Skip to comments.
SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban
FOXnews
Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
SCOTUS sided with the perverts.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0amanreapswhathesews; 0bedroomkgb; 0godwillnotbemocked; 1aslimmeyslope; 1scrotus; 1slimmeyslope; 3branchesofgovt; activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ageofconsentlaws; aides; aidesincreasetaxesup; aidesintheusa; aidesupinsuranceup; aidsalert; antibiblecountry; antichristiantrolls; antirelgiontrolls; antireligion; antireligionbigots; antireligiontroll; aregayapparel; arroganceofscotus; ascrotus; assthumpingidiots; biblethumpingmorons; biggovernmentcorrupt; bluenose; blueoyster; bohica; bowtothesecularstate; bowtothewelfarestate; bugger; buggered; buggerer; buggery; busybodieslose; buttpirate; buyvaselinestock; catsdogsmice; celebratesin; chickenlollipoppers; christianbashing; civilrights; clintonlegacy; constitutiontrashed; crazyfundies; culturewar; davidsouterisafaggot; deathoftheusa; deathofthewest; degeneracy; depravity; destructionofusa; devianceuptaxesup; deviantsex; donwenow; downourthroats; downwenoware; druglaws; endofcivilization; evilinactivistcourts; evilinrighttoprivacy; falalafalalalalala; falalalalalalalala; farkinqueers; fecalcontact; fools; fudgepackersdelight; fundiesinthecloset; fundyhysteria; gay; gayagenda; gayarrogance; gaybashing; gaycheese; gaycivlrights; gaydar; gaygestapo; gaykeywords; gaymafia; gaymarriage; gaymoose; gaynarcissist; gaypride; gayrights; gaysarevictimtoo; gayscelebrate; gaysholdusacaptive; gaysoutofcloset; gaysremakeamerica; gayssuppressthetruth; gaystapo; gaytrolldolls; gaytyrants; gayvote; getoutofmyroom; goawaymrsgrundy; godless; godsjudgement; godswrath; governmentschoolsex; hatecrimelegislation; himom; hitlerywins; homeschoolnow; homoapologists; homophobes; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexualagendawins; homosexualvote; hyperventilating; ihavearighttosin; ihaverights; incestlaws; indoctrination; itsjustsex; itsunatural; jeebuslovesgays; keywordwarsaregay; kitcheneducation; kneepadbrigade; lawrencevtexas; legislatinghate; legislatingsin; legislaturemakeslaws; lewinksys4all; lewinsky; lewinskys; liars; liberalagenda; libertariansareevil; libertines; lotsdaughters; lpcausesbo; makejeebuscry; manboylove; manboyloveassoc; manholeinspectorjoy; menwithmen; moralrelativism; moralrelativistinusa; msgrundypatrol; mycousinknowsclay; nambla; namblawillwinnext; onepercentrulesusa; oralsex; ourgayapparel; paulwellstone; pcdecision; pederasty; peepingtomgovt; perversion; perverts; preverts; prisoners; privacyprotection; prostitutionlaws; publichealthhazard; puritanslose; readtheconstitution; relgionbashing; religionbashing; romans1godswrath; rosieishappytoday; rosietypes; rumprangers; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage; samesexmarriages; scotusknowsbest; scotusmakeslaw; scotustrumpsgodslaw; scotustrumpstate; scotustyranny; scrotus; sexeducation; sexindoctrination; sexpolice; sin; singlorified; slimmeyslope; slipperyslop; slipperyslope; slouching; slurpslurp; snitchonyourneighbor; sodomandgomorrah; sodomites; sodommites; sodomy; sodomylaw; sodomylaws; spyinthebushes; statesrights; stronginthesouth; supremecourt; swalloworspit; talibanintheusa; talibannedtrolls; texassodomylaw; thefunpolice; thegayelite; thegayvote; thisisevil; tisseasontobeunhappy; tistheseason; tobejolly; usathirdworldcountry; vicesnowvirtues; victimlesscrime; victimsofaids; victimsofhepatitus; weakinthehead; whatstatesright; womenwithwomen; zscrotus; zslimmeyslope; zzgoodruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 961-980, 981-1,000, 1,001-1,020 ... 1,721-1,734 next last
To: yonif
That's an act that makes States have the 21 year old law or they don't get highway funds from the feds. There is no federal law prohibiting States from changing their laws.
To: sakic
I'm saying that this right to privacy has never been interpreted by the government to allow homeschooling, yet it has been interpreted to allow abortion and sodomy.
To: freeeee
Do I have the right, freeee, along with like-minded citizens, to secede from a society that embraces homosexuality. Yes or no.
