SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[fooman]

Sort of. But it looks like the 9th leaves privacy as a right not enumerated and not allocated, so it goes to the people.

[Redcloak]

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union also, as I recall, had strict laws governing sexual behavior. (Hitler sent gays to death camps.) So much for your theory that libertine sexual conduct and repressive government go hand in hand. (And both of these example sprang from Judeo-Christian cultures.)

[First Amendment]

The law "demeans the lives of homosexual persons," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

What demeans them is their perverted "sexual" practices. Legalizing it is like putting a pretty ribbon on a pile of dogs**t.

This is a very dark day for the US.

[First Amendment]

I think maybe you have law confused with religion.

This is for all you secular humanists and libertarians out there: If you live in the middle of a landfill, no matter how clean you keep your house and yourself, your house will be filled with stench and rats.

(I know I am at the end of this discussion)

[First Amendment]

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

Nope, it was a setup by the fags. A friend or whatever called the cops on a phony disturbance complaint, the fags sodomized each other, and left the door open or unlocked so the cops would see them, arrest them, and bring this case to court.

[First Amendment]

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union also, as I recall, had strict laws governing sexual behavior. (Hitler sent gays to death camps.) So much for your theory that libertine sexual conduct and repressive government go hand in hand. (And both of these example sprang from Judeo-Christian cultures.)

Nazism was founded on occult/homoerotic/Neitzche-esque/Greco-militarism. They infiltrated the Christian churches (which were under the control of the gov't) and put pro-Nazis in charge. The Nazis did NOT kill homosexuals in death camps; on the contrary, a huge proportion of them were pederasts of all kinds. Read the truth of Nazism and its deep connection with homosexuality in Scott Lively's "Pink Swastika". It can be read in its entirety online:

http://www.abidingtruth.com/

[First Amendment]

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

Anyone who can't see the truth of your statements doesn't want to see the truth.

[puroresu]

I didn't say it wasn't possible for a nation to have conservative laws governing sexual behavior and be oppressive. I said it wasn't necessary. No doubt there are oppressive Moslem nations that are sexually conservative. However, the United States was sexually conservative until the past forty years or so. It hardly qualified as a dicatatorship, or anything near it. Were we living in some kind of despotism in 1960 because abortion and sodomy were illegal? We had a good balance between liberty and common sense.

And how, pray tell, do you classify Naziism and Communism as springing out of Judeo-Christian culture? They're no more a part of Judeo-Christian culture than modern American "liberalism" is. They arose in opposition to the established culture and managed to supplant it for a time. How is Naziism, which persecuted and exterminated Jews, a part of JUDEO-Christian culture? For that matter, Nazis were even indifferent toward Christianity. Communism was militantly atheist, and persecuted Jews and Christians as well. How is that something that "sprang" from Judeo-Christian culture?

My point was that sexual libertinism creates a climate in which government power expands. Conservatives know this, which is one reason we oppose sexual libertinism. "Liberals" know it as well, which is why they promote the gay agenda, legalized abortion, etc.. Do you think Hillary and Schumer favor yesterday's sodomy ruling because they want to get government off out backs? No, they favor it because it opens up many new opportunities to expand government power and restrict actual constitutional liberties.

The only people who don't know that sexual libertinism expands government power are libertarians, which is why the "liberals" trick you every time into supporting federal power grabs by disguising them as "anti-government".

Just open your eyes and look around you. Has government gotten smaller as we've become more sexually "tolerant" these past four decades or so? How about in Canada? Sweden? Holland? Britain? The European Union? The more sexually "liberal" we become, the more expansive the government will get. The pathologies unleashed on society by "libertinism" create a constant need and demand for government.

In addition, people start thinking that actual rights such as free speech, gun rights, and property rights are unimportant compared to "abortion rights" or trumped up "privacy rights". So government slowly takes your real rights away, and like soma-induced dupes, people think they're free because they can screw around and get free abortions.

[puroresu]

Redcloak, why didn't the 14th & 9th amendments give women the right to vote? Why did it take a constitutional amendment?

[puroresu]

Good points about the Nazis. They certainly weren't "Judeo-Christian"!

[puroresu]

Great article!

[First Amendment]

Your arguments are undeniable. I am saving them for future use.

Hey libertarians, try to debate his statements, point by point! I challenge you all! Let's see you try to prove him wrong, using logic and real-time rational thought!
No slogans please.

[fooman]

The thread that would not die....

[fooman]

I would concur with 1668. I do think that privacy is not enumerated and therefore left to the people, unless otherwise explicitly abridged--Like in committing a crime such as battering you child in private.

Correct me if I am wrong-- that means conservatives and libertarians, but I think that this is still a strict reading of the constitution.

[Redcloak]

These amendments don't "give" rights. They recognize rights that always existed. People have always had the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment acknowledges that right. Slaves always had the right to be free. The 13th Amendment forced the goverment to recognize that right. Women always had the right to vote. The 19th Amendment forced recognition of that pre-existing right.

