SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[E Rocc]

"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."

-Partick Henry

Even David Barton now admits Patrick Henry never said that:

Unconfirmed Quotations.

-Eric

[proxy_user]

I would say you are wrong. It is perfectly lawful, under the First Amendment, to advocate unlawful activity. Only threats are illegal.

[Kevin Curry]

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

The few that are, are very happy today.

And ersatz ethicist Peter Singer has written a book just for them justifying their preferred perversion, so there must be a few.

[B Knotts]

stare decisis is only for liberal scumbag decisions.

Funny how that works, eh?

[fooman]

Righto. The privacy issue is a canard to get rid of sodomy laws.

It will gay pride parade on main street. Sick.

Get used used to buggie-in-the-bu..
on dislplay.

I can remeber when the gay community thought that being bi was not pure-you were either homo or hetero by nature.

And now its one massive fun fest...

We will continue to be desensitized. Better bolt down the houshold pets.

[BaghdadBarney]

"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."

Unfortunately, Madison, as well as other framers, did not envision - and certainly would not countenance - nine unelected judges telling the rest of America what those "unenumerated" rights are! And he and other framers have probably turned over in their grave uncountable times in the last 40 years due to Griswold, Roe and other groundless Supreme Court "rulings"...

[Kevin Curry]

SCOTUS sided with individual rights, including private perversion between two consenting adults

That particular perversion is anything but private.

[RonF]

There's still the issue of consent. Animals and children, unlike an adult, can't legally consent, and the concept of "consenting adults" was part of the arguement and decision. Although an animal is property, so maybe that'll end up getting allowed. Can't say re: incest.

[Trace21230]

A common-sense decision that strikes down a case (Bowers) that was wrongly decided. A fictory for individual rights and liberty.

This makes up for the AA debacle.

Trace

[The Red Zone]

and the lowering of the age of consent

This may already be the case. If a state allows people to marry at a sub-adult age, then it now will have to allow them to do the sodomy thing too. Excuse me, I am about to be sick.

[jgrubbs]

Thanks for the Unconfirmed Quotations link!

[LizardQueen]

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

Me too. So much for "smaller government". Or do they want a small government that only is interested in who people have sex with?

Who I have sex with is none of the gov'ts damn business as long as they are old enough, of the same species, and we both consented. And no, I'm not gay.

LQ

[showme_the_Glory]

"did they issue an oral statement......."

sounds more like an anal statement

[showme_the_Glory]

"did they issue an oral statement......."

sounds more like an anal statement

[Puddleglum]

The SCOTUS has just become the most expedient law-fabricating branch of government. Why pass amendments anymore? It's such a draw-out, painful process. The SCOTUS will make rights up out of penumbras and do away with that pesky, Constitutionally-defined path for amending and explicating our rights when necessary.

I want to see the reasoning behind the decision and which passages of the Constitution it cites and explicates. I am afraid it is held up by so much hot air and penumbras.

[The Red Zone]

SCOTUS sided with individual rights, including private perversion between two consenting adults.

The problem is, the consequences don't stay in the bedroom. This is not like sitting down and talking to someone.

[The Red Zone]

SCOTUS sided with individual rights, including private perversion between two consenting adults.

The problem is, the consequences don't stay in the bedroom. This is not like sitting down and talking to someone.

[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.

It seems to me that an equally good case could be made that enforcing sodomy laws violates the 4th Amendment.

Not that I'm a Constitutional lawyer, and not that I think homosexual behavior is moral, natural, or desirable -- I just have a problem with the government making any law that requires spying in someone's bedroom for enforcement.

[Trace21230]

Your map is interesting but it is incorrect.

Sodomy is illegal in Maryland as well. (But rarely prosecuted as a crime.)

Trace

[Past Democrat]

Sinkspur, people have sex with animals everyday, along with multiple partners and many other things that are against the law, by this ruling if in your bedroom it not against the law anymore.