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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban
AP via Yahoo ^ | 6/26/03 | AP

Posted on 06/26/2003 7:25:57 AM PDT by jethropalerobber

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-298 next last
To: ellery
Sorry if I'm a bit off-topic...I've just never understood this...

Made up cultural tradition. And the Thumpers react like Pavlov's dogs. Predictable, really.

201 posted on 06/26/2003 11:39:01 AM PDT by DAnconia55 (Thumping the Moral Ayatollahs, daily.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: najida
I for one am in favor of multiple husbands... One to dance with One to fix things One to talk to One to shop with And one for sex ;)

And I be the one that has sex with you, and not the one that has to listen to you? :)

That Polyandry thing might have benefits after all!

202 posted on 06/26/2003 11:40:59 AM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

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


203 posted on 06/26/2003 11:44:00 AM PDT by DAnconia55 (Cruel to animals?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
I could ask WHERE you get your moral instruction that more than one wife is 'immoral' (snip). I could ask you to cite it. (You won't be able to... it's a made up cultural tradition.)

Made up cultural tradition? Even if it were, what authority does the Court have dictate our cultural traditions? hmmm?

I guess in your opinion Jesus must have been a Thumper and a Moral Ayatollah, on the level of one of Pavlov's dogs, because he said;
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[1] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [singular], and the two [not, the three, four and five, etc.] will become one flesh'[2] ? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Now, if I were to ask you where you get your moral instruction that more than one wife is NOT immoral, and ask you to cite your authority, what can you cite that is anything more than a made up cultural tradition?

Cordially,

204 posted on 06/26/2003 12:48:12 PM PDT by Diamond (What ever happened to the 10th Amendment?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: trebor
the religious are the ones that use "sin" in reference to sodomy.

Well then I take it from your statement {Sex is morally neutral. That is man and man or man and women or women and women. There is no hierarchy. A man and women are not commit sin by enjoying each others company, nor are two men morally superior by enjoying each others company. } that you're talking about G-d's law when you use the word sin . I refer you to Romans 1.

205 posted on 06/26/2003 1:03:17 PM PDT by Taxbilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: jayef
You pontificated, "The point is that your intolerance is not what God wants." Well, you know what, you're precisely wrong! But you're at least bold with your foolish assertion! When this nation tolerates deviancy, it corrodes the society and destroys it, as shown repeatedly with the history of the Israelites ... so scripture proves you wrong, also. You're so far wrong that you don't deserve further recognition. But you further opined, "Jesus loved sinners and so should you." Sorry, homo-apologist, tolerance and agape love are not the same thing. But nice try, zoid. Peddle for the deviants to someone else. Your butties are disgusting.
206 posted on 06/26/2003 1:07:43 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
If you can cook, we may have a deal ;)
207 posted on 06/26/2003 2:00:08 PM PDT by najida (What handbasket? And where did you say we were going?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
I may get killed here, but I have never believed you can legislate sexual morality. I think the court was right. Most states don't have sodomy laws.

Abortion is interesting. I have long held in order to change abortion laws, you have to change the hearts and minds of women. This is happening. New polls show a clear majority of women are against abortion. I think it is quite possible that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned. This will not outlaw abortion (contrary to what libs say). It will merely send the issue to the states where people will be able to have a say in whether abortion is legal or not.

208 posted on 06/26/2003 2:01:43 PM PDT by nyconse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: steve8714
They'll have a yabba-dabba-do time
They'll have a gay old time............

209 posted on 06/26/2003 2:03:16 PM PDT by gathersnomoss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Taxbilly
OK boy's...out of the pool.
210 posted on 06/26/2003 2:03:56 PM PDT by gathersnomoss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
I'm sorry. Explain to me why you are interested in where people stick their penis. Beyond that, what is the compelling interest of the state?

How do you get around the discrimination against a class of people without using the sophistry of Scalia. There is no excuse for prejudice. Hiding behind religion to justify your prejudice is even more disgusting.

I'm not peddling anything. I can't find anything in the Supreme Court's decision or in my statements to you which would compel you, or even suggest to you, that you go out and have any kind of sex . . . gay, straight or otherwise.

