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

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban
FOXnews

Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0amanreapswhathesews; 0bedroomkgb; 0godwillnotbemocked; 1aslimmeyslope; 1scrotus; 1slimmeyslope; 3branchesofgovt; activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ageofconsentlaws; aides; aidesincreasetaxesup; aidesintheusa; aidesupinsuranceup; aidsalert; antibiblecountry; antichristiantrolls; antirelgiontrolls; antireligion; antireligionbigots; antireligiontroll; aregayapparel; arroganceofscotus; ascrotus; assthumpingidiots; biblethumpingmorons; biggovernmentcorrupt; bluenose; blueoyster; bohica; bowtothesecularstate; bowtothewelfarestate; bugger; buggered; buggerer; buggery; busybodieslose; buttpirate; buyvaselinestock; catsdogsmice; celebratesin; chickenlollipoppers; christianbashing; civilrights; clintonlegacy; constitutiontrashed; crazyfundies; culturewar; davidsouterisafaggot; deathoftheusa; deathofthewest; degeneracy; depravity; destructionofusa; devianceuptaxesup; deviantsex; donwenow; downourthroats; downwenoware; druglaws; endofcivilization; evilinactivistcourts; evilinrighttoprivacy; falalafalalalalala; falalalalalalalala; farkinqueers; fecalcontact; fools; fudgepackersdelight; fundiesinthecloset; fundyhysteria; gay; gayagenda; gayarrogance; gaybashing; gaycheese; gaycivlrights; gaydar; gaygestapo; gaykeywords; gaymafia; gaymarriage; gaymoose; gaynarcissist; gaypride; gayrights; gaysarevictimtoo; gayscelebrate; gaysholdusacaptive; gaysoutofcloset; gaysremakeamerica; gayssuppressthetruth; gaystapo; gaytrolldolls; gaytyrants; gayvote; getoutofmyroom; goawaymrsgrundy; godless; godsjudgement; godswrath; governmentschoolsex; hatecrimelegislation; himom; hitlerywins; homeschoolnow; homoapologists; homophobes; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexualagendawins; homosexualvote; hyperventilating; ihavearighttosin; ihaverights; incestlaws; indoctrination; itsjustsex; itsunatural; jeebuslovesgays; keywordwarsaregay; kitcheneducation; kneepadbrigade; lawrencevtexas; legislatinghate; legislatingsin; legislaturemakeslaws; lewinksys4all; lewinsky; lewinskys; liars; liberalagenda; libertariansareevil; libertines; lotsdaughters; lpcausesbo; makejeebuscry; manboylove; manboyloveassoc; manholeinspectorjoy; menwithmen; moralrelativism; moralrelativistinusa; msgrundypatrol; mycousinknowsclay; nambla; namblawillwinnext; onepercentrulesusa; oralsex; ourgayapparel; paulwellstone; pcdecision; pederasty; peepingtomgovt; perversion; perverts; preverts; prisoners; privacyprotection; prostitutionlaws; publichealthhazard; puritanslose; readtheconstitution; relgionbashing; religionbashing; romans1godswrath; rosieishappytoday; rosietypes; rumprangers; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage; samesexmarriages; scotusknowsbest; scotusmakeslaw; scotustrumpsgodslaw; scotustrumpstate; scotustyranny; scrotus; sexeducation; sexindoctrination; sexpolice; sin; singlorified; slimmeyslope; slipperyslop; slipperyslope; slouching; slurpslurp; snitchonyourneighbor; sodomandgomorrah; sodomites; sodommites; sodomy; sodomylaw; sodomylaws; spyinthebushes; statesrights; stronginthesouth; supremecourt; swalloworspit; talibanintheusa; talibannedtrolls; texassodomylaw; thefunpolice; thegayelite; thegayvote; thisisevil; tisseasontobeunhappy; tistheseason; tobejolly; usathirdworldcountry; vicesnowvirtues; victimlesscrime; victimsofaids; victimsofhepatitus; weakinthehead; whatstatesright; womenwithwomen; zscrotus; zslimmeyslope; zzgoodruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,701-1,734 next last
To: Thane_Banquo
This was a bad decision. 10th amendment.
101 posted on 06/26/2003 7:34:50 AM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("Say Hey! Hey! Damn Yankee!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


102 posted on 06/26/2003 7:35:01 AM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Past Democrat
Santorum's argument will come into play now,

Then we can expect libs to demand his resignation for his comments, and simultaneously agree with his comments in their justification for incest/polygamy, etc.

