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.

[spunkets]

". The right not to be searched unreasonably, I do not believe, necessarily amounts to right of privacy, particularly with how it is being used (abortion, gay sex). I don't like the government butting into the home, but on the other hand I believe a nation, state, or community has the right to set limits on its citizenry. The supremes are saying that we no longer can."

The right is the people's right to keep things hidden and out of view. That's why it's infringement by the government was so restricted to probable cause and the testimony of witness. The unreasonableness refers to the infringement of the right, not the right itself.

The supremes don't really honor that right and neither does the government. It's the subject of the search that determines whether, or not, the right to privacy will be honored. In the case of abortion, the Supremes have said it can be done, because the it's a private matter. Yet, if someone pisses me off and I hire a killer to cut him up in small pieces and feed him to the fishes(all a private matter), the Supremes won't give me the time of day. Also they won't dump a gun registration and ballistic finger print on that ground and the 5th Amend. They pick and choose to order the world to their vision, that's it.

[The Red Zone]

The gaggiest thing of all is that the SCOTUS is formally recognizing "a homosexual lifestyle." I expect that out of the Democrats. But O' Connor and Kennedy too? Barf vomit retch!

[cincinnati65]

Gee, where's a good "compelling interest" argument when you need one?

[Salman]

Nope. The precedent will help the court force state legalization of bestiality and other deviant sex acts as well, not to mention prostitution.

Bestiality? That will depend on the position of the animal rights types. It may well be classified as cruelty to animals.

Prostitution? Why not? In Germany it is allowed, but only as a government monopoly. Really.

Deviant sex in general? Better come up with a precise legal definition. Parse. Parse. Parse.

[ellery]

No, that was one of the main issues: in Texas sodomy was legal between a man and a woman, but illegal between two people of the same sex. However, the court seemingly did not overturn the law on this equal protection basis.

[The Red Zone]

Why should God treat this nation any different than Soddom & Gomorrah?

Because it hasn't quite reached the equal of Sodom, which was an attempted community homosexual gang rape. But it's getting closer and closer and closer....

[TLBSHOW]

I can already imagine where CFR is going with this SC and that is right into law. I hope I am wrong but as you know

The Gift is to See the Truth

[Dataman]

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) dissented

The 3 most brilliant justices dissented. Therefore there is a correlation between stupidity and the acceptance of the homogenda; between brilliance and its rejection.

[spunkets]

"or the government bursting in to your bedroom in the middle of the night to make sure you're only having sex with your wife and, of course, in the proper missionary position?"

There's no reason for them to burst in during the middle of the night, unless it's a hot war. They'd like to check and see if you're up to code too...make sure you didn't fix your own toilet.

[aristeides]

I'm reading Scalia's dissent now. He makes a powerful case that Roe v. Wade is as worthy of being overruled as Bowers v. Hardwick. Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if this decision, Lawrence v. Texas, were used as the basis for overruling Roe in a few years? (The leftists and their allies on the Supreme Court have proved perfectly willing in this Lawrence case to use the stare decisis centrist opinion in Casey -- which was based on the unwillingness to overrule precedent -- to overrule Bowers.)

[NewJerseyRepublican]

"And when they're done inventing a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, they'll move against other "antiquated" rules on sexual matters, like those barring sexual congress with your children." 'Sexual congress' with children is considered rape, and rightfully so. Statutory rape, beastiality, and homosexuality are completely different, because the latter occurs with adult consent, and the last two, by definition, cannot.

[ellery]

Hmm...here's the text of the 14th amendment:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

[Phantom Lord]

I have no problem with prostitution. It is the combination of sex and free market commerce. Which are you opposed to?

[jimt]

What bothers me is the next step...Legalizing Homosexual Marriage...I support right to privacy...I wish homosexual would stop sticking their life style up and personal in my face and demanding I accept it as normal...

Homosexual "marriage" is not logical, unless marriage is to be redefined as "a relationship between two or more entities".

I don't want it in my face either. The reason I get along so well with my gay neighbors is they keep it in the house where it belongs.

It ain't "normal", and it never will be.

[aristeides]

It's all a house of cards built on prior decisions of the court. "Due process" in the 14th Amendment was taken to include a right to privacy, and that right to privacy has gradually been extended.

[drjimmy]

Upholding laws that existed from the start of the country should have been a no-brainer. Like the laws or not, they were supported by the Founders and the original 13 states. To claim they are unconstitutional is absurd.
Yeah. It was a real bummer when slavery was done away with.

[ellery]

Well until today they couldn't legally consent to committing sodomy either could they?

I don't think the Texas homosexual sodomy issue was a matter of legal consent, but instead a matter of an overall illegal act. That to me is different from sex with a minor -- because a minor can't enter into contracts or legally consent to anything (nore can an animal, by the way). In the first case, it was consensual, but not legal. In the latter, it is illegal and also by definition non-consensual.

[Gritty]

I keep hearing the Democrats screeching this is a "Republican Court". Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is an aggressively legislating Court!

[B-Chan]

The next step?

---

Supreme Court Strikes Down Necro Sex Ban

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

The 6-3 ruling takes its impetus from a ruling in 2003 that states could not punish persons for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

The case is a major reexamination of the rights and acceptance of necrophiliacs 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, whether living or dead.

Thursday's ruling invalidated a Texas law against "deviate sexual intercourse with a deceased individual."

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 necrophiliac persons," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

[ellery]

Well, they have a right to demand you recognize homosexuality as normal -- and you have the same right to tell them to pound salt. :-)