You talk about nations tolerating deviancy corroding and destroying society . . . tell me, what happens to nations that tolerate bigotry and discrimination? I have a clue for you, the answer is not in The Bible. The answer, my friend, is in the Constitution of the United States.
211 posted on 06/26/2003 2:45:08 PM PDT by jayef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: jayef
jayef wrote, (we'll dissect it as we go)I'm sorry. Explain to me why you are interested in where people stick their penis. Beyond that, what is the compelling interest of the state? jayef I'm only morally responsible for where I stick my body part, sweetums. You are responsible for yours. When sexual behavior effects society (as in healthcare costs, disease, corruption of children), I get very interested in that! Don't you, dear?... Or do you want to play and someone else pay?

How do you get around the discrimination against a class of people without using the sophistry of Scalia. Baby, deviants choose to be deviants, and they want to be identified for their sexual deviant proclivities. The deviants have set the stage, not Scalia. There is no excuse for prejudice. When a chosen class of behavior is a corrupter of society and a BIG drag on the healthcare system, it is in fact a good thing to be prejudiced against that sickness! Sorry you pansy-assed liberal deviancy apologists don't understand that. Grow up. Hiding behind religion to justify your prejudice is even more disgusting. You brought up religious, little nettle.

I'm not peddling anything. I can't find anything in the Supreme Court's decision or in my statements to you which would compel you, or even suggest to you, that you go out and have any kind of sex . . . gay, straight or otherwise. What a stupid strawman to try and raise! You have been hanging out with the wrong mental midgets, sweetums.

You talk about nations tolerating deviancy corroding and destroying society . . . tell me, what happens to nations that tolerate bigotry and discrimination? Again, a certain degree of intolerance is healthy for the society. When you and your deviant butties succeed in removing intolerance toward your deviancies (if you succeed), you will have destroyed this Republic for what you prefer, in the name of tolerance for your deviancy preferences. I have a clue for you, the answer is not in The Bible. The answer, my friend, is in the Constitution of the United States. You haven't a clue, son, not a clue.

212 posted on 06/26/2003 3:07:21 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: gathersnomoss
Hillary is holding a celebration party tonight. The entre is Trout... or something that smells like it.
213 posted on 06/26/2003 3:09:44 PM PDT by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyRepublican
As Scalia warns, and warns mightily, in his dissent, this ruling stikes down many more than just sodomy laws. There is now a claim to be made by the majority's theories that all laws outlawing any forms of sex are defunct.

But beyond that warning of Justice Scalia's, what would stop it there. A anarchy of Liberty is King today. No laws may restrict personal behaviour carried on in private, or even kept "discrete" in public.

As I read it ...

All private Gambling of all forms has just been made legal.

The Drug laws -- excluding of public intoxication -- all struck down.

Prostitution -- as long as keep discrete in public, or in private -- legal in fifty states and all territories.

Bigamy? OKAY!

GROUP Marriage? LEGAL!

Incest between adults? The Supremes have spake: "Go to it!"

The terms of copyright and patent have just been set to Zero days -- as long as one keeps it private.

214 posted on 06/26/2003 3:43:41 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: bvw
And I'm sticking with an earlier comment I made.

This ruling also makes Income Tax, and tax truly "voluntary" -- as long as two consenting adults agree to something in private, the state has no review.

Abortion, suicide pacts, euthanasia -- all legal under today's ruling. Selling your children -- fine. (As long as they are not slaves, of course.)

Extreme amoral libertarianism has just become rule of the land.

215 posted on 06/26/2003 3:50:52 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

Comment #216 Removed by Moderator

Comment #217 Removed by Moderator

To: jayef
Furhtermore, the law is not intended to shelter you from things you do not like. The law is intended to protect your rights

A most excellent point.

218 posted on 06/26/2003 6:46:23 PM PDT by DAnconia55 (One wonders what these conservatives are trying to 'conserve'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
Made up cultural tradition? Even if it were, what authority does the Court have dictate our cultural traditions? hmmm?

Precisely. And thus, there is no morally legal basis (say as opposed to a law against murder) for passing legislation against things that you merely do not like.

I do not like country music. Or leftists.
In our current system of government, I shouldn't be able to ban them.

219 posted on 06/26/2003 6:49:30 PM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

Comment #220 Removed by Moderator

To: MHGinTN
When sexual behavior effects society (as in healthcare costs, disease, corruption of children), I get very interested in that! Don't you, dear?...