103 posted on 06/26/2003 7:36:02 AM PDT by sam_paine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: toothless
"I never cease to be stunned by Freepers who want big government in people's bedrooms. " Not all freepers are conservatives, many are religious fundamantalists.

Many of the religious wackos lsecretly long for a Taliban like repression of legal statements and legal acts they don't like.

104 posted on 06/26/2003 7:36:10 AM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-
I think maybe you have law confused with religion.

Cute.

The original post I was replying to said government should not regulate morality. All laws are based on regulation of moral issues. Murder is a moral issue. Rape is a moral issue. Tax evasion is a moral issue.

If we didn't want government regulating morality, we would have to get rid of government altogether.

105 posted on 06/26/2003 7:36:11 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
O'Connor will say that an animal cannot give consent

She should then tell Bob Barker to stop instructing people to get their pets neutered at the end of every episode of The Price is Right. Dog's can't consent to getting their 'nads lopped off, either.

106 posted on 06/26/2003 7:36:12 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: poet
One more indication of America's slow agonizing death.

America's death will lie in completely abandoning the principle of individual freedom. You know, it's founding principle. You're making a good start.

107 posted on 06/26/2003 7:36:27 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
There is already a sizeable movement in the psychiatry and psychology industries to say that children can indeed consent to being molested and that it is not injurious to them.

Prove that this movement is "sizeable." One or two wackos does not a movement make.

You're getting hysterical.

108 posted on 06/26/2003 7:36:53 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
And I understand from reports that the decision specifically addressed the sexual act is protected in the privacy of their own home.
109 posted on 06/26/2003 7:36:57 AM PDT by justshe (Educate....not Denigrate !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Many of the religious wackos lsecretly long for a Taliban like repression of legal statements and legal acts they don't like.

Why is killing people wrong? Just asking.

110 posted on 06/26/2003 7:37:40 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Rape is a crime but what about sexual relationship involving "willing" 24 year old male and his "consenting" 21 year old sister? Under this silly ruling this little foray is a-OK by my reading.
111 posted on 06/26/2003 7:37:56 AM PDT by BaghdadBarney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: JustAnAmerican
I will wait for the section of this that says this applies to "Grown-ups" only. Let me know when you find it.
When the Supreme Court throws out a bad law it is very specific about what and why. One would presume that Texas has other laws regarding sexual activity involving minors. If not, they have work to do. This case did not involve minors, so no ruling was made regarding such.

-Eric

112 posted on 06/26/2003 7:38:52 AM PDT by E Rocc (statism is statism is statism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
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;
113 posted on 06/26/2003 7:39:16 AM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Past Democrat
Honey....wheres the peanut butter?
114 posted on 06/26/2003 7:39:31 AM PDT by Florida_Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Genesis 19

Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.
2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate.
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house.
5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door.
11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
12 The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here-sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here,
13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry [1] his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."
16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them.
17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!"
18 But Lot said to them, "No, my lords, [2] please!
19 Your [3] servant has found favor in your [4] eyes, and you [5] have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I'll die.
20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it-it is very small, isn't it? Then my life will be spared."
21 He said to him, "Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of.
22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it." (That is why the town was called Zoar. [6] )
23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land.
24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah-from the LORD out of the heavens.

115 posted on 06/26/2003 7:39:48 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #116 Removed by Moderator

To: unspun
"Right to Privacy... let's see, Right to Privacy..."

Hmm....

Don't seem to really find that in the Constitution....

Keep looking--it's right next to the part that says the Federal or state government can regulate consensual sexual behavior between adults.

117 posted on 06/26/2003 7:40:02 AM PDT by nravoter (I've given a name to my pain, and it's "Hillary".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
Where in the Constitution does it say that laws cannot be made that use gender as the deciding factor in the severity or even the commission of a crime?

Is the rape of a male by a male considered as bad as rape of a female by a male?

Once again, this court just wrote into the Constitution that which was not there.

118 posted on 06/26/2003 7:40:22 AM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
BTW - That said, I don't support laws that criminalize private acts between consenting adults in someone castle.
119 posted on 06/26/2003 7:40:36 AM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("Say Hey! Hey! Damn Yankee!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
Homosexuals do not want privacy, I live across the street from a pair that like to exibit their depravity to the neighborhood kids in front of their picture window.
120 posted on 06/26/2003 7:40:52 AM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
"Adult" is whatever a legislature says it is.

Watch for boy-lovers to push the defintion down.

It will have to be attempted legislatively, and it will fail.

-Eric

121 posted on 06/26/2003 7:41:13 AM PDT by E Rocc (statism is statism is statism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

The Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay sex Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

The case is a major reexamination of the rights and acceptance of gay people in the United States. More broadly, it also tests a state's ability to classify as a crime what goes on behind the closed bedroom doors of consenting adults.

Thursday's ruling invalidated a Texas law against "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex."

Defending that law, Texas officials said that it promoted the institutions of marriage and family, and argued that communities have the right to choose their own standards.

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

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, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Kennedy in full. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed with the outcome of the case but not all of Kennedy's rationale.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas 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.


122 posted on 06/26/2003 7:41:13 AM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

--John Adams

123 posted on 06/26/2003 7:41:21 AM PDT by jgrubbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
If we didn't want government regulating morality, we would have to get rid of government altogether.

What? That doesn't even make sense. Government's main job is to protect private property.

124 posted on 06/26/2003 7:41:23 AM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("Say Hey! Hey! Damn Yankee!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
"If we didn't want government regulating morality, we would have to get rid of government altogether."

Really, I thought the reason we had laws and governments was that the alternative is anarchy. The majority of the laws you mention may represent some general sort of morality of the "golden rule" type, but not necessarily a codification of traditional Judeo-Christian morality.
125 posted on 06/26/2003 7:41:24 AM PDT by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: unspun
"Right to Privacy... let's see, Right to Privacy..." Hmm.... Don't seem to really find that in the Constitution....

Do you really think the constitution gives us our rights? Our rights come from our creator. The Constitution limits government rights not individual rights. One of Madison's concerns in drafting the Bill of Rights was that those enumerated rights would become the ONLY protected rights. It appears that today even conservatives wish for a powerful federal government that restrains us within the narrow framework of the Bill of Rights.

126 posted on 06/26/2003 7:42:50 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Freedom: America's finest export.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone
This is bizarro as hell, pardon my french. I could have expected it to have been overturned on equal protection grounds (i.e. because TX didn't forbid male to female anal sex acts on equal terms) but "privacy"?

Excellent point. I am all for the results of the ruling (yep, consenting adults and all that..), but the "privacy" issue needs to be addressed. When a court can manufacture "rights" out of thin air, there is no end to the mischief that can result.

127 posted on 06/26/2003 7:43:11 AM PDT by Paradox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
It has long been established, by the 14th Amendment, that states may not infringe Constitutional rights. The question is: how was the Constitutional right to sodomize established? It is based on an awful decision, that also led to the "right to abortion": Griswold v. Connecticut.
128 posted on 06/26/2003 7:43:46 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
"I never cease to be stunned by Freepers who want big government in people's bedrooms."

How about people's barns as well?
129 posted on 06/26/2003 7:43:59 AM PDT by BaghdadBarney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot
I'm sure despite the fact that the Supreme Court should have certainly deferred to consult you on the matter, they've taken all these things into consideration and did not foresee the apocalyptic collapse of America as we know it by overturning this law.
130 posted on 06/26/2003 7:44:00 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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.

O'Connor seemed to have changed her mind about her vote in the 1986 Bowers case

131 posted on 06/26/2003 7:44:03 AM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
Prove the animal didn't give consent, the woman sticks it in the air and the animal jumps on thats consent, and that's what we are heading for
132 posted on 06/26/2003 7:44:09 AM PDT by Past Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine; Grando Calrissian; discostu; MineralMan
PING Check out this lively debate!
133 posted on 06/26/2003 7:44:31 AM PDT by LanPB01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Don't seem to really find that in the Constitution....

You have to look in the "penumbras."

134 posted on 06/26/2003 7:46:00 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-
"It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

--Patrick Henry

135 posted on 06/26/2003 7:46:30 AM PDT by jgrubbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "

Apparently some people think the states did not have laws against homsexuality when the Constitution was ratified.
Or they don't care and just read into this whatever rights they want to, instead of what the founders meant.
Nothing like a living Constitution for flexibility.

136 posted on 06/26/2003 7:47:43 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
Do you really think the constitution gives us our rights? Our rights come from our creator. The Constitution limits government rights not individual rights. One of Madison's concerns in drafting the Bill of Rights was that those enumerated rights would become the ONLY protected rights. It appears that today even conservatives wish for a powerful federal government that restrains us within the narrow framework of the Bill of Rights.
Bump.

I cringe every time I hear some conservatives say that our legal rights are only the rights enumerated in the US Constitution.

137 posted on 06/26/2003 7:47:58 AM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Government's main job is to protect private property.

It is? Where'd that come from?

The job of government is to promote the common good, or the "general welfare" as it's termed in the Constitution.

Why? The whole is greater than its parts. Therefore the common good is greater than the good for any single citizen.

138 posted on 06/26/2003 7:48:29 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
When a court can manufacture "rights" out of thin air, there is no end to the mischief that can result.

Exactly! That is the problem, and we've seen the results of this sort of thing before (millions of dead pre-born children).

139 posted on 06/26/2003 7:48:35 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: DaGman
An amendment to do what?

Regarding limits on privacy.

140 posted on 06/26/2003 7:48:44 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
A lot of people on this board seem upset that they weren't consulted to add their brilliant legal input. Look out, there's a queer behind every tree! And they've brought along their dogs, NAMBLA, and incestuous desires with them!
141 posted on 06/26/2003 7:48:56 AM PDT by LanPB01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Past Democrat
Prove the animal didn't give consent, the woman sticks it in the air and the animal jumps on thats consent, and that's what we are heading for

You think Americans just can't wait to start having sex with animals? .

142 posted on 06/26/2003 7:49:26 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
So, can I smoke pot in the privacy of my home?
Can I molest my children?
Can I make bombs?
Where will the line be drawn now?

>singing< One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just does not belong...

143 posted on 06/26/2003 7:49:38 AM PDT by Jonathon Spectre (Nazis believed they were doing good)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: finnman69; sinkspur
It is NOT the same thing and Santorum was 100% wrong on this. I hope the wacko NAMBLA types who are the REAL PERVERTS in America try to push for legalization of child rape. They will be slapped back sof ast it will amke their heads spin.

SCOTUS has crippled state legislatures' power to deal with sexual offenses by making "adult consent" the touchstone of future legislation. States will not be allowed to enact more stringent legislation--only more permissive legislation. Future attacks will be square on the definition of "adult."

It is entirely possible that in future challenges, SCOTUS, employing today's and Roe v. Wade's quasi-judical legislative power, might well substitute its own definition of what age consitutes "adult capacity to consent" and force the states to accomodate pedophiles who love children if the children are not younger than--say--12 years old, and that children between 12 and 16 must be rebuttably presumed to have capacity to consent etc (c.f., the first, second, and third trimester rationales in Roe v. Wade).

SCOTUS has placed a one-way ratchet lock on state power. Ya just gotta love all that federal judical activism in the name of Griswold-Roe v.Wade privacy.

144 posted on 06/26/2003 7:49:43 AM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
My question is, how did the cops know these guys were having sex? Were they in their own house?

Most gays believe they have the *right* to have sex anywhere, not just in the privacy of their own home. That assumption is completely wrong. What you do in your own home is your business, but don't even think that means you have the right to have sex in a gay club, fitness center, public bathroom, etc. Dime to donuts they think this ruling will allow them this 'freedom' to have sex wherever they want. But having sex wherever you want whenever you want is NOT a right. Period.

145 posted on 06/26/2003 7:49:44 AM PDT by rintense (Thank you to all our brave soldiers, past and present, for your faithful service to our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe; proxy_user
This is sad, because the porpose of the anti-sodomy laws aren't to invade anyones privacy, but to allow schools to banish the promotion of homosexual activities. With them, they could disalow Gay/Lesbian clubs, meetings, clothing, parades, etc. since it advocates an "activity" (yuk, never thought I'd call it that) that is against the law.
146 posted on 06/26/2003 7:50:32 AM PDT by Xthe17th (FREE THE STATES. Repeal the 17th amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
Why is killing people wrong? Just asking.

You know, HV, I am a consenting adult, and you are a consenting adult. If I ask you to kill me and you do, how can that be wrong?

147 posted on 06/26/2003 7:50:34 AM PDT by Under the Radar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
"This is just one more bullet in the heart of federalism and state-reserved powers under the 10th Amendment"

just like all those federal drug laws you love so much
148 posted on 06/26/2003 7:51:12 AM PDT by LN2Campy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You think Americans just can't wait to start having sex with animals?

Before the Internet this was something I only heard about, I am totally sickend by the beastiality spams that show up in my inbox. There are some real sick people in this country.

149 posted on 06/26/2003 7:51:18 AM PDT by jgrubbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
One can disagree with this ruling without engaging in full blown hysterics.

You would think so, but that hasn't been demonstrated on this thread yet.

150 posted on 06/26/2003 7:51:20 AM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,701-1,734 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