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

To: IronJack
The Supreme Court ruled on a matter of law, not a matter of morality. Within America's legal framework, the Court found that the state's right to interfere in private sexual matters is greatly outweighed by the individual's right to privacy. If, as Russell Kirk said, conservatives prize liberty over equality, then the liberty to indulge personal vices in private should trump the state's questionable concern over private behavior. The Court's decision was the right one.

The Supreme Court based its grant of her right to commit sodomy in private on the nonexistent privacy clause of the Constitution-the same clause which justifies abortion. I see no law in the Constitution which grants to the federal government through the judicial branch the right to restrain a state from regulating sodomy on privacy grounds. I say that you have it exactly backwards, that it was the Supreme Court which ruled as a matter of morality and not of law. When you say they weighed that morality against privacy I say that is a moral judgment because there is no such privacy clause in the Constitution.


49 posted on 08/31/2007 4:37:14 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]


To: nathanbedford
Agreed. However, Americans are not comfortable with the idea of the government invading one's bedroom even to criminalize suspect sexual conduct. We believe consenting adults should decide that for themselves and if the act in question is a sinful one, they should be accountable before God. As I've said before, the government can and should uphold public morality as opposed to private behavior behind the closed doors of the home.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

51 posted on 08/31/2007 4:41:37 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford
The right to privacy does exist as a matter of common law, and as a legal principle. For example, the Fourth Amendment guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, ..." The Third Amendment exists because of a right to private enjoyment of one's property. The Fifth Amendment respects the privacy of individuals accused of a crime. And so on.

That the Court has erroneously expanded the common law principle to protect abortion does not diminish that principle, nor its applicability in this case. There is little if any compelling interest on the part of the state to regulate sexual behavior between consenting adults in the privacy of their own quarters. There is a HUGE implication to ruling otherwise, namely that no citizen can act, even if no harm arises and he is within the precincts of his own home, in a manner the state disapproves.

I don't need or want the state approving or disapproving of my private sexual behavior. It is none of the state's business. The Court wisely found this to be true.

83 posted on 08/31/2007 5:28:00 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | 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