SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[NittanyLion]

Thanks, but I can't take credit for it. I just rehashed this guy's opinion...

[HumanaeVitae]

And if homosexuals are going to blithely claim the 'right' that I have to accept them, then I can blithely claim the 'right' not to live in the same society as they do. I can claim a 'right' to free association and thus the right not to be affected by their behavior. The 'rights' thing works both ways, chief. It's a losing argument.

[tpaine]

As the second Justice Harlan recognized:
    
"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;

the freedom of speech, press, and religion;

the right to keep and bear arms;

the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. 

It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . .
and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."
-628-


Therein lies the rub...whose "interest" and "broad" definition of the "continuum" of freedoms is not "arbitrary", but rather "reasonable and sensitive"?
Is it the proper role of the U.S. Supreme Court to determine this?

Yep, it's their role.. And if they err in their determinations, we supposedly have a system of checks & balances. [Which isn't working, politically.]

Ultimately, the people decide, as they did with booze prohibition. They simply refused to obey an unconstitutional 'law/amendment', long before it was offically repealed.

[MineralMan]

"My daughter turned 16. She is by our state's law a consenting adult. She and i agree to have consenual sex. Our right to privacy trumps the state's right to forbid us."

I'd argue that your daughter is still too young to consent, but that's beside the point. While incest between adults is against the law, such laws are only enforced with regard to marriage. I cannot remember a case where consenting adult incest has resulted in any trials or prison time in California, at least.

In most states, now, first cousins can marry. Adult sibling pseudo-marriages are quite common...you just dont know about them. Father-adult daughter relationships are quite rare, as are mother-adult son relationships.

We don't prosecute adults who engage in incestuous behavior. There's no real motivation to do so, so we don't bother with it.

Adult-child incest is another story altogether, and your example with a 16-year-old daughter is the reason we have incest laws that make it a crime. I advise against that activity.

[jethropalerobber]

How many billion dollars did we send to Africa to fight AIDS? How much do we spend on it here? How much do we spend telling people how to have safe sex? Isn't that the same thing but you just agree with the moralizing in that case?

so this IS the point where you use socialism to justify your intrusive moralizing.

thanks and btw i don't agree with it in either case.

[ffusco]

I think the parent/child relationship trumps the consenting age deal.

It would still be considered Child Abuse, No?

[NittanyLion]

Oh, we have thought about it. We just don't think about things the way you do--or the things you do.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. What is it I think about?

[OWK]

Rights require transactional consent, and the discussion of the administration of rights is limited to those possessing the faculties necessary to comprehend that which is being consented to, and the consequences thereof.

Those lacking such faculties (children, the mentally ill, the profoundly retarded, the vegetative, the unborn, etc..) must have their rights administered for them by proxy steward (generally a parent or guardian) until such time, (if ever) as the capacity is either developed or regained.

Each individual adult human being (which meets the aforementioned criteria) acts in accordance with his own values, as he defines them. Inasmuch as each may know only the specific workings of his own mind, each individual is uniquely qualified to determine his values, and his alone. No man may claim to accurately represent the mind or the values of another.

The free-will choice to act in accordance with one’s own values is recognized by other more traditional names, the most recognizable of which is “the pursuit of happiness”. Whether actions are seemingly motivated by traditional religious pursuits, or by the advancement of family, or friends, or charitable concerns, or even by baser pursuits of pleasure and gratification, the pursuit of individual happiness (advancement of one’s own values) is the true motivator. Men seek to please their Gods, or to protect their children, or to help others, or even to drink beer and watch football because it pleases them to do so.

In order to pursue the advancement of their values (whatever they may be), individuals must be free to act in accordance with the dictates of their own will. In recognition of the fact that the will of individuals may conflict in advancement of their values, a rational restrictive boundary is created at the intersection of competing wills. This boundary reconciles the potential for conflict, by defining as a right, any action in accordance with the dictates of the will of the individual actor, which does not infringe upon the ability of other individuals to do likewise.

The only means which men have at their disposal to infringe upon the free will of others are initiated force, threat of initiated force, and fraud. In a political system which values liberty, initiated force, threat of initiated force, and fraud, are therefore impermissible inasmuch as they act to infringe man’s pursuit of his happiness as he defines it.

ONLY in a political system in which each abstains from initiated force and fraud, is each man otherwise free to act in accordance with his will.

[Dead Corpse]

Is she or is she not a consenting adult at age 16 (140 in some states.

Reading comprehension is a virtue you should cultivate. While she can consent to having sex at 16, YOU ARE STILL HER LEGAL GUARDIAN UNTIL SHE REACHES 18. I'm not coming at this from a moral standpoint. Just a legal one. Morally, I'd kick your ass on principle. Even though, by my own standards, this would obligate me to also pay your doctors bills and any missed work time.

I can see why your uncomfortable but this example is precisely why some of us have a problem that the "nuclear" option was chosen to get rid of sodomy laws.

Your straw man has NOTHING to do with sodomy laws. Logic doesn't bend that far.

[HumanaeVitae]

Bullhockey. How is my owning an EEEEeeevil assualt rifle immoral/illegal in California.. but somehow not so here in Austin Texas?

You didn't read my post. The people of Kalifornia are saying that ownership of assault rifles is wrong for some reason, i.e. you 'ought not' own one. That doesn't mean they're right. As I noted in my post.

[MineralMan]

"Please explain why my 16 year old daughter and I cannot have sex."

You keep asking this question. That's disturbing. You _can_ have sex, I suppose, and as long as nobody finds out about it or your daughter does not feel abused, you won't be arrested. It happens all the time. It's a darned poor idea, though, and is, in fact, against the law. I advise that you stop doing it.

[VRWC_minion]

All those of majority age who are of sound mind have legal capacity to consent and enter into legal contracts.

Wrong. But now you want to change the age of consent because of this new privacy right.

Your addmission that its a problem is proof of what we we are talking years.

[Dead Corpse]

Libertarians also cause halitosis ;)

Libertarians also cause halitosis ;)

Libertarians also cause halitosis ;)

And with that much practice, we're pretty darn good at it as well. ;-)

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Nambla will be next with their rights. Just watch. It's a slippery slope.

How do I know? I live in San Francisco. On a gay gossip board a gay person wrote this "there will be f*cking on the streets of San Francisco today! We'll be celebrating!!!"

Just great..

Oh and yes, we run across gay men having intercourse in the bushes in the parks here. Marvelous...

[scripter]

Thanks for the ping. I was going to post a similar article this morning but didn't have the time.

Homosexual Agenda Index

Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search

All FreeRepublic Bump Lists

[B Knotts]

I would (provided it results in violation of the rights of others).

Well, obviously I was talking about lying when it is unrelated to commerce.

But, that brings up an interesting point. Is any lie, anytime, a violation of the rights of others?

[MineralMan]

"I'm almost positive David Souter is a homosexual, Ginsberg is also a former dyke or a current dyke.
"

And your evidence for these ridiculous accusations is what? Can you not argue your case without such false rhetoric?

[B Knotts]

BTW, good to see you around. Long time, no see.

[NittanyLion]

Please explain why my 16 year old daughter and I cannot have sex.

That's pretty vile. How about explaining why you want to?

[Thorondir]

Not a disease-spreading, child-predatory, stinking sodomite. Not in my case anyway. Sorry if I appeared to include you in my group. Didn't mean to offend your tender sensibilities.

(whew!)