There's always been a right to buggery. (Yes, we have the right to do some evil, immoral things. We have the responsibility not to, but that's another matter.) There are many other good and evil things we have a right to. As time passes, we realize their existence. Thanks to the wisdom of the Founders, those rights are usually protected by the 9th Amendment. In a few cases, such as with slavery and women's suffrage, other amendments were needed. Existing Constitutional language was already abridging these rights. To do away with legal buggery, we would need a Constitutional amendment. We can't simply wish it out of the 9th Amendment.

(On a side note, the idea of letting politicians "wish away" provisions of the Constitution is what lead Alan Dershowitz to view the 2nd Amendment as an individual right; even though he'd like to see it repealed. If such wishful thinking can be allowed with one part of the Constitution, it can be allowed with others. "Foolish liberals... are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard. They don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.")

[Redcloak]

The Nazis were not Christians, but Germany was a "Christian nation". (Remember Luther?!) Likewise Russia and most of the other Soviet republics were "Christian nations", though the Soviets were not Christians. There simply is no relationship between sexual immorality and repressive government.

[puroresu]

I'll agree that **SOME** rights are pre-existing. The Founding Fathers clearly believed that.

However, what I asked is why it took a constitutional amendment to give women a federally guaranteed right to vote. Why didn't the 9th & 14th amendments do it? Why did it take the 19th amendment, many decades after the ratification of either the 9th or 14th?

The reason is that you are simply in error about what the 9th & 14th amendments are for. The 9th amendment does not give the federal courts the authority to enforce any rights at all. They can't order a state to give women the vote under that amendment. They can't order a state to legalize sodomy. The 14th amendment doesn't change that. That's why the suffragettes had to amend the constitution, decades AFTER both of those amendments were ratified, to make female suffrage a constitutional issue addressable in the federal courts.

The 9th amendment merely says that the federal government (including the courts) can't stop a state from recognizing additional rights beyond those listed in the Bill of Rights. It doesn't say a state has to recognize them. Nor does it empower the federal courts to do anything about it if they don't. It also stops the federal government from interfering with such rights. Thus, states were free to give women the vote, but didn't have to. It took the 19th amendment to REQUIRE states to grant female suffrage.

You stated that, among other things, we have always had a right to sodomy (you called it "buggery") and that women have always had a right to vote. But that simply is not true. The Founding Fathers were very strong believers in the concept that some rights are pre-existent, yet they had no objections at all to anti-sodomy laws and never even entertained the possibility that women should be voting. It took a constitutional amendment to give women a federally guaranteed right to vote. It would take a similar amendment to impose legalized abortion or legalized sodomy on the states as well.

At least, it SHOULD take constitutional amendments to do that. The reason it didn't is because outlaw, arrogant, power-crazed leftist judges took it upon themselves to impose their personal policy preferences on the states via a series of unconstitutional rulings.

This was done under the mantra of "privacy rights", though sometimes they also invoke "liberty" as a justification (they waffle so much because the whole thing is made up out of thin air). The result is what Aristotle called "arbitrary government". We're governed not by the rule of law, but by the rule, or whims, of men. Why, for example, is homosexual sodomy protected by privacy but incest is not? There's no explanation.

You mentioned wishing away provisions of the Constitution, and on that you are correct. We can't, and shouldn't do that. Unfortunately, the sodomy ruling handed down two days ago wished away the 9th amendment, the 10th amendment, and the provision that says the Constitution can only be changed by the amendment process, not by five judges deciding that it "needs" to change.

I've read some posts here where people express hope that this "privacy" concept can be used to strike down IRS regulations, gun control laws, or even drug laws. Well, don't hold your breath. The "privacy" concept is not a principle created by honorable judges, intended to be applied even-handedly across the board. It's a power grab by fanatical leftists. They use it to strike down laws they disagree with, but not laws they agree with, even though the latter group of laws may violate privacy, as they've defined it, just as much as the former. So we get rulings based not on the law, but on the personal opinion of the judges. If five judges don't agree with a law, it gets struck down. If only four don't agree with it, it gets upheld by one vote.

[puroresu]

Well, I've given my opinion that sexual libertinism causes an expansion of government, which is why "liberals" promote sexual libertinism. I've also addressed the claim that Naziism and Communism sprang from Judeo-Christian culture. I can't repeat myself indefinitely, so people can go back and read my earlier posts in this thread.

[puroresu]

Matters such as abortion and sodomy are left to the states under the Constitution, you are correct.

[First Amendment]

As time passes, we realize their existence.

Aha, you undid your argument with this ridiculous phrase!

In other words, social Darwinism. Therefore the more degenerate (moral relativist) society becomes (and especially at least 5 guys in black robes), than all KINDS of rights "reveal" themselves. Your argument is false. There is no, and never has been in any righteous or rational civilization, a right to buggery. On the contrary, there is a right - and a responsibility - to make such and other like acts illegal.

Not to enable cops to enter peoples' homes, but to keep sodomy out of the public where it can infect and degrade others.