SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[csconerd]

I'm ever so confused here. It's been my contention that this site, and those who frequent it, were in favor of freedoms afforded by the Constitution. In reading the posts of this, and many other threads, I find that some do support freedom, but only if it matches their own individual definitions of the term.

I do feel that the individual States should have more power than the Federal government. While I feel that State's rights should play in here, I feel that the State of Texas has failed in protecting the freedoms of her citizens when law makers sought to impose their idea of morality on them. Therefore, SCOTUS stepped in.

The legislation of morals has no place in a truly free society. By insisting on separation of church and state, the Founding Fathers were making it clear that religion had no place in the government of this country.

Hypocrisy is rampant on both the left and the right. So, I take a simple stance in day to day life. If my actions cause no harm or infringement on the rights of others, then leave me alone about them. Don't impose your ideas of right/wrong on others. Don't impose your religious beliefs on others. Not everyone wishes to hear the message you're attempting to deliver.

Don't like guns? Don't own one, but don't expect me to give mine up. Don't like abortion? Don't have one, I don't like it, so I won't have one. Don't like anal sex? Don't have anal sex. I certainly won't be doing it.

This thread makes me laugh when those posting here relate this situation to child molestation and other such issues. The basic difference is that in this ruling, sex between CONSENTING ADULTS is private and protected in whatever form it may choose to take, and there is no victimization. No rights are violated (unless you count those of the defendants when they were arrested). Therefore, no crime has occurred.

When a child is molested, there is NO legal consent. The child is a victim. There is a violation of rights. There is a crime.

It is possible to maintain your convictions and still have a free society. It means supporting a tolerant society. Many in this country cannot fathom such a thought. I'm most certain that many will spew hatred and "what-if's" at me as a result of this post. That's fine. It is their right. My message is not meant to be inflamatory, but it will be seen as such by many.

All I'm saying is that if you're going to claim to stand for freedom, then stand for freedom. . . ALL Freedoms, even those with which you may not agree.

All this talk of the 4th Amendment and 10th Amendments in this case. . . What of the 9th? The Constitution doesn't discuss sex. However, James Madison had the vision to make it known that the rights listed in the document were not the only God-given rights that the people of this nation possessed.

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

In other words, you have the right to choose your own path.

[tpaine]

The 14th is not fictitous. It may yet be the amendment that saves our RKBA's from the 'overregulators' among us. Reasonable "due process" must be used in drafting restrictive laws..
-tpaine-



If the 14th saves the RKBA, it won't be through the due process clause, but rather the "priveleges and immunities" clause. Due process doesn't relate to the drafting of the law itself, that is the central prohibition of the law, but rather the provisions for enforcement.

It is supposed to mean non arbitrary, with protections for the accused to challenge the evidence. It really doesn't say anything about the underlying offense.
-El Gato-


Not true.
-- 'Due process' must be used by states in the drafting of laws that could abridge our 'privileges & immunities', or deny our 'equal protections'.
The 14th protects our individual rights against all levels of goverment, and all prohibitive political schemes to 'legislate' controls.

If it's intent is substantually violated, the constitutional contract is void.

[jwalsh07]

The legislation of morals has no place in a truly free society.

Please, save the platitudes. All, and I mean all, laws have a moral component.

[jwalsh07]

Scalia's dissent is not legal reasoning; it's political posturing

Either you didn't read it or you were in the car with the ignition on and the garage door closed when you read it.

The majority decision stated that because in their not so humble opinion that the times were a changing, they had the right to abridge the tenth amendment. The cloaked it in mysterious "due process" and "liberty" but in essence what they sais was:

We don't need no stinking legislators, legislatures or states. We will put our finger to the wind and decide what is best for all concerned.

To agree with this decision is far out whether you're left or right or middle of the road.

Judicial Activism at it's worst.

[El Gato]

Judges. If someone is raped in their bedroom, it's a judge who does the judging of the rapist.

Hmm, I thought it was a jury of one's peers. Silly me.

The judge is supposed to see that the lawyers behave themselves and don't mislead the jury. Either set of lawyers.

This is something as serious as a rape trial. For traffic offenses and spitting on the sidewalk, a judge may try the case. (Although it's technically a violation of the 6th amendment if it's a crimial case)

[tpaine]

You are the one bleating platitudes, playing word games on the concept of 'moral' law..

Give us a rest from your religious concepts of morality.
We can all live with a 'golden rule' basis for our fundamental constitutional principles. Learn to live with them.

[Torie]

No, it is the Second Amemdment which protects the rights of gays to serve in the military. The right to keep and bear arms should have some meaning, rather than be a dead letter, and a mere vagrant on the waters of the law. In the modern context, to give it meaning, means that it protects the right of citizens to have the experience of keeping and bearing arms in the military, including gay citizens, thus barring the "wholesale exclusion" of gays from the military. At least that is the opinion of Professor Dorf, who put it thusly:

"Both of the foregoing proposals – a limited right of self-defense and a limited right to own or possess long guns – lack any direct connection to the military focus of the Second Amendment. My final proposal would address that deficiency. Even if we do not share the Founders’ skepticism of standing armies, we may well sympathize with the ideal of the citizen-soldier in the following sense: We are rightly concerned by large gaps between martial and civilian values. Nuremberg and My Lai teach that notwithstanding the importance of military discipline, the duty to follow orders does not excuse members of the armed services of their duty to follow minimal rules of human decency. The Iran-Contra affair provides a warning about how ready military officials may be to execute policy contrary to law if they are convinced that the civil authorities will turn a blind eye. The ideal of a citizen-soldier in the sense of a service member who is both of the people and subject to civilian control is thus very much a modern ideal.

