Posted on 06/01/2006 8:28:01 AM PDT by Sunsong
14th Amendment
Society has determined that homosexual sodomy, like drugs, prostitution and gambling, does not deserve the constitutional protection of the right to privacy.
Look, either an adult has a right to privacy to do drugs behind closed doors or they don't. What is it?
Answer the question without weaseling. It's a straightfoweard question -- give me a straightforward answer.
Yes, an adult has a right to privacy, -- to do drugs behind closed doors, to gamble behind closed doors, and to consensual sex behind closed doors; --- subject only to reasonable regulations made and enforced using due process of law as per the 14th Amendment.
Can you make a straightforward rebuttal, paulsen? Two bits you can't "without weaseling".
Sure. If what you say is true, then why isn't it legal?
Weasel-like begging of the question. -- We all know that there are many laws on the books that are not constitutionally "legal".
That is the issue; laws are being made & enforced that violate due process, and you can't straightforwardly address that issue.
Where's the courts? Where's the challenges? Where's the decisions? Certainly you can find one challenge? One lower court decision? One court opinion that says that the U.S. Constitution's right of privacy protects the right to do drugs behind closed doors and to gamble behind closed doors? You can't. You're blowing smoke.
There you go again robbie, ranting on about blowing smoke because you are unable to argue the actual issue. Pitiful display.
Go away and don't come back without the cites -- otherwise you're wasting my time..
I cited the 14th, and you can only post your opinions about concurring activist court opinions..
-- You've become FRs biggest time-wasting joke, - you can't debate your way out of a paper bag, and you show it by responses like this every day.
Well first one must establish that such a group exists -YOU or anyone, be it scientific genius or unschooled layman, for that matter have yet to do this... -no group, no standing, no argument, no nada...
Care to cite anything corroborating the factual validity of the linch pin premising the homosexual rights arguments you attempt to advance? ANYTHING?
Whatever your culpability, either you are posting leftist propaganda or you are not. Any legitimate citation will suffice...
If the state has a compelling reason, they may apply the law unequally. Do you disagree? If you do, tell me why. If you don't disagree, stop bringing up this "group" crap of yours again and again and again.
"The activities could still be illegal, but you are protected until a warrant breaks into that protection."
Let's try this. The cops have a valid, constituional warrant to search your house for child porn. They enter your home and see two homosexuals engaging in anal sex right there on your couch.
Under our current laws, the two homosexuals cannot be arrested and charged with sodomy because they're protected under the right of privacy. Are we in synch so far? (No, I don't know their names or their phone numbers).
When the cops enter, they also see two people in the kitchen smoking marijuana. Another two are gambling. Another two are engaging in prostitution. They arrest those six.
I'm asking you, why doesn't the constitutional right to privacy extend to those six? Please answer my question.
Criminal sodomy statutes in effect in 1868: Alabama: Ala. Rev. Code 3604 (1867). Arizona (Terr.): Howell Code, ch. 10, 48 (1865). Arkansas: Ark. Stat., ch. 51, Art. IV, 5 (1858). California: 1 Cal. Gen. Laws, 1450, 48 (1865). Colorado (Terr.): Colo. Rev. Stat., ch. 22, 45, 46 (1868). Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat., Tit. 122, ch. 7, 124 (1866). Delaware: Del. Rev. Stat., ch. 131, 7 (1893). Florida: Fla. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 2614 (passed 1868) (1892). Georgia: Ga. Code 4286, 4287, 4290 (1867). Kingdom of Hawaii: Haw. Penal Code, ch. 13, 11 (1869). Illinois: Ill. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 49, 50 (1845). Kansas (Terr.): Kan. Stat., ch. 53, 7 (1855). Kentucky: 1 Ky. Rev. Stat., ch. 28, Art. IV, 11 (1860). Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat., Crimes and Offences, 5 (1856). Maine: Me. Rev. Stat., Tit. XII, ch. 160, 4 (1840). Maryland: 1 Md. Code, Art. 30, 201 (1860). Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Stat., ch. 165, 18 (1860). Michigan: Mich. Rev. Stat., Tit. 30, ch. 158, 16 (1846). Minnesota: Minn. Stat., ch. 96, 13 (1859). Mississippi: Miss. Rev. Code, ch. 64, LII, Art. 238 (1857). Missouri: 1 Mo. Rev. Stat., ch. 50, Art. VIII, 7 (1856). Montana (Terr.): Mont. Acts, Resolutions, Memorials, Criminal Practice Acts, ch. IV, 44 (1866). Nebraska (Terr.): Neb. Rev. Stat., Crim. Code, ch. 4, 47 (1866). [478 U.S. 186, 194] Nevada (Terr.): Nev. Comp. Laws, 1861-1900, Crimes and Punishments, 45. New Hampshire: N. H. Laws, Act. of June 19, 1812, 5 (1815). New Jersey: N. J. Rev. Stat., Tit. 8, ch. 1, 9 (1847). New York: 3 N. Y. Rev. Stat., pt. 4, ch. 1, Tit. 5, 20 (5th ed. 1859). North Carolina: N.C. Rev. Code, ch. 34, 6 (1855). Oregon: Laws of Ore., Crimes - Against Morality, etc., ch. 7, 655 (1874). Pennsylvania: Act of Mar. 31, 1860, 32, Pub. L. 392, in 1 Digest of Statute Law of Pa. 1700-1903, p. 1011 (Purdon 1905). Rhode Island: R. I. Gen. Stat., ch. 232, 12 (1872). South Carolina: Act of 1712, in 2 Stat. at Large of S. C. 1682-1716, p. 493 (1837). Tennessee: Tenn. Code, ch. 8, Art. 1, 4843 (1858). Texas: Tex. Rev. Stat., Tit. 10, ch. 5, Art. 342 (1887) (passed 1860). Vermont: Acts and Laws of the State of Vt. (1779). Virginia: Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). West Virginia: W. Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). Wisconsin (Terr.): Wis. Stat. 14, p. 367 (1839).Poor question beggar.
