[Polycarp]

Scalia's dissent is absolutely devastating, an epitaph for Christian civilization.

[EternalVigilance]

LOL...I just posted Scalia and Thomas' dissent on the other thread, here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/936270/posts?page=40#40

Looks like we have it covered now! ;-)

[Jorge]

Scalia's dissent is absolutely devastating, an epitaph for Christian civilization.

Too much. Enough of the drama queen hysteria over this decision.

The fact is most sodomy laws have been removed from the books or struck down by the courts in most states FOR YEARS now.

The great majority of Americans oppose any laws that have sex police attempting to prohibit acts of adultery, homosexuality etc between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes.

Even most Christians who believe such acts are immoral do not support formation of the sort of fundamentalist Muslim-like state that stones gays and shoots women in the head in soccer stadiums for acts of unfaithfulness.

Truthfully, your obsession with what homosexuals are doing is not shared by most Christians... let alone the general public.

Furthermore, most are disgusted with the double standards of those who want to enforce sodomy laws against gays, but not heterosexuals. People can see through the hypocrisy.

[votelife]

Freepers, rather than waiting to see what happens with Estrada, we need to take the lead. That means presuring Senators, special interest groups, media organizations, etc. This thread is meant to be an ongoing effort to get this man confirmed. For too many years liberals have had their way on the courts. Now, President Bush is in a position to move the courts to the right. The election of '02 showed that the country is with the President. I think it's time to let Daschle, Hillary, and Pelosi know this is Bush country. Are you with me! Let's FREEP these people.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/847037/posts

[RealEstateEntrepreneur]

The number of states in which sodomy is legal was zero in 1960, 24 in 1986, and 37 in 2003--until today.

Why does the increase from 37 states to 50 states constitute an "epitaph for Christian civilization"?

[magellan]

It seems this law should have been challenged in the Texas courts and reviewed against the Texas constitution by the Supreme Court of Texas, prior to consideration by the SCOTUS.

[spunkets]

"Scalia's dissent is absolutely devastating, an epitaph for Christian civilization."

Scalia's dissent is an exposition of the court's err and bogus opinion. Just how do you find this an epitaph for Christian civilization? You do know that the SCOTUS is not the guardian of Christianity right?

[hocndoc]

I definitely agree with Scalia on this statement: ""To tell the truth, it does not surprise me, and should surprise no one, that the Court has chosen today to revise the standards of stare decisis set forth in Casey. It has thereby exposed Casey’s extraordinary deference to prece-dent for the result-oriented expedient that it is. ""

I am not a lawyer, but what I've read of the ruling doesn't seem to make logical points based on law and rational ethics. Instead calls on emotional arguments. Perhaps 4 or 5 of the majority are ready to retire and didn't want to work hard enough to make sense for us and the future. (I can find a possible silver cloud everywhere)

This law has me going around in circles, similar to the effect on me from/by any laws that limit free speech. I wonder why the court did not simply stick with liberty and pursuit of happiness? The separate States should have the right to make laws as long as those laws do not infringe on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Why shouldn't a person have to move to another state where an action is legal if his or her life or liberty is not infringed on? But, then again, how dare the State interfere with the pursuit of happiness of one person when his or her actions won't interfere with the life or liberty of anyone else's?

On the other hand, why should I have to live with what I consider other people's sinful lives thrown in my face every time I turn the corner. On yet another level, does the majority's views of God and sin give them the right to force the minority to conform? (Can we force muslim women in this country to stop wearing their burkhas in public? After all, I hate the discrimination against women of that religion)