Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: HumanaeVitae
And if you look at the laws of that period, 'individual rights' did not include homosexual sodomy. In fact, buggery was punishable by death in many of the colonies/early states.

Let's rewrite this as... And if you look at the laws of that period, 'individual rights' did not include blacks or women. In fact, escaping a plantation was punishable by death in many of the colonies/early states.

Your argument is just as ridiculous no matter how it is applied. The government has gotten many issues wrong, and it has taken time to get things right on many fronts.

You can say "times have changed", but if "times have changed" that should be reflected by... voting.

Slavery was not repealed by voting. Heck the Bill of Rights did not become the law of the Colonies by voting. It took a heck of a lot of violence to get them respected. Many other Rights came into being thanks to the Supreme Court, such as the Right to Privacy, Miranda Rights, etc. Are you saying that these rights should not be respected, because they weren't "voted on"? (In case you haven't read the Constitution, we are guaranteed a Republic, NOT a Democracy. Voting on issues is done almost exclusively by representatives, not individuals.)

Again, libertarians are against voting.

This is just silly. Do you make similar smears against racial groups? I figured it was the Leftists who enjoyed labeling people, then assaulting the label with untrue and illogical assertions. You must be so proud to use the same kind of tactics that they do.
(In case you hadn't noticed, every group, even Conservative FReepers, spans a wide variety of opinions. It would be just as ignorant to say that FReepers are celebrating or decrying this SCOTUS decision, when clearly, there are many on several sides of the issue.)

498 posted on 06/26/2003 9:36:20 AM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies ]


To: Teacher317
Many other Rights came into being thanks to the Supreme Court, such as the Right to Privacy, Miranda Rights,

...abortion 'rights'. Aparently you like being governed by an unelected judicial Nonumvirate. Ave Souter.

964 posted on 06/26/2003 12:18:04 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies ]

To: Teacher317
And if you look at the laws of that period, 'individual rights' did not include blacks or women. In fact, escaping a plantation was punishable by death in many of the colonies/early states.

With regards to blacks, and other ethnic groups/races that's why we have the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Where is the "homosexual rights amendment"? (I guess in the same place as the federal power to prohibit (some) drugs amendment)

Some "individual rights", most in fact, did apply to women, just not all, especially at the state level, (although all of those were protected by the first eight amendments, but for most of that period those only applied to the federal government) as well as those in Articles III and IV applied to women. The right to vote was an exception and was not protected for women until passage of the 19th amendment.

1,406 posted on 06/26/2003 5:22:13 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson