SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[MEGoody]

"If you morons would wake up and listen to the libertarians solution to these problems... we wouldn't be having this dicussion."

Right, because we'd all be too high to care.

[MineralMan]

"So, your flat out wrong. She is at the age of consent. If she wants to give Clinton blow jobs there isn't a damn think I can do about it. If we desire to have sex in the privacy of our own home then their should not be a damn thing the state could say about it.
"

If you're looking for permission from other freepers to have sex with your 16-year-old daughter, you're not going to get it.

[Dead Corpse]

Right, because we'd all be too high to care.

If the law is the only thing stopping you from getting stoned, you aren't fit company in any case.

[MEGoody]

"Marriage is a religious institution."

You are both correct and incorrect. There are certain rules regarding marriage for the church (or 'a' church) to recognize a marriage as valid.

There are also certain laws and regulations that must be followed in order for a marriage to be recognized as valid by the government.

[MEGoody]

"If the law is the only thing stopping you from getting stoned, you aren't fit company in any case."

I thought you'd be able to understand my post, but let me clarify. You said, "Wake up and listen to the Libertarians solution." When I stated we'd all be too high to care, I was using something called sarcasm, to imply that the Libertarian solution to everything is drugs.

If you still do not understand my post, I shall be happy to clarify further. Just let me know when you come down off that high.

[VRWC_minion]

If you're looking for permission from other freepers to have sex with your 16-year-old daughter, you're not going to get it.

I don't need permission, its our new privacy right. We are both consenting adults.

[Lost Highway]

If you're looking for permission from other freepers to have sex with your 16-year-old daughter, you're not going to get it.

I don't need permission, its our new privacy right. We are both consenting adults

That's been my argument against the "what consenting adults do in their own home is no ones business" too. (Oops. Did I just blow your cover? (No pun intended) )

[fooman]

Drudge shows doggy consent might look like...

www.drudgereport.com

[fooman]

Drudge shows WHAT doggy consent might look like...

www.drudgereport.com

[MineralMan]

"I don't need permission, its our new privacy right. We are both consenting adults."


Go for it, then. Anyone who would have sex with his own daughter is beneath my contempt and, now, beneath my comment.

[Grando Calrissian]

Yes.

[fooman]

God bless the Wapo ^
^

[george wythe]

Best to save the worst for last.

LOL! You're just like me.

I eat my dessert before I eat my salad.

[Redcloak]

...finding a such a right protected by the 9th amendment at the time it was passed, is going to take a heap of diggging, and probably will result in a dry hole. Sure the federal government had no power to legislate in the area at all, but you'd have to find someone who argued for such a right, or a provision in state constititutions or laws of the time, or even in English Common law, protecting such a right.

You are correct in that States had laws outlawing homosexual behavior. And prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, those laws were unquestionably Constitutional. There was not, to the best of my knowledge, any Federal law on the matter. And indeed, the 10th Amendment would forbid any instrusion into what was a State matter. As I said, there is arguably a Federal "right to buggery" contained in the 9th Amendment. That 9th Amendment right is now protected from State infringment under the 14th Amendment.

(Cases like this make a good argument that the 14th Amendment is perhaps too broad. But as I said before, I'm torn on the matter. I live in California. While I want Sacramento writing laws for some areas of life, I don't want them writing gun laws. I'd much rather have the 2nd Amendment protecting my rights than the nebulous "right to self-defense" in the CA constitution. I hope to see the 14th Amendment used one day as a blunt instrument on CA's gun laws!)

[aristeides]

Yesterday Kennedy in Lawrence wrote as if he was only striking down criminal punishment of homosexual acts between consenting adults. Today, on the basis of Lawrence, the Supreme Court in Liman vacated a judgment for homosexual sex with a (retarded) 14-year-old boy. Kennedy must have known about that case when he wrote his Lawrence opinion.

[fooman]

Sodomy in the Age of Oprah
By George Neumayr
Published 6/27/2003 12:04:00 AM


Supreme Court decisions increasingly read like transcripts from the Oprah Winfrey show. Justice Antonin Scalia notes the court's "famed sweet-mystery-of-life" howler: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and the mystery of human life."

Thursday's Supreme Court decision announcing a recently discovered inalienable right to sodomy contained a few more: "When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring." Sodomy is a very high-minded business, according to the court, part of the lofty "liberty protected by the Constitution." Such is its preciousness that states can't be trusted to regulate it.

That sodomy is an inalienable right would no doubt come as a big surprise to the Constitution's framers. They are, of course, the last constitutional experts the Supreme Court would ever consult. The Supreme Court, judging from the majority opinion's slavish attention to Europe's regard for sodomy, is much more interested in the thoughts of modern Danes than dead Americans.

The framers didn't approach sodomy with the same level of awe as today's court. What the Kennedys and Souters call "liberty," the framers called "license," the abandonment to acts high in the catalogue of sin that spells the end of republics.

The majority on the Supreme Court declares that anti-sodomy laws compromise the "dignity" of homosexuals. The framers would reverse the judgment: it is sodomy that compromises their dignity, and it is the rule of law which points to and protects that dignity. The framers belonged to communities that passed such laws so as to safeguard a moral culture in which human dignity is possible.

The framers would say that the assault to dignity comes from a legal culture that sanctions sodomy, a culture that turns children over to homosexual couples, a culture that places homosexual relationships on the same level of sanctity as the traditional family.

The Supreme Court says anti-sodomy laws "demean" people. The framers thought those laws would discourage people from demeaning each other through the slavery of sin. It would befuddle the framers greatly to hear sodomy and dignity in the same sentence. They held that the dignity of democracy depended on citizens governing themselves according to moral standards, not according to a respect for each other's basest instincts. If citizens couldn't govern their own dark passions, how long would a democracy that relies on their capacity for self-government last? This concern made anti-sodomy laws eminently sensible to the framers.

But now, in our vast modern wisdom, we know better. What quaint fools the framers were. They thought society would teeter if vice had rights over virtue. We are doing just fine. They thought -- can you believe it? -- that such consensual acts as adult incest were wrong. Now we know that "it can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring."

Apparently any sexual relationship, with man or beast, is constitutionally permissible, provided that the parties to the personal bond give consent. Since animals can't give proper consent, perhaps the court will let certain uptight communities outlaw bestiality. We'll see. On the other hand, the "sweet-mystery-of-life passage" Scalia cites gives practitioners of bestiality a pretty strong defense. If the passage has any meaning, as Scalia says, it will be the passage that "ate the rule of law."

Needless to say, we are not doing fine. We are losing real liberties while the Supreme Court invents bogus ones. To deprive a community of the liberty of preserving traditional laws is a monstrous distortion of the framers' work and an act of judicial despotism which should outrage the public.

License won for homosexual activists is liberty lost for communities and families. As America hurtles past homosexual adoption toward homosexual marriage, who but the obtuse can deny this?

[fooman]

From the American Spectator. ^

^

[rintense]

Oh, that's not what I meant. There IS a right to privacy. It's when people falsely misinterpret the law/Constitution to fit into their framework of what a right is- that's where I have a big problem. Does that make sense?