Posted on 06/29/2003 11:26:04 AM PDT by Polycarp
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I can see you, in your pilgrim buckles prosecuting a married woman that you caught giving her husband a hummer.
On the face this hard to refute, it makes sense. But a deeper look under the surface reveals some interesting facets of the Clinton era and those who voted to keep him in office.
(1). WOMEN VOTERS: They liked his looks, his phoney charm and his legendary zipper.
(2). THE ECONOMY: Clinton had the luck of a leprachaun going for him on this one. He inhereted a growing economy and rode it for all it was worth. Even though he had no economic plan of his own in place, people assigned their percieved 'wealth' to this charleton.
(3). CON MAN/ LIAR = The best con man of the 20th Century. I think you'd agree with me that Bubba was the greatest con man and biggest liar of the 20th Century. And don't forget, he had the entire liberal media behind him all the way, spinning fantasic stories of his great "genius" and Rhodes Scholar status, yadda yadda yadda, ad nauseum.
Hmm. We're miscommunicating. I'll be direct.
All laws that are called 'public morals' laws that have nothing to do with preventing force or fraud should be overturned.
Only the states that have laws against sodomy were struck down by this ruling.
If the 2 men had been smoking pot that they grew in the apartment, would the nation's drug laws have been overturned on the basis of "privacy" and consenting adults?
Now? No.
I understand the legal theory that says a 14 yr boy cannot legally consent to sex. But in reality I can't see how it hurts. I sure was trying my ass off at 14 to get laid.
Perhaps someday. Dunno.
Although its chauvanistic of me, I'm not sure the law should be changed for girls.
But I also don't see anything wrong with an age of consent of 16. (Britain has it. Italy is 14.). Their bodies can reproduce, and this age was MORE than good enough for the first 2,000 years of "Christian" history. But only in Puritan America has it been changed.
The idea of an 18 yr and one day boy going to jail for sleeping with his 17 yr old and 300 day old girlfriend bothers me.
But then again, it didn't stop me when I had an adult girlfriend as a minor, either :)
Whew. Talk about admitting you don't get any.
My wife and I engage in "sodomy" almost everytime we have sex. And I don't know anyone under the age of 50 that doesn't do it.
That enough support for you?
Our Puritanical history is causing this abundance of sexuality. It's a backlash. And will eventually subside, having washed away the Filth of Puritanism.
You have no one to blame but yourself.
See 205.
-- Edmund Burke
Uh-huh. Well, that's well and good coming from someone who was a subject of Royalty, and not a free man.
Things are different now.
The cat is out of the bag. And you're not going to stuff it back in.
IMO, the thing to do is figure out how to leverage this to gain the largest economic freedom at the same time.
That's really the only choice you have now.
The Puritans have forever lost moral dominance in America. And the quicker the GOP seizes on the new reality, the better.
You funny liberaltarians, you must be farmers - you need a lot of straw for all the strawmen you create.
You know, and I know, that I could give a s**t about what people - even homosexuals do in the privacy of their homes. But the homos and their assistants want their sodomy in the streets, in the parks, on the beaches, in the movies, on TV, in magazines, in schoolrooms, in school auditoriums - in other words, in public.
I think from this and your previous posts you have a psychological problem. Most people don't want to discuss their personal sex life like this. I think there are chat rooms where people do this, maybe you should consider going to one of them.
"Arbitrary" and "Unreasonable" are vague terms that activist judges can use to subvert the plain meaning of the 10th ammendment. Their ruling in this case was far more arbitrary and unreasonable than the law in question.
Yet here you are using those same words to castigate "activist judges rulings". Circular argument idiocy.
Our rights are given as gifts from our Creator. It then follows that you don't have the "right" to do what is wrong.
If you followed your Creators precepts, You wouldn't be forcing your version of 'right' upon others.
A nation and society has a right to defend itself from the destructive impluses of its members.
Of course they do. Establish destructive criminality, and write constitutional law to regulate such impulses. You'll have my support.
Take two nations that have equal resources in every other way. In one, the laws of Texas apply, go beyond it even, cohabitation is illegal and there is no such thing as 'no-fault' divorce when children are involved. In the other nation, half the population engages in sodomy and prostitution. The other half is cohabiting. Which nation will be the greater nation 100 years hence? Which people will be happier, freerer, and more prosperous? There is no doubt in my mind that nation whose laws best conform to the actual moral order of the universe will be the nation whose citizens are most blessed.
Prohibitional 'laws' on sin have always bred contempt for the rule of law from my reading of history.
Neither fed/state/local governments were ever granted a fiat power to decree things or acts to be 'criminal'.
IE. - Booze prohibition required an amendment, repealed when sanity was restored.
What are you talking about? Booze prohibition required an ammendment because they wanted to make it a FEDERAL law. Each state could proibit it if they wanted. Heck, I still live in a 'dry' county.
Commercial/public activities in alcohol use can be, and are, severely regulated by fed/state/local governments. - But booze cannot be outright prohibited for private uses. Same 'right to privacy' principle applies..
Yep, harmful criminal acts are the basis for law. What you believe to be 'sins' are not.
Don't tell me what I can have as my opinion for a basis for law. I have just as much right as you do to decide where the lines should be drawn.
I'm not telling you, the constitution is; -- we are all bound to support & defend its principles on where the lines are drawn.
Gay men have a life expectancy about 30 years less than heterosexual men. They take antibiotics by the handful to continue the unnatural acts they ingage in without constant infection. This does nothing but make the petri dishes for resistent strains that are a threat to us all. Most sex outside of marriage is exploitative of one or the other. The state has a vested interest in preventing exploitation.
You are over the line in calling for governmental controls over such individual rights.
Yes, intense dislike of busybody moral ayatollah brownshirts.
The fact that you're ignorant of the normal sexual practices of the huge vast majority of Americans is very, very telling.
How can you judge who is free when you yourself are a slave to your passions? You, who would condone and approve lewd displays and foul language in front of parents and their children in public places, are in no position to make pronouncements about freedom and its responsible use -- you know only license, only self-indulgence, only how to cheapen and demean human existence. And your threadbare rationalizations don't impress me any more than they would impress Burke or Washington.
There were slaves in ancient Athens who were far more free than you will ever be.
I just knew that somebody was going to cite the 14th Amendment at me.
Since when was sexual activity a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States? Do people in the world who are not citizens of the United States have no privilege to engage in sexual relations?
Do you think that all rights come from the federal government? Or do you think some of them just might come by virtue of one's human nature -- and generally that is the class of natural rights with which the federal courts are expressly not to interfere? (See the 9th Amendment, and the 10th while you're at it.)
Look, I think the Texas sodomy law was perfectly stupid. But where in the Constitution is the federal interest in seeing it overturned? Do you think the people in the several states are to be barred from arranging their local affairs in ways that seem sensible to them (whether we who live elsewhere approve or disapprove of their judgment) unless a federal court approves? Where is the limit to this sort of thing? Can you find it, logically speaking? (If you can find it, I'm dying to be instructed by you.)
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.