Replies

Name it & Claim it.

But society always . . . makes these moral judgments," said Scalia. "Why is this different from bigamy?"

Indeed, if people have a "fundamental right" to "consensual sexual conduct in the home," why can't a man take two wives? Why not three? Why can't everybody pick the conglomeration of consensual partners that suits their peculiar appetite? As long as it's done "in the home," not in the street, it's a fundamental right. Right?

Where does it end? Who can tell -- given that a ruling for the petitioners could cause catastrophic collateral damage to the foundation of law itself? All men, said the Founders, "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." If all consensual adult sex is one of those rights, either God gave it to us or some force other than God is author of our liberty.

Seventeen years ago, in Bowers v. Hardwick, when Laurence Tribe first argued for this right, Justice Byron White, writing for the Court, said "it would be difficult, except by fiat, to limit the claimed right to homosexual conduct while leaving exposed to prosecution adultery, incest, and other sexual crimes even though they are committed in the home. We are unwilling to start down that road."

Chief Justice Warren Burger scoffed at Tribe's claim. "To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right," he said, "would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching."

the FOUNDING FATHERS UNLEASHED Our Constitution provides the legitimate foundations of this country as a free nation that is of the people and by the people but, we must read beyond it words and read it's authors words and thoughts in order to understand the warnings they have sent through generations to it's application in todays world.

warning...

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams, October 11, 1798

warning...

"Have you ever found in history, one single example of a Nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue?... And without virtue, there can be no political liberty....Will you tell me how to prevent riches from becoming the effects of temperance and industry? Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly?..."

- John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

The entire argument about sexual behavior is so simple it can be reduced to the following: Should there be any social rules about what sexual activity a human being engages in?

If the answer is no then everyone should just shut up...hetero is okay, cousins are okay, polygamy is okay, bi is okay; gay is okay, 13-year olds are okay, and one or one-hundred-at-a-time are okay, et. al.

However, if a society decides that certain rules about who does whom when and where is functional and perhaps even necessary, all that is left is to decide is WHAT are the rules of sexual behavior and WHO shall make them...simple. Those who follow the 'rules' are then NORMAL and all the rest are PERVERTS... so very, very simple...you decide.

Van & Katherine Jenerette

www.jenerette.com 

242 posted on 04/26/2003 9:22 PM EDT by Van Jenerette (Our Republic...If We Can Keep It!)

Name it & Claim it.
Blab it and grab it.

Are you into that word-of-faith, full-gospel stuff?

Indeed, if people have a "fundamental right" to "consensual sexual conduct in the home," why can't a man take two wives?

That's a different matter. Having sex with two women is conduct within the home. However, bigamy is a matter that extends outside the bedroom, into how one arranges one's financial and public life.

Though, to be honest, I think bigamy should be legal, as I think people should be able to arrange their financial and family structures as they see fit. Besides, it worked for Jacob.