When guns effect society (as in healthcare costs, disease, corruption of children), I get very interested in that! Don't you, dear?...

221 posted on 06/26/2003 6:50:59 PM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: bvw
As I read it ... All private Gambling of all forms has just been made legal. The Drug laws -- excluding of public intoxication -- all struck down. Prostitution -- as long as keep discrete in public, or in private -- legal in fifty states and all territories. Bigamy? OKAY! GROUP Marriage? LEGAL! Incest between adults? The Supremes have spake: "Go to it!" The terms of copyright and patent have just been set to Zero days -- as long as one keeps it private.

Not bad. You were on a roll until that last one. No reason to alter copyright law. It's not the same thing.
And public intox should be fine, as long as you aren't driving or causing a problem. Some of us can get plastered and not start fights or try to drive.

222 posted on 06/26/2003 6:52:51 PM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: jethropalerobber
I believe the Texas law was fundamentally stupid and inappropriate. That said, I do not believe that the Supreme Court had the right to make that judgment. Accidentally getting the right answer from flawed reasoning, is just as bad as getting the wrong answer in my book. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

The law was wrong, but it wasn't up to the Supreme Court to do anything about it.

223 posted on 06/26/2003 6:57:06 PM PDT by tortoise (Would you like to buy some rubber nipples?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
Oh look, up rides another pink steed!
224 posted on 06/26/2003 7:02:42 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
Democracy without a slave class requires a fairly high level of moral behaviour, and sexual behaviour is a fundamental. While sodomy laws cab be too strict morally ... in that they restrict the private behaviour of a husband and wife. Otherwise they are good law.

Still, don't think that this ruling will not have far-reaching impact in general on laws of contract and property. It will. It is a theory of law that the majority employed which will soon enough allow the big fish to completely swallow the small fish in commericial activity.

Why? Because it hinges on "consenting adults" -- the trouble being that while the parties to a contract may be adult and consent, many forms of pressure can be applied by the big to force the weak to terms disadvantageous to the weak.

As I said -- not only a new system of law based on amoral selfishness, but a slave class has been birthed in this bastard ruling.

And that is my last on this.

225 posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:28 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
Gee, wouldn't want two men practicing ANAL INTERCOURSE to feel DEMEANED, would we?

This Texan wants to take a shower. With a steel wool washcloth. I am humiliated and horrified. God save us.

226 posted on 06/26/2003 7:22:12 PM PDT by Churchjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyRepublican
Sounds about right. Sodomy laws are pointlessly unenforcable in the first place. Anything that takes the federal government out of our private lives is fine by me. Dude, that just inserted the feds into our lives, here in Texas. The SC overturned a state law that was perfectly okay by the majority of us Texans. Now, we must observe nine federal men's opinion.
227 posted on 06/26/2003 7:30:14 PM PDT by Churchjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief
"Well, if a ruling can be reversed once,
then it can certainly be reversed again."

How? The Court cannot review the constitionality of laws that have been struck down. What kind of case could be brought before them regarding defunct sodomy laws?
228 posted on 06/26/2003 7:31:18 PM PDT by Coronal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Oh look, up rides another pink steed!

I got your pink steed right here, baby.

229 posted on 06/26/2003 7:42:57 PM PDT by DAnconia55 (Sodomy. It isn't just for queers anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Seriously. Not gay. And it's umm.... very disturbing.

But I really don't care what they do with their parts. I'd rather not think about it. (Or hear about it for that matter.)

But that said, I don't run in fear from gays, and I don't want them to be made outlaws, jailed, etc.

230 posted on 06/26/2003 7:50:12 PM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
The heart of the matter, to this old man, is that the SCOTUS should not have even taken this case, much less ruled in a way to usurp the state's rights to legislate and remove bad law.
231 posted on 06/26/2003 8:44:04 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
Don't forget that "rights of the child" crap that is floating around now, as well as the APA discussing removing pedophilia's description as a mental illness. All perversions will be mainstreamed, and acceptance will be forced. Remember that the sins of the New Age are not incest, murder, or molestation, they are intolerance and (tobacco)smoking.
232 posted on 06/27/2003 4:45:24 AM PDT by steve8714
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
I have a question for everyone who thinks this is a federal power grab(by the judiciary in this case):

What if there were no 14th Amendment? Would affirmative action policies then be constitutional when enacted by state institutions?

