SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[dead]

LOL!

[huck von finn]

Don't forget the ever important Chapter 2, where it explains the aspect of the conspiracy that involves converting all fundamentalist Christian children to homosexuality...

[Teacher317]

Yessirree - everyone is going to drop what they're doing and run right out to have sex with dogs!

Say what?!?

[jethropalerobber]

Interestingly, he says the majority did not rely on Griswold's privacy right; he says they decided that no legitimate state interest was shown.

kennedy's opinion also decided that no legitimate state interest was shown in this case (if you read it).

[VRWC_minion]

. The pill is not a failsafe birth control measure.

We have abortion or the morning after pill as a back up. Plus, we can refrain from intercoure

2. The emotional damage inflicted on a child makes the child of the parent incapable of consent, even if they are otherwise competent.

She is either capable of deciding or she is not. If the state says she is capable and she does it in her private home who is the state to intrude ?

3. The family is a traditional American institution where the boundaries of authority (i.e. father/daughter, mother/son) must be respected in order to stregthen and preserve the family unit. Sex with relatives destroys that.

The family is an outdated religious constraint. Don't go imposing your religious views on me and my daughter.

[The Red Zone]

And yet you can't even manage to define the word "rights". Go figure.

Hitt'n the fives ain't we.

[Antoninus]

As well as unconstitutional laws denying women and blacks the right to vote and perpetuating slavery.

Uh, if I remember correctly, amendments to the constitution had to be passed to address those issues. Not so in the case of anal sex, abortion, affirmative action, etc. We have a Supreme Court ruling us by fiat.

If the Gaystapo wanted to take the truly constitutional route to legitimizing homo-sex, they would have tried to pass an amendment. Instead, they chose to go the route that all totalitarian types do -- just impose your will by fiat, the people be d@mned.

You people better try to silence us quickly.....This decision may just wake up the sleeping giant. Bring on the MARRIAGE AMENDMENT!

[GSWarrior]

Actually, the court is pretty balanced right now. Scalia and Thomas are far right, Ginsberg and Breyer are pretty left. The others sort of fall into the middle. Unless you want a court that is tilted to the right. I prefer a balance to keep the lunatic fringes from either side from asserting its will.

[HumanaeVitae]

The main reason incest is criminalized is because children from incestuous unions are more likely to be deformed, mentally retarded, and generally undesirable.

Trace's continuing effort to extirpate morality from the law is becoming increasingly laughable.

[OWK]

Mumbling about fives, doesn't make you look any less cowardly.

Why won't you answer a simple question?

[B Knotts]

My position lines up exactly (as is usually the case) with Justice Thomas' dissent:

   JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.

   I join JUSTICE SCALIA's dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is . . . uncommonly silly." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.
   Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to "decide cases 'agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.'" Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I "can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy," ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,: ante, at 1.

[jethropalerobber]

Interestingly, [Scalia] says the majority did not rely on Griswold's privacy right; he says they decided that no legitimate state interest was shown.

from the last page of kennedy's opinion:

"The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."

[tpaine]

I don't know about your history, but none of the 10 Amendments is particularly offensive. The fictiticious "Privacy Amendment" is a tad annoying, however.
-hv-



The 14th is not fictitous.
It may yet be the amendment that saves our RKBA's from the 'overregulators' among us.
Reasonable "due process" must be used in drafting restrictive laws..

But, -- do you even care about individual rights, HV?

[The Red Zone]

Bingo, top level again.

[huck von finn]

Totally off topic, but you should see the movie "Best in Show". Freakin' hilarious.

No, it isn't totally off-topic. Remember the guys with those fru-fru terriers or pekinese or whatever they were? I've watched it at least ten times--even though there are EVIL GAYS in it. Come to think of it...those guys should have been ARRESTED!

[Teacher317]

He has addressed it, in a roundabout way. See #597, among others. I think he's just pulling your chain by not answering directly, OWK.

[1L]

forbidding only homosexual sodomy

There is no problem with this since homosexuality is a behavior and not a trait -- regardless of whether people ARE homosexuals or BECOME homosexuals. EVERYONE is equal under this law, since EVERYONE can engage in sodomy with a person of the opposite sex, but not a person of the same sex. If the law affects someone different, that isn't a per se equal protection violation.

[Antoninus]

I think some members of this SCOTUS would find the amendment to be unconstitutional.

I'm not surprised that you know that little about how our system works. An amendment becomes part of the Constitution. The only way to overturn it is to pass another amendment, eg. prohibition.

[Trace21230]

So, If I put my 17 year old daughter on the pill we can then have sex.

No, for several obvious reasons.

1. The pill is not a failsafe birth control measure.

2. The emotional damage inflicted on a child makes the child of the parent incapable of consent with the parent, even if they are otherwise competent to consent to sex with other adults.

3. The family is a traditional American institution where the boundaries of authority (i.e. father/daughter, mother/son) must be respected in order to stregthen and preserve the family unit. Sex with relatives destroys that.

There is a better case for de-criminalizing "incest" with first cousins, but I'm not prepared to go there yet.

Trace

[Dead Corpse]

Should the SCOTUS void a states anti-nose picking law, hypothetically? Or do states have the right to pass silly laws?

Yes. The only legit function of government is protection of individual Rights. While my neighbors nostril farming my be disgusting to me, it in no way infringes on my Rights. Especially when the law specificly states that it is OK for brown haired people to pick their noses, but not redheads.