SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[88keys]

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;

Yes, but we're confusing "privileges and immunities" in general with specific "rights", which I think is Constitutionally suspect...seems to me the U.S. Supreme Court should not be issuing rulings at all on sexual practice unless you're going to say sexual conduct is somehow a protected right and privilege specified in the Constitution...

And doesn't this ruling infringe on states' rights? Times might indeed be "changing", but other states have simply repealed various laws without interference from the Supremes. I certainly hope this federal intervention was very narrowly tailored, or we could indeed be looking down a slippery slope; Santorum made some good legal points that he was unfairly excoriated for (look for the "rerun" following this decision) and I do wonder why O'Connor reversed herself...that inconsistency is a bit "troubling"...!

[68 grunt]

... whole truth ...

I don't know about 'the whole truth', but part of the truth is I'm laughing. At you!

[B Knotts]

Well, I agree that you have a point. My main complaint is that the same federal judiciary which has such a hard time recogizing enumerated rights, like the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is meanwhile finding various unenumerated (and arguably questionable) rights in the penumbras of the Constitution.

[justshe]

Rintense....in your example, based on the logic of the Texas law however, back rooms at clubs for heterosexuals WOULD be legal...and back rooms for homosexuals would be illegal.

That is not the case, however. They are BOTH illegal.

[billbears]

SCOTUS supports denies right to Privacy. of states to maintain their internal affairs as they see fit

The Republic is dead, long live the Empire

[NittanyLion]

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

That's a joke, right? Surely you understand the meaning of consent better than that.

[hopespringseternal]

This ruling only says that it is none of government's business what grownups do.

I can't tell you how overjoyed I am that the Supreme Court thinks its ok to f*ck a goat. /sarcasm

It's a good thing they focused on this rather than preserving second ammendment freedoms, or stopping such minor things as no-knock warrants and civil forfeiture.

People who celebrate rulings like this just don't have a firm grasp on reality. The Supreme Court is focusing on the rights of a few perverts while raping the rest of us blind.

[sakic]

but it will not allow parents to homeschool their children

Who said that you can't homeschool your children?

[discostu]

If they're sited on the 14th ammendmant it's clean. The problem with the Texas law was that it specifically target homsexuals performing sodomy, wasn't just a universal sodomy law, straights could cornhole each other and gays couldn't. A clear violation of equal protection. This shouldn't have any effect on sodomy laws that cover gays and straights.

[MaxPlus305]

I just have a problem with you thinking that it is only homosexuals that like to have public sex. In my experience, I know of a lot more heteros that like to have that kind of kinky fun (although it's probably because I know more heteros than homos). Anyway, minor point.

[Kevin Curry]

Peeking in windows??? Have you walked down any city street recently and looked at anything going on above shoe level?

[Ol' Sparky]

Obvously, the constitution nor the original intent of the Founders mean a thing any more...

[george wythe]

We have plenty of swing clubs in South Florida where married couples go to have sex, including illegal sodomy.

Some of our zealous sheriffs busted a couple of swing clubs, and we found out that teachers, judges, businessmen, and even cops were part of the swing scene.

Most of the sodomy commited in Florida is done by heterosexual partners; even killing all the gays will do little to put a dent in the amount of sodomy practiced in this state.

[GreatOne]

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.

That's sophistry, much like the government kicking down doors to see if you're having an abortion (Donahue canard). Using that train of thought, should do away with child abuse, since that mostly happens behind closed doors. The issue is this: laws define the morals of a society. When we ban sodomy, we are saying that homosexuality activity is immoral and ought not be encouraged, much like we ban prostitution (sex for money), but not sex for free. You don't have to "spy" on a neighbor, which is what the 4th Amendment is for, but for when the crime is observed or come upon, like the vast majority of witness-associated crime occurs.

[Jim Noble]

seems to me the U.S. Supreme Court should not be issuing rulings at all on sexual practice unless you're going to say sexual conduct is somehow a protected right and privilege specified in the Constitution...

I think that's exactly what they ARE saying...

[leprechaun9]

The SCOTUS is only allowing men to do each other what the SCOTUS has been doing to the people for dacades!

[Ol' Sparky]

What's next? The legalization of prostitution? Or will it be lower the age of consent and allowing consensual "intergenerational" sex?