Really, is there anyone here who would say "The state has a right to make racially biased laws, provided the electorate(composed of a potentially biased group) vote in officials that enact these laws!"

Sorry, the 14th isn't necessary to the anti-AA argument, though it is helpful.

If I'm correct, then people just prefer to read or not read into the Constitution what they will when it suits them?

Many people on this board would have had no problem if the court unanimously ruled in favor of this law AND issued an opinion supporting laws against sodomy, masturbation, adultery etc.

There are a few who are legitimately concerned about the overreach here, but most are really more interested in laws against homosexuals.

233 posted on 06/27/2003 5:00:26 AM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: steve8714
Oh no! The gays are going to get us!

See, unlike "normal" people, all gays believe exactly the same thing. They all have exactly the same beliefs and ideals. And you know what that is? To undermine America and make us all have sex with sheep! Its true, and this ruling only helps. By allowing homosexuals to express love for each other in a fashion we don't like, then they will take over! Its a logical progression.

Oh, and I'm surprised I have to say it but it looks like here I do, I am not gay, and I'm probably getting more than you guys are, from the pathetic way you act on here.
234 posted on 06/27/2003 5:03:24 AM PDT by thakil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: thakil
I said nothing about homosexuals. My larger problem is with the mental fudge packers at SCROTUS
235 posted on 06/27/2003 5:06:10 AM PDT by steve8714
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
Now, THAT'S bestial!
236 posted on 06/27/2003 5:06:56 AM PDT by steve8714
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Look, it boils down to this. Kennedy wrote the decision and his opinion is that sodomy is a fundamental right while the life of the unborn isn't.

Libertarian whackoism.

Up is down, down is up. If sodomy is a fundamental right, then health care, a home in the burbs and a college education most certainly are as well.

With Kennedy's reasoning anything is possible because one can argue that without those the "dignity of the those indivduals is not respected".

Assinine.

237 posted on 06/27/2003 5:14:08 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Thanks for the link. It's interesting to see the following, which is near the very beginning of Justice Thomas's dissent:
I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is ... uncommonly silly." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

238 posted on 06/27/2003 5:16:00 AM PDT by jejones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Uh, right. So since Plessy v. Ferguson established separate but equal, that means that all rulings from that point forward are directly related?

I understand the "penumbra" was invoked in this decision, but I don't think one need think Roe V. Wade should stand just because one agrees with this decision or at least understands it.

Your assertion that because one has a right to engage in conduct that does not infringe on your rights means that one can claim rights that indenture others into your service is risible. Please connect those two.

Be logical, does right to be a holocaust revisionist or spread "hate" mean that one day I can claim the right to a free car? WHAT?

Look, take a different approach because that one is doomed.
239 posted on 06/27/2003 5:21:57 AM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: TheOnlyClearThinker
If we don't have conservative judges who interpret the constitution as it should be, we will be slipping into an even bigger mess than we are now morally AND spiritually. This nation is in big trouble because of the liberal view of morals, abortion, homosexuality, you name it. If we don't get good judges, we're done for. It will take decades to recover.
240 posted on 06/27/2003 5:37:12 AM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD is still in control!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
I understand the "penumbra" was invoked in this decision, but I don't think one need think Roe V. Wade should stand just because one agrees with this decision or at least understands it.

This is either the statement of a lunatic or one who hasn't read Kennedy's opinion.

He, the hypocritical sob, used Roe as precedent. The penumbra becomes precedent for expanding the penumbra.

241 posted on 06/27/2003 5:38:51 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Sorry, with all the attention I actually read Scalia's opinion and only skimmed Kennedy's!
242 posted on 06/27/2003 5:44:55 AM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
You are absolutely hopeless. None of what you have said deals with the question at hand. Healthcare costs? Talk about a strawman. What does that have to do with Texas' struck down law? Deviants want to be identified? I suppose you would prefer that the state break into their homes and tag them . . . as was done under Texas' struck down law?

Intolerance is NOT healthy for society. Bigotry is NEVER acceptable in society. MY DEAR, you are the one who is sick. Your hatred has so twisted your mind that you would tolerate any transgression of the state . . . as long as it targets behavior and people you don't like. Well guess what, pumpkin, one day someone may define something that you do, may put some part of your existence on a hit list.