Don't wait for a straight (ahem) answer.
Of course when it comes to a federal gay marriage amendment, well, the federal government should butt out (sorry) and leave this issue up to the states.
Face it, there is no principle that a State can prohibit marriage of any type.
No 'power to prohibit' has ever been delegated to any level of government in the USA.
-- Reasonably regulate, yes. -- Prohibit, no.
Well, the principle you support and argue for does not exist -as such, you battle with windmills and win hands down.
Unable to actually argue the issues outlined above, you simply deny they exist. How weird.
You conflate the ability of people to live together and engage in sexual activity with the institution of marriage recognized and accommodated by society...
BS. No comparison. -- I've said that States can reasonably regulate marriage, yes. -- Prohibit, no.
The state can prohibit some people living together and engaging in sexual activity e.g. children regardless
Nope, -- the state can reasonably regulate some non sexual aspects of people that live together & raise children.
the state can not prohibit adults consentually living together and engaging in sexual activity... HOWEVER, the state does not have to reward those who choose to live together and engage in sexual activity UNLESS they meet certain requirements -these requirements comprise "marriage"...
Again, you're arguing a point not at issue.
A pig with lipstick on is still a pig...
Clever remark if you're into pig jokes.
It's always fascinating to see the libertines argue that the 14th Amendment has secret just revealed meanings that were unknown to the states that ratified it.
[I'm sure mojave does, - but go on.]
When the cops enter, they also see two people in the kitchen smoking marijuana. Another two are gambling. Another two are engaging in prostitution. They arrest those six.
They can't, constitutionally speaking. Same privacy protection applies as to mojaves friends.
I'm asking you, why doesn't the constitutional right to privacy extend to those six? Please answer my question.
It does extend, but States ignore such protections if the higher courts 'look the other way'. -- Everyone knows this, but prohibitionists & their straight [ahem] 'men' prefer to imagine that they don't.
Don't wait for a straight (ahem) answer. 326 -mojave-
Probably the only amendment to the U.S. Constitution that just keeps on giving.
You make a pointless argument e.g. States can reasonably regulate parenthood, yes. -- Prohibit, no.
HOWEVER we are discussing here one things that prohibit naturally and factually both parentood and subsequently the rational premise underlying what makes a marriage legitimately recognized as such -the possibility of procreation.
ONLY by detaching from reality in discarding rational basis does your argument appear legitimate.
The argument you attempt to advance is a fallacy -an absurd illogical construct: e.g the State can not prohibit men from becoming pregnant...
ONLY by ignoring the biological reality of procreation which is the rational basis premising marriage does your argument "seem" legitimate...
P.S. repeating the absurd ad infinitum adds no legitimacy. IF you have an additional argument -then cough it up...
The libertines' alternative to elections.
You need help.
Encouraging procreation and normal marriage is unconstitutional!!!
/sarcasm
Not only unknown to the states, but to the Congress and the USSC! For 100 years after it was ratified!
They all still thought the BOR applied only to federal government. The unenlightened fools!
;-)
What? Of course they can. It's done all the time.
Yeah! Those darn prohibitionary prohibitionists unconstitutionally prohibited constitutionally guaranteed constitutional rights instead of reasonably regulating using constitutional due process and stuff like that.
By cracky.
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.