Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban

AP via Yahoo ^ | 6/26/03 | AP

[jethropalerobber]

Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay sex Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

The case is a major reexamination of the rights and acceptance of gay people in the United States. More broadly, it also tests a state's ability to classify as a crime what goes on behind the closed bedroom doors of consenting adults.

Thursday's ruling invalidated a Texas law against "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex."

Defending that law, Texas officials said that it promoted the institutions of marriage and family, and argued that communities have the right to choose their own standards.

The law "demeans the lives of homosexual persons," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

[Churchjack]

Should society not be moral? Que?

[MHGinTN]

Bwahahaha

[DAnconia55]

Should society not be moral? Que?

Society does not exist. It's an abstract concept with no physical presence.

Individuals should be moral.
But laws forcing individuals to OBEY do not make moral men.
They make sheep who have lost the capacity to judge.

[jayef]

You can prohibit immoral behavior, but you cannot violate the 14th Amendment . . . or are you of the opinion that The Constitution protects everyone except homosexuals? The Texas law targets a class of people for discrimination and is a violation of equal protection. As a South Carolinian, I am very much interested in that and am glad that the same archaic laws are being struck down in my state by this ruling.

[Churchjack]

Homosexuals--sodomists--are not a "class" of people. They are individuals engaging in immoral--and until recently, illegal, activity. Unlawful discrimination, in the sense of the 14th, is to prefer or prejudice on the basis of their intrinsic condition, not behavioral preferences.

No, the Constitution does not enumerate protections, explicit or implicit, to the homosexual act.

[jayef]

Actually, the 14th Amendment says "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; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I'm sorry, but I don't see anything about intrinsic condition. I see that all citizens are guaranteed due process and equal protection. What am I missing? ALL CITIZENS. Is that not clear to you?

[Churchjack]

You're right. Wrong amendment.

All citizens are guaranteed due process. Sodomy is not, however, a privelege nor an immunity--it was an illegal act. They're right to due process was not abridged in any way. There was no house-to-house rectum inspection, no roadside checkpoints set up. Someone (whatever the reason) had suspicion of illegal activity and called the cops on'em.

They were subsequently caught in the act.

[Rodm]

You might say six judges sodomized the constitution.

[jethropalerobber]

...to the extent our civilization ceases to be Christian, it will have a very limited lifetime.

imho, our nation has succeeded exactly to the extent that it has turned its back on chirst's teachings. are the neocons hawks, with their 12 step plan for american dominance of the 21st century world mostly through military means, are they your idea of good christians?

That is to say, people like you can only live humanist lives to the extent that you allow the bulk of society to remain Christian.

right - care to tell me just how i depend on you good christians for this so-called "humanist" life i am living?

i work, pay taxes, raise children, and obey the law just like everybody else. all i said is that i don't view lifelong celibacy as a badge on honor. extreme self denial is no less self-centered than gluttony.

[aristeides]

For homosexuals to lead celibate lives is extreme self-denial, and somehow wrong? Homosexuals have a moral duty to commit homosexual acts? What planet are you coming from?

[bvw]

What about the class of psychopathic cannibals? Aren't they permitted to have their basic, internal desires fulfilled, not hamstrung by the wacko religious right?

Should they remain "celibate"?

Protect all classes! Equal Due Process under the Law!

[jethropalerobber]

to answer your question, on the planet i come from, earth, anyone who reamins celibate for life despite having the freedom and opportunity to engage in a sexual relationship is demonstrating extreme self-denial. but then again, perhaps that is just their orientation - in which case there is even less cause to praise them.

but i feel in some sense you mistake my attitude toward these people. if they want to experiment with seeing how their bodies and minds respond to unnatural sexual behaviors like life long celibacy, i say more power to them. we may yet learn something valuable from these trials.

btw, you didn't answer my question:
how exactly do i depend on "christians" for this "humanist" life i am living?

that was a pretty bold claim you made, so i'm sure you've got something to back it up.

[thakil]

Again, you've called homosexuals deviants, yet failed to respond to my argument suggesting that they're not. At least try and back up your point.

Homosexuality is no more immoral than heterosexuality.

[jayef]

Nice straw man. That you would compare the behavior of two consenting adults to that of persons who would harm others to fulfill their desires tells me all I need to know about you.

[bvw]

It is an actual case of "c.o.s.e.n.t.i.n.g . a.d.u.l.t.s"? Do you find their actions immoral?

[bvw]

Hmmm ... thought I was reponding to a response to this:

Is there a RIGHT to cannibalism if both adult parties agree? As weird and strange as that sounds that actually happened in Germany last year. (Under the Lawrence Ruling's folly surely it is a protected RIGHT today.) A man placed an ad in a homosexual newsletter or some such asking for someone to volunteer for sex that would include intra-coital-murder and follow-on cannibalism. Someone answered (iirc, multiple respondents) the homosexual cannibal followed through the whole offering with at least one.

Which I had posted up today on another thread.

[Churchjack]

Individuals should be moral. But laws forcing individuals to OBEY do not make moral men.

Morality is an abstract concept; as in, only it's expression is seen, not the actual object. Society is not abstract in that sense, it's a group of people living in agreement to principles or mechanics or whatever.

Individuals should be moral, but if they ain't, then ya gotta make'em OBEY for the good of the group.