Scalia: What a massive disruption of the social order this ruling entails.

US Supreme Court ^ | June 26, 2003 | nwrep

[TFMcGuire]

Thanks, F16,

This isn't the first time you've jumped in the foxhole for right.

Hooyah!

[Sparta]

And the state is dead wrong there too. The state should limit itself to keeping us from preying on each other. Punishing sinners is God's job.

BTTT

[ffusco]

"Talking about pandering to the legal culture."

He should dumb it down a notch. Instead of Anti-miscagenation he should have said "no jungle- fever"

/sarcasm on/

[Skywalk]

I apologize for mistaking you for that FF578 guy.
If you've seen his posts, you'd know what I was talking about.

Hey, how do you remember my old profile page? No really, how the heck do you remember, I barely remember it!

But please, trying to imply that I'm homosexual because of my picture or aspirations(Ok, if I said interior decorator you'd be on point) and hence I defend homosexuality is beyond ridiculous and insulting.

Next you're going to tell me I'm smoking weed and shooting heroin because I'm against the WOD.


BTW, I'm insulted but I thought your dig about my old profile page WAS pretty funny :)

[cookcounty]

"Well, in the case of your third problem with taxpayers paying for STDs, I would think that the simplest solution is to remove the socalist healthcare system so that you no longer have to pay for the consequences of people's stupid sexual decisions."

"simplest solution?" If you can get this simple solution resolved by next Tuesday, then I'll reconsider my beef. The homosexual organizations (all of them) want me to pay for their sin out of my pocket, then if I complain, they tell me it's about "privacy", and to put up and shut up.

[Skywalk]

Scalia is not the reegade here. He is standing for 200+ years of historical Constitutional interpretation."

Surely, then, you'll tell me what tradition Presser, Miller, Plessy v. Ferguson and the Dred Scott case fall under? The evil and tyrannical school of jurisprudence?

[St.Chuck]

I don't see much difference do you?

I'm thinking the only difference is the tax cuts. Maybe there was a deal struck. As long as the Republicans got their tax cuts, the liberals could continue their agenda, which would mean that all the Reps. cared about was tax cuts. If they care about more than tax cuts, evidently it's the liberal agenda.

[Skywalk]

No, you're just a loserdopian. ;)

[TFMcGuire]

it's not right to take the law into one's own hands.

But sometimes when the government does not do right, good people do take action themselves. Rememgber the lady who shot the repeat child-molester in California ?

Our forefathers just wouldn't take much nonsense. It's not that they couldn't have understood the Rainbow (ACK!) Coalition but that they would have understood it too well.

I would never go outside the law and hurt anyone but I do believe The state has a responsibility in this nation to encourage morality and discourage immorality as it historically has.

I do believe that Homosexuality is a capital offense against God and any nation.

[TFMcGuire]

Our nation was in the process of healing the unjust treatment of blacks long before the Civil War occurred.

Nevertheless, when you are arguing strict constitutionalism, I don't think you can argue that the decisions you mentioned violated the document.

Today people use the Constitution to defend whatever weirdness they want to practice. It doesn't.

The constitution is a social document. It is moral to the extent it includes the bill of rights and representative government by law.

The Whole body of American law, incuding the constitution is founded to a great extent upon unchanging moral truths taught in the Bible.

The Bible was the most quoted document in early colonial governance and jurisprudence.

Don't fear it; embrace it as light and life.

[Almondjoy]

Good post.

People are saying this opens the doors to all kinds of deviant behavior. Yet no one brought up the fact of that God would treat all overt sexual acts to be deviant. Make all porn illegal and make every sexual act in the bedroom except for the act of missionary sex(and only if you want to have a child!) illegal. That way we can all be happy.... what a joke. People just can't get the difference between what should be law.. and what should be their own moral behavior. Don't dicate what I do in my bedroom. Oh yeah.. don't forget.. masterbation is deviant as well. Ah shucks.. let's give people the death penalty for that.

[Dimensio]

Morality is objective.

If you can demonstrate the existence of an absolute frame of reference for defining morality, then I will agree with you. If you merely assert belief that morality is objective, then that is just a belief. Other people may have belief in an objective morality that differs from your own, and thus it's your word against theirs until you pony up evidence for your assertion.

I can tell you right now witout even knowing you that if you are male then you are not a monogamous homosexual.

I am not a homosexual, so I can't really say whether or not you are correct. I was not speaking of myself, however, I was speaking of homosexuals in general. That you seem to believe that there is no such thing as a male monogamous homosexual is indicative of either incredible arrogance or exceptional knowledge because it means that you have been able to ascertain the life history of every male homosexual on the planet. For some reason I believe that the former is more accurate than the latter.

Unless you define the term as having only one partner tonight.

And this is just a stupid statement. To assert that every male homosexual has a different sexual partner every night is just abject stupidity and indicative of a complete lack of assocation with reality.

I don't need to justify my arguments because they are correct.

In other words, you assert the infallability of your assertions regarding the existence and nature of an absolute morality as well as your assertion regarding the sexual history of every male homosexual on the planet. I can think of a term for that, but it wouldn't be "correct".

