Freepers In Support Of The Supreme Court

Vanity | 06/28/03 | shred

[shred]

I think there are many Freepers who are tired of this constant bashing of the Supreme Court for Lawrence v. Texas. I think they did a great job and stuck a knife in the heart of big government.

Individual liberty is at the heart of what conservatism is all about - the individual having primacy over the state. It disturbs me that there are so many who wanted to see the state prevail in its desire to regulate private, individual freedoms.

I say, good job, to a consistent, conservative SC! You did exactly what you're supposed to be doing.

[tpaine]

It would seem to me that state laws are enacted to limit "bad" behaviors that affect society, like sodomy in public parks and restrooms.
340 -sap pap-


Good grief.. After thousands of posts in the last several days you still don't get the point...
The courts issue was prohibiting PRIVATE consensual behaviors in the privacy of the home. Sheeesh.

[AppyPappy]

The courts issue was prohibiting PRIVATE consensual behaviors in the privacy of the home. Sheeesh.

The vast majority of sodomy cases take place outside the home. It's a red herring. Once again, what about PRIVATE incest in the privacy of the home? If the court allows normally illegal behavior in the home, where is the limit?

[tpaine]

The courts issue was prohibiting PRIVATE consensual behaviors in the privacy of the home. The vast majority of sodomy cases take place outside the home.

So what? The USSC ruled on the privacy issue.

It's a red herring.

Daft. Public displays of sodomy are still illegal.

Once again, what about PRIVATE incest in the privacy of the home?

Consensual adult incest is repugnant, but no more 'illegal' than sodomy is in the same terms.

If the court allows normally illegal behavior in the home, where is the limit?

The behavior itself is not 'illegal'. The public display of such behavior can be 'illegal' as it frightens the horses.

[Sci Fi Guy]

Where does the Constitution grant the Supreme Court the authority to be the interpreter for the Constitution?

That was his argument. It was jlogajan whom you need to ask that question to.

[Sci Fi Guy]

What compelling reason does government have to regulate the sexual activities between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home?

I see you've boughten the myth that this is about privacy in someone's own home. It's not. The decision did not address the police or government's ability to enter or search your property. The government/police have the exact same power now as before.

This ruling protects gay sex wherever it is: home, public park, public bathroom, parking lot, alleyway, etc. It is not just what goes on in a home. Do you think that this ruling will make more or less likely that a local government will try to prevent homosexuals from turning public places into their new bedrooms?

You ask what business is it of the government? Perhaps the real question should be who decides? A handful of unelected officials in washington who won't have to live with the results of their decision. Or by the people who live in the city or state through their elected representative. the People who will have to live with the results, and the representatives who could be voted out if the people don't like the results. Which way do think will advance freedom most?

[Labyrinthos]

In this case they decided that there is a right to privacy IN THE CONSTITUTION......THERE ISN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, the SCOTUS invoked the right to privacy nearly 40 years ago in Griswald v. Connecticut, which prohibited the states from interfering with the most basic and private rights concerning human sexuality and intimacy. The right to privacy is not new by any means, only its application to gay people.

[ArneFufkin]

Nothing energizes our "Joe 6 pack" contingent like this issue. Back to back posts.

[mac_truck]

This ruling protects gay sex wherever it is: home, public park, public bathroom, parking lot, alleyway, etc. It is not just what goes on in a home.

The Texas law on homosexual sodomy was poorly constructed and deserved to be struck down. This ruling does not open the flood gate, as you have suggested, to permit gay sex in public places.

Do you think that this ruling will make more or less likely that a local government will try to prevent homosexuals from turning public places into their new bedrooms?

That would depend on the standards of the communities involved, and how much resources they wished to devote to this activity. I would prefer that community standards be applied evenly however, meaning standards on public sexual behavior should not just apply to gays.

Perhaps the real question should be who decides?

No, from this decision it would seem that the judicial branch decides whether government has a compelling interest in regulating the private sexual activity of consenting adults.

Which way do think will advance freedom most?

I prefer limiting the power of legislatures in areas where it does not have a compelling interest. That includes limits on state and local legislatures. Thats a limit on all forms of government, and protects individual liberty.