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

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban
FOXnews

Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 1,721-1,734 next last
To: finnman69
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Yes, but we're confusing "privileges and immunities" in general with specific "rights", which I think is Constitutionally suspect...seems to me the U.S. Supreme Court should not be issuing rulings at all on sexual practice unless you're going to say sexual conduct is somehow a protected right and privilege specified in the Constitution...

And doesn't this ruling infringe on states' rights? Times might indeed be "changing", but other states have simply repealed various laws without interference from the Supremes. I certainly hope this federal intervention was very narrowly tailored, or we could indeed be looking down a slippery slope; Santorum made some good legal points that he was unfairly excoriated for (look for the "rerun" following this decision) and I do wonder why O'Connor reversed herself...that inconsistency is a bit "troubling"...!

201 posted on 06/26/2003 8:07:43 AM PDT by 88keys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
... whole truth ...

I don't know about 'the whole truth', but part of the truth is I'm laughing. At you!

202 posted on 06/26/2003 8:07:44 AM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 0311, 68-69)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
Well, I agree that you have a point. My main complaint is that the same federal judiciary which has such a hard time recogizing enumerated rights, like the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is meanwhile finding various unenumerated (and arguably questionable) rights in the penumbras of the Constitution.
203 posted on 06/26/2003 8:08:07 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

Comment #204 Removed by Moderator

To: rintense
Rintense....in your example, based on the logic of the Texas law however, back rooms at clubs for heterosexuals WOULD be legal...and back rooms for homosexuals would be illegal.

That is not the case, however. They are BOTH illegal.
205 posted on 06/26/2003 8:08:30 AM PDT by justshe (Educate....not Denigrate !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
SCOTUS supports denies right to Privacy. of states to maintain their internal affairs as they see fit

The Republic is dead, long live the Empire

206 posted on 06/26/2003 8:08:43 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #207 Removed by Moderator

To: Past Democrat
Prove the animal didn't give consent, the woman sticks it in the air and the animal jumps on thats consent, and that's what we are heading for

That's a joke, right? Surely you understand the meaning of consent better than that.

208 posted on 06/26/2003 8:09:17 AM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
This ruling only says that it is none of government's business what grownups do.

I can't tell you how overjoyed I am that the Supreme Court thinks its ok to f*ck a goat. /sarcasm

It's a good thing they focused on this rather than preserving second ammendment freedoms, or stopping such minor things as no-knock warrants and civil forfeiture.

People who celebrate rulings like this just don't have a firm grasp on reality. The Supreme Court is focusing on the rights of a few perverts while raping the rest of us blind.

209 posted on 06/26/2003 8:09:27 AM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
but it will not allow parents to homeschool their children

Who said that you can't homeschool your children?

210 posted on 06/26/2003 8:09:28 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LanPB01
If they're sited on the 14th ammendmant it's clean. The problem with the Texas law was that it specifically target homsexuals performing sodomy, wasn't just a universal sodomy law, straights could cornhole each other and gays couldn't. A clear violation of equal protection. This shouldn't have any effect on sodomy laws that cover gays and straights.
211 posted on 06/26/2003 8:09:33 AM PDT by discostu (you've got to bleed for the dancer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: rintense
I just have a problem with you thinking that it is only homosexuals that like to have public sex. In my experience, I know of a lot more heteros that like to have that kind of kinky fun (although it's probably because I know more heteros than homos). Anyway, minor point.
212 posted on 06/26/2003 8:09:39 AM PDT by MaxPlus305
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
Peeking in windows??? Have you walked down any city street recently and looked at anything going on above shoe level?



213 posted on 06/26/2003 8:09:44 AM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Obvously, the constitution nor the original intent of the Founders mean a thing any more...
214 posted on 06/26/2003 8:10:03 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rintense
We have plenty of swing clubs in South Florida where married couples go to have sex, including illegal sodomy.

Some of our zealous sheriffs busted a couple of swing clubs, and we found out that teachers, judges, businessmen, and even cops were part of the swing scene.

Most of the sodomy commited in Florida is done by heterosexual partners; even killing all the gays will do little to put a dent in the amount of sodomy practiced in this state.

215 posted on 06/26/2003 8:10:33 AM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
Not that I'm a Constitutional lawyer, and not that I think homosexual behavior is moral, natural, or desirable -- I just have a problem with the government making any law that requires spying in someone's bedroom for enforcement.

That's sophistry, much like the government kicking down doors to see if you're having an abortion (Donahue canard). Using that train of thought, should do away with child abuse, since that mostly happens behind closed doors. The issue is this: laws define the morals of a society. When we ban sodomy, we are saying that homosexuality activity is immoral and ought not be encouraged, much like we ban prostitution (sex for money), but not sex for free. You don't have to "spy" on a neighbor, which is what the 4th Amendment is for, but for when the crime is observed or come upon, like the vast majority of witness-associated crime occurs.

216 posted on 06/26/2003 8:10:38 AM PDT by GreatOne (You will bow down before me, Son of Jor-el!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: 88keys
seems to me the U.S. Supreme Court should not be issuing rulings at all on sexual practice unless you're going to say sexual conduct is somehow a protected right and privilege specified in the Constitution...

I think that's exactly what they ARE saying...

217 posted on 06/26/2003 8:10:49 AM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
The SCOTUS is only allowing men to do each other what the SCOTUS has been doing to the people for dacades!
218 posted on 06/26/2003 8:10:52 AM PDT by leprechaun9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
What's next? The legalization of prostitution? Or will it be lower the age of consent and allowing consensual "intergenerational" sex?
219 posted on 06/26/2003 8:11:11 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #220 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 1,721-1,734 next last

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.

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