[GOPcapitalist]

You say segregation is not relevant and question my motivation in doing so, and you are wrong to do that. You state that I operate under an assumption that state power will always result in abuse. This too, is wrong. Instead, I say that the supreme law of the land supercedes the state's rights when the state is overstepping its bounds. PERIOD.

No. Not period. The supreme law of the land can be and often is corruptly enforced in a way that violates liberty. When an unjust federal law that violates liberty conflicts with a state, its supremacy is only valid in technical application, which can be itself invalidly applied. Thus a state could contradict a federal policy in a manner that violated statutory supremacy but was consistent with the law of nature and in such a case nature prevails, at least in right, over statute.

Do you or do you not support lifting all gun laws banning possession or limiting it(by number, cool-off periods, etc) because they are a violation of the 2nd?

On a strictly constitutional measure as intended by the founding fathers, I support a policy lifting all federal laws that infringe upon the right to bear arms. The states, as originally intended (meaning at a time that predates the 14th amendment's clauses to extend federal authority) and governed back in 1787, each had their own bill of rights in their state constitutions (In fact Virginia's original bill of rights predates the Constitution by several years and was the model on which they drafted the federal one). Almost all of the original state constitutions have rights to bear arms in them and, as such, those rights should be enforced just as the federal ones. For those few that do not have them, I will urge them to adopt those clauses but cannot exercise an unjust federal authority to enforce it upon them.

[cookcounty]

"the reason gays really want their unions blessed by the government ---after demanding the government stay out of their sex lives at first ---is because they want spousal benefits for insurance ---they can marry each other for the AIDS treatments paid for by the health insurance plans."

Dimensio response: "You know, I've seen a lot of discussions on homosexual marriage, different discussions biased on different sides, and I've never heard this argument before. In fact, given that most homosexuals don't have AIDS, I'm not sure how this could be a significant issue."

This is astonishing. HIV rates are vastly higher among homosexuals than heteros, I'm surprised you are not aware of the exrent of this problem----where have you been?

Even if only 80% of the AIDS cases in the US are among homosexuals, considering that supposedlly 10% of the population is homosexual, that means 80% of the disease is among 10% of the population. The simple mathematical facts are that one engaging in homosexual activity is 50 times as likely to be carrying (and spreading) this disease. It is easily the #1 life-and-death health risk for homosexuals. People are scheming and plotting all the time to get better health coverage, do you think homosexuals are morally superior and don't engage in such manipulations?

The "straight people" are supposed to pay for this, while spending $500,000 to raise the future doctors and nurses and taxpayers to take care of this self-absorbed group later on. What I would like to see from homosexuals is a little more willingness to pick up after themselves.

[Skywalk]

Didn't you know? All of us who stand for liberty and REDUCING the power of the state(be it federal or state or local) are homos who meet other gay men in parks and insert our penises into each others' anuses.

My girlfriend's going to be quite disappointed with this turn of events.

[TFMcGuire]

Good to know!

[Skywalk]

You misunderstood what I meant by supreme law of the land. I'm referring to the Constitution, NOT normal federal laws. Therefore, my point stands, and in fact that's what the Constitution is, by any interpretation.

[TFMcGuire]

We will not survive this without repentance. Homosexuality and other immorality destroys nations.

[Dimensio]

This is astonishing. HIV rates are vastly higher among homosexuals than heteros, I'm surprised you are not aware of the exrent of this problem----where have you been?

Even if only 80% of the AIDS cases in the US are among homosexuals, considering that supposedlly 10% of the population is homosexual, that means 80% of the disease is among 10% of the population.

I did not assert that AIDS or HIV rates amongst homosexuals are equal to or lower than amongst heterosexuals. I asserted that the majority of homosexuals are not infected with HIV/AIDS. Nothing that you have stated here (which is supposition anyway) counters this.

The simple mathematical facts are that one engaging in homosexual activity is 50 times as likely to be carrying (and spreading) this disease.

Wouldn't this depend upon their sexual habits? A male homosexual who sleeps with a different partner every week (even amongst the 'slutty' homosexuals I've met, that's a VERY high figure) would be at significantly higher risk than a lesbian who has only one ten sexual partners during her entire life.

It is easily the #1 life-and-death health risk for homosexuals. People are scheming and plotting all the time to get better health coverage, do you think homosexuals are morally superior and don't engage in such manipulations?

No, but I don't see 'getting free AIDS coverage' as a really big selling point for gay marriage amongst homosexuals. Healthcare is one factor brought up, but it never seems to be any more discussed than others.

[Dimensio]

All of us who stand for liberty and REDUCING the power of the state(be it federal or state or local) are homos who meet other gay men in parks and insert our penises into each others' anuses.

I always wonder why people in favour of sodomy laws always bring up the most descriptive terms in the discussions. They say that it's because they want to be blunt about "what homosexuals do", evermind that lesbians typically aren't able to do that and that there are even male homosexuals who aren't interested in such sexual activity.