"And how does the Second Amendment speak to this ideal in modern times? By providing a right of the people to keep and bear arms – that is, a right to serve in the military. Of course the government need not accept anyone who wishes to serve in the military. Exclusions based on physical fitness, military need, criminal record, and so forth, would be perfectly appropriate. But wholesale exclusions based on stereotypical assumptions would not be consistent with the ideal of armed forces drawn from “the people.” On this reading, the most substantial effect of the Second Amendment today would be to invalidate official military discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

"This proposal is not nearly as odd as it at first appears. Its great virtue is its synthesis of the Founding and Reconstruction as those periods are now understood."

You can find Professor's Dorf's rather lengthy Law Review article on ssrn.com.

Moving right along, in the context of the due process right to liberty where its exercise is fundamental to the person, the case for the extension of this precept to gays in the military would be stronger if the US were like Israel, where just about every Jew (at least male Jew) serves in the military, and the lack of such service is a hinderance to one's future career. Here, few of us serve in the military, and thus to suggest such service represents an exercise of a right fundamental to the person is a bit of a stretch. Most of us seem to get along just fine in living out our "fundamental personage" without having served in the military. But that doesn't mean some SCOTUS court won't go there, to the extent the Second Amendment is found wanting in that regard despite Dorf's arguments.

And there you have it. Isn't the law fun? And to think some of us get paid the big bucks to practice it. It is almost a scandal.

[jwalsh07]

I never mention my religion asshole.

Infinite Rights abound for all but the unborn in the 14th for you, you freaking hypocrite. Then you become a "federalist".

You make me laugh paine.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

FYI, I live here and the other FReeper SF'ers and myself have discussed our disgust at the very things I was talking about and you responded to (in disbelief I may add).

We don't like it, and we're FReepers. It does exist exactly as I stated, come by some of the San Francisco threads. You'll see what I'm talking about.

[El Gato]

Yes, but just like Roe, it will be expanded to allow those behaviors.

Quite likely. Didn't Roe originally only allow unrestricted abortion in the first trimester, allow regulation in the second trimester, and allow prohibition in the third trimester? Or was that an earlier case?

Actually given the scientific understanding of the day, that wasn't such a bad decision, but the understanding has changed in the direction of "life begins earlier", while the court decisions, and the laws themselves, have gone in the direction of "abortion on demand" anytime up to time the last portion of the living child leaves the birth canal.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Now that was an interesting curve ball...

[tdadams]

It does exist exactly as I stated, come by some of the San Francisco threads. You'll see what I'm talking about.

Or better yet, why don't I just rely on my own two eyes and decide for myself.

[Torie]

Isn't it? :)

I am just giving rat something more to chew on, and add to his dossier on me.

[spunkets]

"What of the 9th? ... However, James Madison had the vision to make it known that the rights listed in the document were not the only God-given rights that the people of this nation possessed.

Surely you're not suggesting that God is the source of a the corn hole right?

"By insisting on separation of church and state, the Founding Fathers were making it clear that religion had no place in the government of this country."

There is no requirement for the separation of church and state. There is only a prohibition on the establishment of a state church and a prohibition on restricting the free exercise of religion. Folks that believe stuff do so for their own reasons. Some, or part of those reasons can be religious doctrine. They're entitled to that.

"The Constitution doesn't discuss sex."

That's why the SCOTUS had no justification to junk the TX law.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Absolutely! You should come for a few weeks!

The tourist industy is down at the moment, so I'm sure you could get a good hotel for about $125 a night (or $100).

Meals for you and your Mrs. (er if you have one) count on spending about $100 without wine.

I'm not being facetious. You should definitely visit, and also make sure to save your money in order to come.

[tdadams]

I was being facetious in case you're a little slow at the moment. Do you really think I'd make some of the statements I have if I wasn't somewhat familiar with San Francisco already?

[tpaine]

You are the one bleating platitudes, playing word games on the concept of 'moral' law..
Give us a rest from your religious concepts of morality.
We can all live with a 'golden rule' basis for our fundamental constitutional principles. Learn to live with them.
1,446 -tpaine-


I never mention my religion asshole.
Infinite Rights abound for all but the unborn in the 14th for you, you freaking hypocrite. Then you become a "federalist".
You make me laugh paine.
-jw07-



I didn't specify your religion ,you clown.
But it's evident enough that we would be living under a 'moral majority' tyranny if your agenda prevailed.

Say it isn't so.

[Diddle E. Squat]

[El Gato]

And on a side note, I wonder how many of those criticizing the "right to privacy" on this thread squealed like stuck pigs with the Clintonistas tried to force that "know your customer" crap onto the banking industry. And how many have expressed concerns about the potential for snooping in the "Patriot Act"?

Those are clearly 4th amendment matters. No one was argueing that money laudering and terrorist conspiracies should be legal, rather the methods that the government uses to enforce those laws run afoul of the 4th amendment. If there is probable cause, a warrant can be obtained and the information obtained. But they have to first have the probable cause, they can't just "go fishing" for it.

[Thane_Banquo]

But here is another thing we should consider:

The opinion states that it does not apply to sex with minors. But now the question the court didn't clarify is what constitutes a minor, and what constitutes consent? These areas have always been reserved to the states, but now that the federal courts decided to ignore the 10th amendment, the age of consent (and what constitutes consent) will become a federal court mandate, not a state legislature's. I am not at all comfortable with that.

Again, I do not believe the state legislatures should govern what happens between consenting adults in private quarters, but I also do not believe the federal courts have the power to regulate on this issue, because the 10th amendment grants this power to the states and the people themselves.