How staged sex crime fooled Supreme Court

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | October 24, 2005 | Joseph Farah

[irishjuggler]

even the conservative state supreme court of Georgia said that government should stay out of the bedrooms of consenting adult.

Good for Georgia, but it's not the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to decide what the government should or should not be able to do based on some vague concept of "staying out of the bedroom."

It's the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to enforce the Constitution. As Byron White, Scalia et al. have pointed out, it's absurd to believe that the U.S. Constitution was intended to require states to allow sodomy when sodomy was in fact clearly prohibited in the various states when the Constitution and its various amendments were adopted. If you, Paul C. Jesup, want a right to sodomy, lobby your state legislature to legalize the activity, but let's not pretend such a right is in the Constitution.

[Paul C. Jesup]

So you like having a leftist lies determine laws and policy

See post 42 and 43 of this thread.

[highball]

So you would prefer to have government in your bedroom?

Far too many "conservatives" would, yes. That's exactly what they want.

[Mulch]

Shaky ground there fella. What constitutes an adult? I suppose if you have a sliding scale on what constitutes normal sex you probably have a sliding scale on what constitutes an adult.

[dmz]

I'm sorry, but that may be the silliest comment I've read today on FR (no mean feat, as I read all of the Dover threads).

It's kind of hard to be publically lewd in your own bedroom. Unless you think that if the police were to come into your home while your wife/husband was in the shower, and to have him or her arrested for public nudity.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Government should stay out of the bedrooms of consenting adults.

As a general rule, governments in the form of police do stay out of the bedrooms because they have no reason to go there. Even if there are state laws against sodomy, for example, there is little enforcement because how would you know someone is having anal sex in that house, and who really cares?? In my state, moreover, I am against even having such laws. However, I am very sure the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit states from having laws against any particular bedroom behavior.

On that basis, Lawrence was decided incorrectly.

[dmz]

In short, no.

[LowOiL]

Well there is that little thing about deformed children that you need to work out first.

So it is conditional. Lets rearrange your statement.

Well there is that little thing about deformed childrenAIDS that you need to work out first.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Good for Georgia, but it's not the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to decide what the government should or should not be able to do based on some vague concept of "staying out of the bedroom."

See the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[savagesusie]

So you would prefer to have government in your bedroom?

Absolutely--if we were committing crimes like incest, rape, etc.! What about Kinsey's bedroom?

[CaptRon]

I'm not sure it would make a difference. The Supreme Court is not a finder of fact. It rules on the law.

[andyk]

So you would prefer to have government in your bedroom?

Well, the irony is that apparently these two wanted government in their bedroom, at least for a little while.

[VRWCmember]

Well there is that little thing about deformed children that you need to work out first.

But homosexual sex between brothers or between sisters can't produce children, so that argument couldn't be used to outlow homosexual incest. But then if you legalize incest between same sex siblings, but leave it criminalized for heterosexual incest then that is discriminatory. And what about incest between brothers and sisters where one of them is sterile? You seem to be suggesting that the government should not have the power to pass legislation on this issue.

[nopardons]

Then, historically, America has been a "nanny-police-state" from colonial times, through the present. There have been laws against sodomy ( which the law has described and both anal intercourse and any type of oral sex ), homosexual acts, just about anything and everything that isn't the "Missionary position" coitus, and all forms of birth control and abortion and adultery and prostitution and taking someone across state lines for the purpose of sexual acts and incest and bestiality and statutory rape/sexual congress with the under aged and against necrophilia and S&M and sexual acts performed without the benefit of marriage, on the books, for the past several centuries.

Wanna try again or are you through playing?

[Paul C. Jesup]

You forgot one thing. Hetrosexual sex can transmit HIV from one person to another person.

(sarcasm) So, shall you make all sex illegal...

[wolfcreek]

"So you would prefer to have government in your bedroom?"

I don't care what someone is doing behind closed doors. The problem is, those doors are no longer closed and occupants of that bedroom want Us to accept what they are doing.(Pedos, homos, cousin doingos, and let's not forget the "animal lovers")

[vikzilla]

You gonna argue your point or tell us about lunch meat?

Geez, I'm sorry. I thought the destinction between paid LE and innocent school children was obvious.

I guess the Lifestyle nazis such as yourself should never be underestimated in their fervent need to overstate any situation.

[sure_fine]

it was obvious at the time that it was staged, because they didn't even slow down when the cops burst in

[VRWCmember]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Then as long as one limits one's illegal activities to the confines of one's home and avoids anything that creates probable cause, one can violate any and all laws with impunity.

For the 4th amendment to apply to this issue, you would have to have a situation where the government entered without probable cause and found an illegal activity going on. In this case, they entered with probable cause after an open invitation to do so. They didn't go around looking for homos engaging in sodomy.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Then, historically, America has been a "nanny-police-state" from colonial times, through the present. There have been laws against sodomy ( which the law has described and both anal intercourse and any type of oral sex ), homosexual acts, just about anything and everything that isn't the "Missionary position" coitus, and all forms of birth control and abortion and adultery and prostitution and taking someone across state lines for the purpose of sexual acts and incest and bestiality and statutory rape/sexual congress with the under aged and against necrophilia and S&M and sexual acts performed without the benefit of marriage, on the books, for the past several centuries.

So, unless your are willing to make every single sexual protection (condoms, birth control pills) and sexual acts, except for the "Missionary position", illegal, then you are nothing more than a hypocrite.