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

.
1 posted on 06/26/2003 7:25:57 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last
To: jethropalerobber
Party at Mark Morford's
2 posted on 06/26/2003 7:27:08 AM PDT by steve8714
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jethropalerobber
Wasn't this one a no brainer?
3 posted on 06/26/2003 7:29:32 AM PDT by ItsTheMediaStupid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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

That is what laws against immorality are supposed to do! I predict that the next laws to be nullified will be those regarding sex workers/prostitution. After all, that is between two consenting adults in private as well.

May God have mercy on us!!!!!
4 posted on 06/26/2003 7:30:44 AM PDT by DonaldC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jethropalerobber
here is some more copy that was added:

Laws forbidding homosexual sex, once universal, now are rare. Those on the books are rarely enforced but underpin other kinds of discrimination, lawyers for two Texas men had argued to the court.

The men "are entitled to respect for their private lives," Kennedy wrote.

"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," he said.

Justices John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), David Souter (news - web sites), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) agreed with Kennedy in full. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) agreed with the outcome of the case but not all of Kennedy's rationale.

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

"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.

"The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."

The two men at the heart of the case, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, have retreated from public view. They were each fined $200 and spent a night in jail for the misdemeanor sex charge in 1998.

The case began when a neighbor with a grudge faked a distress call to police, telling them that a man was "going crazy" in Lawrence's apartment. Police went to the apartment, pushed open the door and found the two men having anal sex.

As recently as 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy law. In 37 states, the statutes have been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts.

Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four — Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri — prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws as well.

The Supreme Court was widely criticized 17 years ago when it upheld an antisodomy law similar to Texas'. The ruling became a rallying point for gay activists.

Of the nine justices who ruled on the 1986 case, only three remain on the court. Rehnquist was in the majority in that case — Bowers v. Hardwick — as was O'Connor. Stevens dissented.

A long list of legal and medical groups joined gay rights and human rights supporters in backing the Texas men. Many friend-of-the-court briefs argued that times have changed since 1986, and that the court should catch up.

At the time of the court's earlier ruling, 24 states criminalized such behavior. States that have since repealed the laws include Georgia, where the 1986 case arose.

Texas defended its sodomy law as in keeping with the state's interest in protecting marriage and child-rearing. Homosexual sodomy, the state argued in legal papers, "has nothing to do with marriage or conception or parenthood and it is not on a par with these sacred choices."

The state had urged the court to draw a constitutional line "at the threshold of the marital bedroom."

Although Texas itself did not make the argument, some of the state's supporters told the justices in friend-of-the-court filings that invalidating sodomy laws could take the court down the path of allowing same-sex marriage.

The case is Lawrence v. Texas, 02-102.

7 posted on 06/26/2003 7:33:40 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jethropalerobber
Kennedy..."The law,demeans the lives of homosexuals persons."

I thought that homosexual's did that to themselves every day !
God help us...
9 posted on 06/26/2003 7:35:51 AM PDT by OREALLY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jethropalerobber
The doors are now open for bigamy, prostitution, and incest!  Hooray!  I can hardly wait to tell my sister!

Owl_Eagle

”Guns Before Butter.”

10 posted on 06/26/2003 7:36:38 AM PDT by South Hawthorne ("It is unlikely there'll be a reduction in the wages of sin.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jethropalerobber
Homosexuals demean the human race by their despicable practices.
13 posted on 06/26/2003 7:37:18 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jethropalerobber
"unconstitutional violation of privacy"???

So what about the gambling laws that are violated behind closed doors? Voluntary sex between an adult and a minor? Dope?

15 posted on 06/26/2003 7:38:33 AM PDT by Taxbilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jethropalerobber
The dems are worried about "extreme" nominees and this "conservative" court?. What the heck for?
16 posted on 06/26/2003 7:38:58 AM PDT by Types_with_Fist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jethropalerobber
Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban

They make a deodorant just for gay sex?

18 posted on 06/26/2003 7:39:58 AM PDT by tnlibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jethropalerobber
Another piece of legislation from the SC bench?!

Where's the 10th Amendment?

20 posted on 06/26/2003 7:41:23 AM PDT by rvoitier (There's too many ALs in this world: Al Qaeda Al Jezeera Al Gore Al Sharpton Al Franken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jethropalerobber
Link to Kennedy's opinion.

I wonder if the RATs in the Senate would now approve Kennedy's elevation to Chief Justice.

21 posted on 06/26/2003 7:41:33 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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

And Anthony Kennedy is a conservative??

We can expect "yea" ruling from the SC on the anticipated forthcoming Fido-Harvey Fierstein case as well...

22 posted on 06/26/2003 7:42:23 AM PDT by F16Fighter (What color pants-suit did Hitlery wear today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jethropalerobber
For some reason--I must be a complete idiot--I can't find this right to privacy in the Constitution. I can find this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

(Fourth Amendment)

I'm kinda confused. Please help this moron who is getting the feeling that the Court is lurching left. If I'm right, and I must not be--after all, the Supremes are Supreme--it must be time for Stevens and O'Conner to retire, replaced by, say, Estrada and Owens.
24 posted on 06/26/2003 7:44:27 AM PDT by dufekin (Peace HAS COME AT LONG LAST to the tortured people of Iraq!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jethropalerobber
After the court ruled that child porn was legal so long as it was conducted virtually -- are you surprised by this. I guess this is not a ruling that Gephardt would issue an executive order to overturn.
29 posted on 06/26/2003 7:48:27 AM PDT by Naspino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jethropalerobber
This is why it is of utmost urgency to pray for the justice system in our nation. It is essential to get conservative, clear thinking judges in, despite the democrats. We need warfare praying for this. If we don't have a shift in the judicial system, we are sliding into more and more bad judgements. May God help us all.
34 posted on 06/26/2003 7:52:04 AM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD is still in control!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jethropalerobber
Yet another reason why we need to make sure we get (and keep) a larger Senate majority in 2004 so we can get some REAL conservative justices on the bench instead of the milquetoast liberal justices put on there by both Democrap and previous Repulican administrations.
35 posted on 06/26/2003 7:54:09 AM PDT by Reagan is King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jethropalerobber
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.
38 posted on 06/26/2003 7:56:33 AM PDT by NewJerseyRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jethropalerobber
from Kennedy's opionion:

"It must be acknowledged, of course, that the Court in Bowers was making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law."

54 posted on 06/26/2003 8:10:49 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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

Using these exact words? Boy was Scalia right. The Court has weighed in on the culture war.

63 posted on 06/26/2003 8:16:54 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

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