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 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 1,701-1,734 next last
To: finnman69
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"...!

201 posted on 06/26/2003 8:07:43 AM PDT by 88keys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
... whole truth ...

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

202 posted on 06/26/2003 8:07:44 AM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 0311, 68-69)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
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.
203 posted on 06/26/2003 8:08:07 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

Comment #204 Removed by Moderator

To: rintense
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.
205 posted on 06/26/2003 8:08:30 AM PDT by justshe (Educate....not Denigrate !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
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

206 posted on 06/26/2003 8:08:43 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #207 Removed by Moderator

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

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

208 posted on 06/26/2003 8:09:17 AM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
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.

209 posted on 06/26/2003 8:09:27 AM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
but it will not allow parents to homeschool their children

Who said that you can't homeschool your children?

210 posted on 06/26/2003 8:09:28 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LanPB01
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.
211 posted on 06/26/2003 8:09:33 AM PDT by discostu (you've got to bleed for the dancer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: rintense
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.
212 posted on 06/26/2003 8:09:39 AM PDT by MaxPlus305
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

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



213 posted on 06/26/2003 8:09:44 AM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Obvously, the constitution nor the original intent of the Founders mean a thing any more...
214 posted on 06/26/2003 8:10:03 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rintense
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.

215 posted on 06/26/2003 8:10:33 AM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
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.

216 posted on 06/26/2003 8:10:38 AM PDT by GreatOne (You will bow down before me, Son of Jor-el!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: 88keys
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...

217 posted on 06/26/2003 8:10:49 AM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
The SCOTUS is only allowing men to do each other what the SCOTUS has been doing to the people for dacades!
218 posted on 06/26/2003 8:10:52 AM PDT by leprechaun9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
What's next? The legalization of prostitution? Or will it be lower the age of consent and allowing consensual "intergenerational" sex?
219 posted on 06/26/2003 8:11:11 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #220 Removed by Moderator

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

That is still unsure. After this week od rulings I would guess that it is legal unless the court decides there is a "compelling state interest" in preventing it. (/snicker)

221 posted on 06/26/2003 8:12:00 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (Ohio Chapter. Original White Devil for Sharpton!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Didn't the court earlier this week effectively say that the fouteenth amendment didn't exist. What are these people smoking?
222 posted on 06/26/2003 8:12:25 AM PDT by fifteendogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jimt

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The SCOTUS has said that what two consenting adults do privately in their bedroom is not within the power of the Fed or the states to regulate.


Not quite........................

 

What part of ...are reserved to the states respectively... do you NOT understand?

 

You could have just as easily written this:

"The SCOTUS has said that what two consenting adults do PUBLICALLY, on their front lawn, is not within the power of the Fed or the states to regulate."

 and it would be considered senseless.


223 posted on 06/26/2003 8:12:27 AM PDT by Elsie (Any misspellings are caused by a sticky keyboard!! [that darn ol' Coke!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney
As soon as some bestiality porn actor in the Valley is arrested and brought up on charges, his lawyer's going to be talking about the Lawrence v. Texas and nothing else...

Ah.... no. People in 'the business' in the Valley can afford far, far better lawyers than some schlub who'd try and equate filming bestiality with this case.

And since bestiality, to my knowledge, isn't commercially produced in the Valley, or on this continent, for that matter, the point is moot.

224 posted on 06/26/2003 8:12:43 AM PDT by Pahuanui (when A Foolish Man Hears The tao, He Laughs Out Loud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
Question: With regard to the Patriot Act, Before and After this ruling, If two consenting adults decide to plan a crime, but make NO EFFORT to actually carry it out, in the "privacy" of their bedroom, and are detected doing so, are they guilty of a crime?

Would any evidence of conspiracy be thrown out on privacy grounds?

225 posted on 06/26/2003 8:13:06 AM PDT by Carlucci (The Time Travelers meeting will be held Yesterday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
There is no absolute right to privacy, as there is no absolute right to exercise free speech. Apparently, the SCOTUS believe the founders wrote the Constitution without regard to morality or what is best left to the States to consider. This SC, in their waning days, seem intent on speeding up the process to make the USA indistinguishable from the nations from which in the past we held in lower esteem. For all intents and purposes this latest decision and revelation changes nothing, just the understanding that the members of the SCOTUS are the most important people in the USA. The Dems have known this for years because most of the liberal gains in the past were by way of the courts because the consensus was not there for legislation. It is now made obvious for all of us who believe in the values that made the USA great that the President must, need I say, stack the court, at all levels, with like minded judges.
226 posted on 06/26/2003 8:13:16 AM PDT by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
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.

The Supreme Court only deals with cases that are brought before it. It can't decide what issues to address or not address. For example, in the decision upholding the ban on medical marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, Justice Thomas specifically said they were not ruling on the Constitutionality of the Act itself, because it had not been specifically challenged.

-Eric

227 posted on 06/26/2003 8:13:19 AM PDT by E Rocc (statism is statism is statism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Does this mean you can have sex with your 18-year-old daughter now? How about 15-year-old if a resident of Hawaii? (that's the age of consent in that state.)

That and perverted people can also have kids and "raise" them.

228 posted on 06/26/2003 8:14:32 AM PDT by JudgemAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
from Kennedy's opionion (my emphasis):

"It must be acknowledged, of course, that the Court in Bowers was making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law."