983
posted on
06/26/2003 12:24:20 PM PDT
by
HumanaeVitae
(Catholic Epimethean)
To: OWK
But rather than leave each other alone, left authoritarians, and right authoritarian wrestle for control of the big-government stick with which to beat their neighbors into submission, destroying legitimate rights in the process. The post this came from gets my "Post of the Year" award - I saved it for posterity. Excellent.
LQ
To: The KG9 Kid
I hope that the SCOTUS uses the same 'privacy' logic to apply to 2nd Amendment issues based on the 5th & 9th Circuit Courts' recent decisions, should the high court ever stop ignoring the issue. Let's see...
Affirmative Action? Check.
Sodomy? Check.
Dang! Why is it getting so hot, and how did I get on this bobsled?
Seriously, my discomfort at the thought of a SCOTUS decision on the 2nd Amendment has risen exponentially over the past week.
To: Pahuanui
Libertarians may pretty much all disapprove of sodomy laws. I would hazard the guess that there are many of them who do not approve of the reasoning of today's decision.
To: jimt
Yes, but where in the Constitution does the government have the right to regulate in this area? The 10th amendment reserves that power to the states and the people.
To: HumanaeVitae
Honest question OWK...do I and people like me have a right to secede from a society that condones homosexual behavior and form our own society? You have the right to join with others who believe as you do, buy common property, and prohibit homosexuals to access that property, or to engage in commerce with your like-minded compatriots.
What you do NOT have the right to do, is restrict their otherwise peaceful behavior in THEIR homes, businesses, and associations, by force.
I can't make it any clearer than that.
988
posted on
06/26/2003 12:25:42 PM PDT
by
OWK
To: I_Love_My_Husband
"So in your opinion Bill Clinton is innocent?"
Innocent of what, exactly? What does Bill Clinton have to do with this Supreme Court ruling. Clinton was an idiot to have messed around with Monica Lewinsky. It almost cost him the Presidency. Almost. He was an idiot to lie about it, too.
However, he broke no law in fooling around with Lewinsky. He may have broken the law in lying about it.
Innocent is a matter of the law. He was a bad husband, and cheated on his wife. I condemn him for that. Once, in a previous marriage, I committed adultery myself. I'm ashamed of that, but I broke no laws. It took a long time to regain the trust of my wife, and I was simply wrong to do it.
No, I wasn't innocent in a moral sense, but in the legal sense, I was innocent.
989
posted on
06/26/2003 12:26:30 PM PDT
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: 88keys
My point is that if there will never be a concerted effort to legalize incest, why does it always get brought up in these threads?
To: aristeides
What I think the federal law does is to deny federal funding to states that don't enact a drinking age of at least 21. That's not the same thing. Oh, if that is the case, then I have mistaken.
991
posted on
06/26/2003 12:27:08 PM PDT
by
yonif
To: HumanaeVitae
Do I have the right, freeee, along with like-minded citizens, to secede from a society that embraces homosexuality. Yes or no. Of course you do. Nobody owns you. You don't even need a reason. Secede all you want.
992
posted on
06/26/2003 12:27:16 PM PDT
by
freeeee
To: VRWC_minion
How about my first three answers?
I do know that were I your employer and I found you were having sex with your sixteen year old daughter, your services would no longer be required.
Perfectly legal in Texas.
993
posted on
06/26/2003 12:27:19 PM PDT
by
jimt
To: LizardQueen
Thanks for the kind words.
994
posted on
06/26/2003 12:27:47 PM PDT
by
OWK
To: HurkinMcGurkin
Actually, there are two substantive due process cases from the 1920's that are sort of the ancestors of the right-to-privacy cases and that Kennedy's opinion today cited with approval. They are Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (right of a parent to choose to send a child to a Catholic school, despite a state law against it), and Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) (right of a parent to send a child to a German-language school, despite a state law against it).
To: HurkinMcGurkin
That's an act that makes States have the 21 year old law or they don't get highway funds from the feds. There is no federal law prohibiting States from changing their laws. OK. Thank you for that clarification!
996
posted on
06/26/2003 12:28:01 PM PDT
by
yonif
To: yonif
1000 post
997
posted on
06/26/2003 12:28:37 PM PDT
by
yonif
To: Grando Calrissian
Dogs always get brought up in these threads too.
To: yonif
let me try again....1000 POST!
999
posted on
06/26/2003 12:29:02 PM PDT
by
yonif
To: yonif
LAST TIME 1000!
1,000
posted on
06/26/2003 12:29:27 PM PDT
by
yonif
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 961-980, 981-1,000, 1,001-1,020 ... 1,721-1,734 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson