SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[fooman]

They gay/bi debate was over by the 80s. You can now be gay bi transgendered poly mo fo.

BTW since beastiality is a sexual orientatio, how long do you it will be before we have a case about it.

[jethropalerobber]

You are mandating amorality.

exactly how is this scotus decision forcing you to engage in behavior you find immoral?

[freeeee]

I can and will assert the right not to be around people who engage in homosexual sex.

If the land isn't yours, you have no such right under libertarianism. To assert such a right on land you do not own, or is publicly owned is initiation of force or fraud.

It's really not that hard to understand.

Under libertarianism you do have a right to free association. That means you do not have to do business with, give money or aid to, or be friends with anyone you don't want. It does not mean you get to banish anyone you can get a majority to vote out. That's democracy, not libertarianism.

[Sparta]

I believe Lousiania is the only state with an 18 drinking age.

We just raised to ours to 21. And it was under the threat of losing our Federal highway funds.

[tpaine]

The issue is not 'defining' life/liberty/property. -- It is that fed/state/local governments cannot violate those self-evident rights. The 14th clearly makes that point, which you deny..
Why do you WANT government to have the power to prohibit individual freedoms? It makes no sense.

I do not believe state legislatures should pass laws against private, consensual sex when no money is involved, but I also do not believe the federal courts have the Constitutional power to regulate in this area.

You deny the 14th amendments clear restrictions on government power? Why?

Even though I agree with the ends, I disagree with the means. If the 14th amendment is meant to protect a broad continuum of rights, then who defines these supposedly self-evident rights?

Ultimately, the people. They rejected the power to prohibit booze. - The 18th was soon repealed.

The liberals have since FDR claimed people have the right to freedom from want, which they have used to justify state-sponsored plunder and redistribution. I believe if any branch of government is to define what the 9th amendment means by other rights, it should be the voters themselves and their elected representatives, not unelected justices.

As long as the laws written or 'defined' do not violate individual rights, we agree.

[MineralMan]

"You are mandating amorality. "

That's funny. How does this decision force you to do anything you consider immoral? Are you suddenly going to be forced to perform homosexual acts? How silly.

[jmc813]

No, I'm against this vote because the people of Texas have a right to regulate their society for the greater good.

Should the people of Texas have the right to legalize marijuana?

[MineralMan]

"You are mandating amorality. "

That's funny. How does this decision force you to do anything you consider immoral? Are you suddenly going to be forced to perform homosexual acts? How silly.

[MineralMan]

"You are mandating amorality. "

That's funny. How does this decision force you to do anything you consider immoral? Are you suddenly going to be forced to perform homosexual acts? How silly.

[MineralMan]

"You are mandating amorality. "

That's funny. How does this decision force you to do anything you consider immoral? Are you suddenly going to be forced to perform homosexual acts? How silly.

[Dead Corpse]

That isn't evil. If she's that far gone, she'll never notice.

Real Libertarians cause potholes and delays in highway construction projects. We've also been tied to runs in nylons.

[gdani]

Should the people of Texas have the right to legalize marijuana?

Or, better yet, outlaw alcohol.

[MineralMan]

Ooops! Sorry. Yet another marvel of the internet.

[jmc813]

Now if we could only talk him into doing a parody of Dane on a thread about the "pro-drug counter-culture 60's".

;-)

[Clint N. Suhks]

The Christian Socialists don't like to talk about the pesky facts of heterosexual sodomy.

That’s because it’s different. Sex is not sodomy, sex is the possibility of procreation and all though sodomy between heterosexuals may not be procreation, sexual acts what ever they may be between heterosexuals can and does lead to procreation. For the same reasons we codify marriage as compelling state’s interest to preserve the traditional family unit, there is no reason to regulate such behavior for heterosexuals.

If you are going extend heterosexual rights to other forms of behavior then it open the doors to more than homosexuality, bestiality (personal property), consensual pedophilia and consensual incest have no better standing than homosexual acts and are equally justifiable.

[tpaine]

Recompose your question, in some sort of context . It makes little sense [it sucks] as written.

[tomahawk]

In addition, the marriage bed is holy. And only men and women can be married. Of course, SCOTUS will throw out that limitation, too, in about 5-10 years.

[MineralMan]

"That’s because it’s different. Sex is not sodomy"

Read the laws, dude. Sodomy is a matter of legal definition, and several states make no distinction between oral sex between a husband and wife and a couple of guys (or ladies for that matter.)

We're talking legal issues here, not dictionaries.

[tdadams]

You sound like Brer rabbit, "Please don't throw me in that bush."

Geesh if you hate San Francisco so much, get out. What are you, on probation or something and can't leave the city?

Besides that, I think you're exaggerating just a bit, trying to hoodwink those on here who aren't familiar with San Francisco. Tell me, on what street corner is this billboard depicting gay sex?

[MineralMan]

"Tell me, on what street corner is this billboard depicting gay sex?"

There isn't one. It's something like a couple of guys holding hands or something similar. Nobody's having sex on billboards in San Francisco.

[gdani]

Sex is not sodomy, sex is the possibility of procreation....

For someone who hates Clinton, that's a pretty twisted definition of "sex"

[El Gato]

Privacy is not an absolute right - and it certainly is not present in the constitution.

Well, it sort of is, in the 4th amendment right to be secure in one's person and house. It's certainly not absolute even there, But is only against unreasonable searces and seizures. The amendment provides for warrents based upon probable cause.

In the case at hand, there was no warrant. But one was probably not required, because there was probable cause to believe a crime was in progress...not the crime of sodomy though, but something like assault. Sort of like getting busted for possession of a controlled substance after being pulled over for a burned out license plate light.

[Dead Corpse]

BTW since beastiality is a sexual orientatio, how long do you it will be before we have a case about it.

Animals, due to lack of sentience, cannot give consent to such an act.

[fooman]

You are holding up pretty well here IMO, as well as others I imagine.

I am perplexed that people do not see the slide to nihilism with this decision. Its sad, really.

[fooman]

happened to me too.

[MineralMan]

"I am perplexed that people do not see the slide to nihilism with this decision"

Ah, that slippery slope. This time to nihilism, eh?

Slip-slidin' away.....

[Dead Corpse]

Bye kids... gonna pop out and have some dinner with the wife.

Peace...

[tpaine]

Clint N. Suhks:
"it's taken power from the state"


And therein lies the problem.
1,220 -CC-


Nope, no problem.. The states have never had the power to prohibit such activities, under our constitution.

Took a long time to establish this principle, but here we are.

[MineralMan]

"Bye kids... gonna pop out and have some dinner with the wife.

"

I'm outa here, myself. Time to call it a day at the old job, go home, cook up a nice filet of beef, have some Irish whiskey and contemplate infinity.

But...I'm sure another endless thread will appear tomorrow on this or another topic. Entertainment for one and all.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Sodomy is a matter of legal definition, and several states make no distinction between oral sex between a husband and wife and a couple of guys (or ladies for that matter.)

It's called Deviate Sexual Intercourse in the legislatures that define it dude.

[MineralMan]

"It's called Deviate Sexual Intercourse in the legislatures that define it dude."

Some call it that. Some call it the "infamous crime against nature." It's had lots of definitions. You're just talking about one of them. I see you have not bothered to read the statutes of the states that prohibit it. Try it...it's worth a laugh or two.

[jmc813]

Sex is not sodomy, sex is the possibility of procreation and all though sodomy between heterosexuals may not be procreation, sexual acts what ever they may be between heterosexuals can and does lead to procreation.

What about masturbation? Forgive me if I'm playing devil's advocate a bit, I'm doing so to get a better understanding of where people's opinions come from.

[The Green Goblin]

If you assert the right to homosexual sex, I can and will assert the right not to be around people who engage in homosexual sex. I assert it to the point that I do not wish to be in the same society as people who practice it.

You're in for a lifetime of disappointment unless you happen to move yourself into a hermitage in the steppes of outer Mongolia...

[george wythe]

For the same reasons we codify marriage as compelling state’s interest to preserve the traditional family unit, there is no reason to regulate such behavior for heterosexuals.

What you wrote seems to go against American traditions and American common law.

Heterosexual sodomy was illegal until 1960 in all states, and only recently have state courts and state legislature begun to desmantle anti-sodomy laws applying to heterosexuals.

What was the compelling state interest to regulate heterosexual sodomy until 1960?

[El Gato]

Due process means people have a right to the privacy of their bedrooms

That's not what due process means at all. It means there must be a pre-defined process for determining guilt or innocence where the accussed has the right to confront his/her accussers and present her/his side of the case. It says nothing about what may or may not be criminalised. Basically it says that justice cannot be arbitrary.

I actually think they used the "priveleges and immunites" portion of the 14 amendment to apply the 4th amendment to the states. I don't know as that is a proper reading of the 4th amendment though, since the 4th only protects "privacy" against unreasonable searches and siezures", not in general.

Now if they will just use the same 14th amendment provision to apply the second amendment, which is pretty absolute, to the state governments. But I won't be holding my breath waiting for them to do so.

[MineralMan]

"What was the compelling state interest to regulate heterosexual sodomy until 1960?
"

A serious case of blue-noses? That would be my guess.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Consensual pedophilia, bestiality (personal property) and consensual incest the Liberaltarians are hypocrites on the 10th.

[fooman]

That not my point, really. Beastality is a sexual orientation. Whether jo jo consents or not or whether consent is even relavent is debatable.

jo jo could be my property or deemed to consent. And since we are talking about a crime you may even have to prove that jo jo didn't consent. Besides, jo jo likes banannas!

The point is incest and beastiality are sexual orientations and should not be discriminated against.


It sounds silly, but the debate would shape up quickly like the gay purists vs the BIs of the 80s. Of course, in our slide to an amoral society the most permissive position always wins.

[Clint N. Suhks]

I see you have not bothered to read the statutes of the states that prohibit it. Try it...it's worth a laugh or two.

I have read Alabama's what do you want to know?

[george wythe]

She wanted to let Bowers stand and strike the Texas law on equal protection grounds.

Thanks Sandy for the clarification.

Do you happen to know where I can find O'Connors' opinion on the web?

I would like to read her complete legal reasoning.

[Clint N. Suhks]

What about masturbation? Forgive me if I'm playing devil's advocate a bit, I'm doing so to get a better understanding of where people's opinions come from.

In what context? I don't want it regualted do you?

[zoyd]

Consensual pedophilia

You use a phrase like this and expect people to take you seriously?

[sinkspur]

consensual pedophilia

No matter what phoney arguments you make, there is no such thing as "consensual pedophilia."

[leilani]

I'm with Clarence Thomas on this one: this is a truly ridiculous law (rarely enforced except for one time in the last thirty years, evidently, but the guys who brought the suit had cause), but IT AIN'T THE FEDS' DAMN FRIGGIN' BUSINESS!!! (And gee, do TRUE liberals really WANT the fedguv into every single infraction, misdameanor and felony? HMMMM? The long term consequences of that are not pretty for liberals OR conservatives , even if you think that guys should have a right to be with guys.Once upon a time, the constitution let states determine this junk. Those of us who've read the constitution thought that was how Jefferson & Co. intended it to be. Oh well.Guess Sandy O'C & Co. couldn't be bothered to lift their saggy eyelids long enough to seperate FEDERAL issues from state and local ones.

[Clint N. Suhks]

What was the compelling state interest to regulate heterosexual sodomy until 1960?

I don't know why, maybe for cultural reasons and the slippery slope that homosexuals might want to compare themselves to heterosexuals? Opps that already happened. Can you cite any legislature before 1960 that defined sodomy as "heterosexual" as the distinguishing context.

[justshe]

Yes....knew that....and thanks. Had a total brain fart and an 'itchy' enter finger.

[Clint N. Suhks]

No matter what phoney arguments you make, there is no such thing as "consensual pedophilia."

That's right, you Liberaltarians hang on to that 10th amendment when it suits you, doncha?

[Clint N. Suhks]

You use a phrase like this and expect people to take you seriously?

Prove me wrong.

[tdadams]

if that taboo is broken, then heterosexuals will start engaging in non-marital, non-monogamous sex, and cause all kinds of other problems such as adulterous relationships, children born out of wedlock and so on.

What century are you living in? Are you telling me this isn't already the state we're in?

How many single people age 30 do you know who are still virgins? Dang, non-marital sex. How many people under age 50 do you know who've had no more than one sex partner? Dang, non-monogamous.

You don't read the papers much do you?

[sinkspur]

That's right, you Liberaltarians hang on to that 10th amendment when it suits you, doncha?

I'm not libertarian.

Pedophilia is, by definition, unwanted.