Won't it just be so fortunate that we will have already had plenty of practice wiping out the fags? Won't it be grand when the "morality police" come charging through your door?
243 posted on 06/27/2003 5:56:12 AM PDT by jayef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
These people don't even realize how much the thinking of the left has invaded their consciousness. Just like the Drug Warriors don't understand that their thinking perfectly parallels the gun grabbers. They think that hating gays is some kind of conservative value without realizing that they are giving away their authority to the state.
244 posted on 06/27/2003 5:59:13 AM PDT by jayef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Churchjack
The point is that YOU don't have to observe anything. As a heterosexual you were not the target class. Don't worry about it. Tomorrow you can wake up and your life will be completely unchanged. Of course now the gay couple down the street doesn't have to worry about the state busting down their door to see what kind of sex their having. That's not what you're worried about, is it, really?
245 posted on 06/27/2003 6:01:58 AM PDT by jayef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
Why even dignify this guy with an answer? I prefer he think I'm queer as Liberace. In fact, I prefer he live in fear of me the rest of his life and that his mind becomes so consumed with how me and his neighbors are having sex that he doen't have time to think about anything else.
246 posted on 06/27/2003 6:04:13 AM PDT by jayef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
Hmm -- whats the difference between a painting an a virtual reality rape of a child? Gee -- thats hard... You know that fringe virtual reality leads to reality.

Just like the guy that goes around killing all the cats in the neighborhood ends up killing people. Someone that ends up watching the virtual rape of children all day will end up raping a child.

We can put Osama Bin Laden in a blender -- there is humor in that and no one is going to go out on a killing spree. So don't compare other virtual reality to this -- There is something much more insidious and evil about getting off on the rape of child.

I hope you don't have children.
247 posted on 06/27/2003 6:24:13 AM PDT by Naspino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: jayef
Bigotry is NEVER acceptable in society

Definition: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

So exactly what part of bigotry is never acceptable? Having a strong partiality or not tolerating people who differ? Is tolerance required under the law? I have a hard time tolerating murderers -- am I bigot?

Sorry but this word has been hijacked by liberals. I'm a bigot on many fronts and proud of it and you obviously are partial to your opinion are not being very tolerant of the majority opinion of the people in this country so who is the bigger bigot -- me or you?

248 posted on 06/27/2003 6:31:59 AM PDT by Naspino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
"I predict that the next laws to be nullified will be those regarding sex workers/prostitution"

One can only hope.

249 posted on 06/27/2003 6:32:40 AM PDT by Kerberos (The problem is not that people know to little, it's that they know to much that ain't so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Most of you who are having conniptions over this decision, which finally brings us our of the dark Ages, will find your personal lives NOT ONE BIT different than they already were. For one thing, only a handful of states even had such laws on the books anymore, so only 13 states are even affected. Second, why are you so obsessed with where others are sticking their peepees, anyway? I have to wonder about you, and the phrase "get a life" comes to mind...

This is about CONSENTING adults. Maybe YOU want to live in a country where the Govt tells consenting adults what they're allowed to do in the privacy of their own bedroom, but I don't. Perhpas you should move to Iran or Iraq, where many sexual acts are highly restricted and severely punished.

And for those bemoaning the fate of ""The Children"...huh? We are not talking about ped0philia, we are talking about sodomy between consenting adults. Sometimes these consenting adults were man and wife, BTW--many states still outlaw what husband and wife do in their own beds. Even regarding homosexual sodomy, CONSENTING ADULTS are the focus here; ped0philia has always been, and will continue to be, illegal and severely punished. (BTW, over 95% of pedophiles are men who prey on GIRLS. Why don't you outlaw those freakish "Child Beauty Pageants" where the tots dress up in makeup and strut around like Hooters waitresses, if you're concerned about "Children"??).

Bottom line, in what purports to be a FREE country, it is absurd that any laws telling consenting adults what they can do behind closed doors have been on the books EVER. Thank God 6 justices realized this, instead of keeping us in a "Big Brother" type government.
250 posted on 06/27/2003 6:54:48 AM PDT by RDUBOOKS (I thought Republicans supported FREEDOM, not "Big Brother" governments who peer into our bedrooms???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-298 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