Posted on 06/26/2003 7:25:57 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay sex Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.
The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.
The case is a major reexamination of the rights and acceptance of gay people in the United States. More broadly, it also tests a state's ability to classify as a crime what goes on behind the closed bedroom doors of consenting adults.
Thursday's ruling invalidated a Texas law against "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex."
Defending that law, Texas officials said that it promoted the institutions of marriage and family, and argued that communities have the right to choose their own standards.
The law "demeans the lives of homosexual persons," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.
Certainly there is a long term precedent for sodomy laws. While precedent is a major factor in law, it shouldn't be the only factor.
The irritating thing about Roe v. Wade is that it elevated the mother's right to privacy above the child's right to life. That seems nonsensical on the face of it. As well as whimsical.
Today's ruling does overturn long term precedents.
Certainly there is a long term precedent for sodomy laws. While precedent is a major factor in law, it shouldn't be the only factor.
The irritating thing about Roe v. Wade is that it elevated the mother's right to privacy above the child's right to life. That seems nonsensical on the face of it. As well as whimsical.
Today's ruling does overturn long term precedents.
That some acts are intrinsically evil, and that by condoning them, we as a society condone that evil.
Evil acts make evil people; even if the acts themselves are carried out in private, the people who commit them live lives that are public, and thus carry the evil into society until it becomes woven into the culture itself.
I do not wish to live in a culture where evil is condoned; therefore, I oppose the evil of sodomy, even when carried out in private between consenting adults.
Nope. The state even got into the condom business in the 1990s.
Personally, the thought of going in through the out door is a major turn off.
Don't forget, anti-sodomy laws didn't just apply to anal sex, but oral sex as well. In 4 of the 13 states that had/have such laws, they only aply to same sex couples (Texas, the state in question in this case, being one). The other 9 prohibited anla/oral sex for all couples. Lots of guys will be glad to know their wives/girlfriends can polish their knobs without breaking th law now.
IMHO, the court should have struck down the law on the basis of equal protection under the law premieses only. If Texaas wanted to ban it for all couples fine, that's teh state's right, but they can't single out just same sex couples.
Do read Scalia's dissent -- Aristides linked it at #23.
Agreed.
First, please credit the poster that actually said that.
So are all the laws enacted with the founding of the United States government in 1788 (or 1790, if you want to wait until the last of the original 13 states ratified the Constitution) supposed to be in force today--like them or not? By the way, do you have any idea when the law that the Supreme Court just found unconstitutional was enacted?
They are supposed to be in force today unless in clear opposition to the Constitution as ratified and understood at the time, unless repealed or altered in a legal and Constitutional manner since then.
Bad laws should be legislatively repealed or repaired, not simply re-interpreted.
From where I stand, there are several points on the Constitution that needed refining, and some that still do. Amending the Constitution is the proper way - just making stuff up is not.
Sorry. I was referring to the legal argument. The moral argument is fairly simple - but was not only discounted but dealt with in a contrarian manner by the court.
And that is part of the problem with Kennedy's opinion. It seems to assume that, for some reason, homosexuals have to be sexually active, that practising homosexual acts is some necessary part of their identity.
Wow. I can cut and paste my replies today. The Moral Ayatollahs are pretty much carbon copies, it seems.
I could ask WHERE you get your moral instruction that more than one wife is 'immoral' (snip). I could ask you to cite it. (You won't be able to... it's a made up cultural tradition.)
That said, my standard disclaimer : Polygamy is its own punishment. Any man dumb enough to marry more than one woman deserves what he gets.
I don't suppose you'd care to explain how there can be a sex crime without a victim?
By your standards ancient statues of naked children, or paintings could be classified child porn. Better close them museums, Rufus.
GULF1.com - H.I.T.R.A.P. (Honesty, Integrity, Trust, Responsibility, Accountability and People): "TOLERANCE DOES NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF EVIL" -Commentary by Robert L. Pappas, Col. USMC (Ret.) (June 24, 2003)
Everything else goes. Polygamy, Incest and prostitution should be legal.
There is a cultural aversion to Incest (except in Arkansas), founded (unlike the rest the Thumpers do) in scientific realty. At one time the gene pool was too small to allow sex between relatives as reproduction would produce genetic defects (See: Klinton family tree).
Now as gross as it is.... I'm not sure there's a scientific reason for this now, considering we're all mongrels now.
And once again my disclaimer: Anyone dumb enough to engage in Polygamy has formed their own punishment.
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.