Santorum is Right, and You Should Be Supporting Him: An Explanation of Lawrence v. Texas

Serious Vanity | 4-26 | TOH

[The Old Hoosier]

More complete explanation bump.

[sinkspur]

I still say you're hysterical. There's a difference between consensual private acts between consenting adults and the very public institution of marriage.

[Theodore R.]

You are right, but I don't think the American people have enough intelligence to understand your sound argument from the legal, moral, and practical aspects. Too many years of "dumbed-down" schooling makes them unable to think.

[The Old Hoosier]

There's a difference between consensual private acts between consenting adults and the very public institution of marriage.

You're confusing the two issues in the case. Think about it again, considering them separately. You will see that I'm right.

[narses]

Define them. Defend them against the 14th Amendment and the soi-disant "right to privacy" you embrace. Go ahead. Then, if you can, reconcile your position with the teachings of the Church you and I belong to. I look forward to watching this.

[sinkspur]

Then, if you can, reconcile your position with the teachings of the Church you and I belong to. I look forward to watching this.

This is not about the teachings of the Church. Should we enshrine mandatory weekly church attendance in law?

[bart99]

It's not a question of being hysterical. It's a question of the law........ and the potential acceptance under law that anything you do within the confines of your home is legal. That's the subtle, but overriding concern about this case.

Even the Supreme Court, when they initially passed the "no sodomy" law (in private homes) in the 50s..... the majority included in their opinion that we (the court) were on a slippery slope. They knew this could escalate out of control and open up the "in private" agruement for anything.

[narses]

Sure it is, if you had paid attention you would understand that. But since you decline to defend your position from a Catholic viewpoint, go ahead and make your non-Catholic, secular argument.

[bart99]

I'm not sure I understood your post (the 14th ammendment ref)...... but I too am looking forward to seeing how this unfolds.

What IS your position? That privacy trumps any activity in the privacy of your own home? Hmmmm...... not sure ALL activity should be legal. Or is this just a ruling on sexual activity in the privacy of your own home? Hmmmm..... not sure all of that would be legal either.

This'll be interesting.

[sinkspur]

and the potential acceptance under law that anything you do within the confines of your home is legal.

Do you support the Patriot Act?

I'm amazed at the number of people on this site who rant and rave at the government's invasion of the privacy of potential terrorists but have no problem with the government peeping into bedroom windows.

[narses]

... that anything you do within the confines of your home is legal.

Precisely! There was a recent case where an amatuer surgeon denutted another consenting adult, and ended up in jail for illegal surgery. How would that fit into sinky's world? How about "Doctor" Jack Kevorkian and his anti-Catholic death machine? Let's not forget abortion either, drug laws, prostitution or even (horros, no!) the unlicensed practice of accounting! All legal in sinkys Brave New World of Privacy and Consenting Adults.

[narses]

Do you support the Patriot Act?

Do you get a volume discount on all the Red Herrings you have sinky? How about dealing with THIS case and THIS law?

[bart99]

I support the Patriot Act fully.

But I do have a problem with the government peeping into my bedroom window (although I wish there would be something for them to see *L*)

That's why this case is interesting. And why it was a difficult case back in the 50s.

[dwswager]

It's not a question of being hysterical. It's a question of the law........ and the potential acceptance under law that anything you do within the confines of your home is legal. That's the subtle, but overriding concern about this case. Even the Supreme Court, when they initially passed the "no sodomy" law (in private homes) in the 50s..... the majority included in their opinion that we (the court) were on a slippery slope. They knew this could escalate out of control and open up the "in private" agruement for anything.

The Privacy issue is my primary concern. The whole problem with the invented right of privacy is that as a "constitutional right" it supercedes other laws. Hence it leads to the legality of any action taken in private. Think drug use, euthenasia, etc. Otherwise you end up with 9 justices picking and choosing. Even when 2 constitutional rights colide, you still have judges making these determinations.

[narses]

I support the constitutional forms as they stand now in this regards. Frankly, while the liberals are crowing that the court took this intending to strike down the law, I see the potential for a reverse strike against Roe -v- Wade and Doe -v- Bolton. Their is NO intrinsic "right to privacy" in the original BOR, the 14th Amendment folks keep arguing that it redefined the BOR, perhaps the SCOTUS will now correct that misunderstanding.

[narses]

Bingo. The other issue is the use of the 14th Amendment to "federalize" almost every state issue.

[bart99]

I agree with you there.

This goes a bit far..... and makes all those things the good congressman said at issue. HE should not be blamed for gay-bashing when he was just trying to explain the complexity of this law..... and it's issues. And he was just dealing with the sexuality of "in your own home privacy" issues.

The reporter misreported and trapped him into a controversy not of his making.

[firewalk]

bttt

[narses]

The reporter has done him a favor. The dufii at the DNC keep embracing their own radical fringe. Senator Santorum is being given the chance to strengthen his already powerful backbone while exposing the RINO's. If it doesn't kill him, it will make him much stronger. I suspect President Santorum will be the third Catholic President of the United States.