning of the feminist movement

___________________

interesting that you bring that up.

the texas law allowed hetero sodomy (and where is the master list kept which outlines exactly which acts are considered sodomy) but disallowed gay sodomy.

it would be like a law that allowed bra burning only for attractive women (another penumbra) with nice bods, but banned it for ugly women with unattractive bodies.

[Dead Corpse]

The case should have stopped at the Texas Supreme Court. The Texas law did in fact violate equal protection, and the Texas Supremes should have done something about that.
Let me make myself clear: I don't care what two consenting non-related adults do in private. Not one bit. But in 1971 (I think), the Texas Supremes removed the hetero element from the law in question, and they should have removed the whole thing when this case came before them.

The Texas courts SHOULD have done the right thing. I agree. However they didn't. In such cases, do we not have the Right to "redress our grievances" before the next higher court? The USSC is about as high as you can get.

If anything, back in the '70s when they "removed" the hetro portion of this law... they set up the inequality in the law that led to this.

Ms. Grundy got the smack down. That is not a bad thing. It isn't like the USSC came up with some "penumbra" or "emmanation" this time. More freedom is not a bad thing. I know we agree on that. ;-)

[af_vet_1981]

And you risk suffering the consequences of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah when you answer before God.

First they corrupt almost all those with whom they share the earth. Then all but a few were destroyed suddenly and without remedy. The consequences affect all the inhabitants.

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.

This was not an act of the Federal government. This was an arrogant Judiciary overturning a state law establishing limits on the depravity of man. Depraved men (and women) want no limits on their wickedness.

[Dead Corpse]

The last thing I want is socialism.

Then why are you using it as justification for sticking your nose into other peoples private lives?

[Thane_Banquo]

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

This ruling didn't state that, but since precedents tend to get expanded far beyond their original intent, I wouldn't be surprised if lower courts use this ruling to allow public sex.

I'd bet the 9th circuit is salivating at all the forms of perversion they might expand this ruling to allow.

[dmz]

and what you should also do is to refrain from making the false distinction between the behavior of gays and straights. you've already acknowledged that the behavior is not orientation-based, it's aged-based.

but that doesn't fit your binary view of reality, does it?

[Dead Corpse]

I would. The precdent set by this ruling is that sexual activity between consenting adults in PRIVATE is none of the governments business.

In public? Not even close...

[Skywalk]

And actually, the penumbra thing was brought up in the GRISWOLD case.

And it's absolutely friggin correct. I don't think we should try to construct a new stand-alone "right" but it is clear from the words in the 9th, 4th, and 1st that there is something that is akin to "right to privacy."

Sorry, this is fertile ground for the SC. Otherwise the state can reserve for itself anything not covered in 1-8.

[puroresu]

This isn't some new theory I've created. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World described a repressive totalitarian society that kept the population docile via a "liberal" dose of sex and drugs.

The left knows that a percentage of the population will trade away their actual liberties (free speech, property rights, gun rights, etc.) for sensual pleasures. Legal abortion and legal homosexual sodomy aren't threats to an expansive state. In fact, they encourage it. But traditional liberties and traditional Judeo-Christian family values are such a threat.

So for "liberals" and other socialists, it's a great trade-off if people start defining freedom as sexual libertinism. It creates a snowball effect, because the cultural rot in society created by sexual irresponsibility leads to still more government intervention. For example, in the 1950's we didn't have millions and millions of unwed teen moms needing to be taken care of by government for the rest of their lives.

So things like yesterday's sodomy ruling trigger consequences that demand governmental intervention, MORE governmental intervention than was required to ban sodomy in the first place (largely a symbolic law to keep gays discrete). And more and more people in our dumbed down society will now associate "liberty" with sodomy rather than freedom of association or the right to bear arms, the latter two being under assault by the same court system that fawns over sodomy.

An immoral people will not stay free for the long haul. The "liberals" know this and work tirelessly to immoralize our society.

[dmz]

and rust never sleeps

[Xenalyte]

More freedom is not a bad thing. I know we agree on that. ;-)

Absolutely!

[tdadams]

Hypothetically speaking, if I wanted to smoke pot or have "unapproved" sex, two activities which harm no one and should be of no concern to the state, how does it serve to reduce the pervasiveness of government to empower the government to arbitrarily dictate that I'm not permitted to do those things?

You have some wacky logic.

[tdadams]

So things like yesterday's sodomy ruling trigger consequences that demand governmental intervention, MORE governmental intervention

Congratulations, you've somehow managed to twist this 180 degrees completely backwards. The ruling yesterday effectively says to the government, "Back off. It's none of your business."