229 posted on 06/26/2003 8:14:58 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshe
No, let me be clear. These backrooms are not legal. They just 'occur'. They happen under the guise of a regular club for gays- but usually only the gays know if there is other entertainment possible.

Plus, if what you say is true, they're assuming that Het couples don't engage in sodomy- which is completely naive. Look at all the hubbub with that George Michael case. Many gays thought what he did was legal because it was consensual- regardless if it was a public place. The core issue is that too many people think they have the *right* to do anything- including have sex in public places. My argument is that some in the gay community believe this. And they'll view this ruling as an avenue to continue to believe something completely false.

230 posted on 06/26/2003 8:15:04 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 205 | View Replies]

To: Eschoir
Ping
231 posted on 06/26/2003 8:15:12 AM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Peeking in windows??? Have you walked down any city street recently and looked at anything going on above shoe level?
I don't recall hearing that the petitioners in this case were visible to the outdoors when arrested.

-Eric

232 posted on 06/26/2003 8:15:18 AM PDT by E Rocc (statism is statism is statism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
CONSENSUAL ADULTS says nothing about animals, or children, or adultery.

Huh?

Every time I was an adulterer, it was by CONSENT!
233 posted on 06/26/2003 8:15:19 AM PDT by Elsie (Any misspellings are caused by a sticky keyboard!! [that darn ol' Coke!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: MaxPlus305
Oh no! I think many people- regardless of sexual orientation- like to have sex in public places. It's a thrill on the chance of being caught. But is it a right?
234 posted on 06/26/2003 8:16:10 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 212 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
Or will it be lower the age of consent and allowing consensual "intergenerational" sex?

Maybe they'll decide we need to punch in at 9am in clownsuits.

But your boogymen are scarier, I'm sure. Oh, the poor children. Let's all get hysterical, Sparky. The more sober among us realize that there is ZERO credible movement to change age of consent laws. But never mind that! Back to your previously scheduled fearmongering. O, for the children!!!
235 posted on 06/26/2003 8:16:22 AM PDT by Belial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
GW Bush caused this to happen.
236 posted on 06/26/2003 8:16:27 AM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
This is a matter of state rights, not fed rights.

In my book, the court has given up its job and given it to the media and the mob of liberals to decide and arbitrate along the "laws" of political correctness.
237 posted on 06/26/2003 8:16:45 AM PDT by JudgemAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
The Republic is dead, long live the Empire

Get me off this sinking ship.

238 posted on 06/26/2003 8:16:54 AM PDT by Lady Eileen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
Public "morality" (as opposed to "morality" in public places) is absolutely positively none of the government's business in a free society.

Actually, yes it is. I love how you libertarians talk about 'honoring the Constitution' and 'going back to original Constitutional principles'. If you actually cared about that or knew anything about 'original Constitutional principles' you'd know that the federal government has only enumerated powers, whereas the states themselves are governments of general jurisdiction. Under the 'original understanding' of the Constitution, the Feds prohibited the states from doing only certain things (entering into treaties, granting letters of marque and reprisal, passing bills of attainder, and so on (cf. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution). The states could regulate whatever was not explicitly or implicitly proscribed for them to do by the Constitution.

The Federal government, again, under the 'original Constitutional principles' you libertarians so love, is a government of enumerated and delegated powers. Unless prohibited by either express or implied Constitutional limitation, states can (or I should say, could) do whatever they wish to uphold the public order and the common good.

By striking down this law, the SCOTUS has merely reaffirmed the half-century drift towards making the Federal government a government of general jurisdiction, not of enumerated and delegated powers. Of course, libertarians are cheering, because they only care about states' rights when it's advantageous to invoke them in favor of pot, porn, or their friends the Gluteus Masochists.

239 posted on 06/26/2003 8:17:34 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Libertarians are the cause of every evil known to man.
240 posted on 06/26/2003 8:17:36 AM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
What a stupid decision.

Heaven knows that adults can't be trusted in their own bedrooms.

We need MORE government control of our lives, not LESS. (especially in the bedroom, where consenting adults might do something nasty).

We need religious police, like they have in Saudi Arabia.

That'll keep people from having sex we disapprove of.

241 posted on 06/26/2003 8:17:39 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
GW Bush caused this to happen.

Yes but he caused the shoot down of MullaOmar, Gore and Saddam so far.

242 posted on 06/26/2003 8:18:12 AM PDT by JudgemAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

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

That, plus Libertarians cause soggy cereal.

243 posted on 06/26/2003 8:18:54 AM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: GreatOne
. 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.

Most of the people busted for prostitution are convicted for negotiating in public with an undercover police officer, or having sex in public places such a parking lot known to attrack prostitutes.

Your analogy is false. Try again.

244 posted on 06/26/2003 8:19:00 AM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
NittanyLion,
1 : to give assent or approval :
2 to be in concord in opinion or sentiment
If the animals like doing it then it is consent and someday this will be before the court do.
245 posted on 06/26/2003 8:19:23 AM PDT by Past Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
Isn't it possible, though, to have the slippery slope go in the other direction? For example, if the SC held up this essentially "moral" ruling, what would stop states from being able to arrest heterosexuals who have anal sex, or people from looking at Playboy, or masturbating--all on the basis of morality? Would everyone be OK with the government regulating all those behaviors?
246 posted on 06/26/2003 8:20:05 AM PDT by MaxPlus305
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
And they are cheering the gagging and suffocation of America on the excrement of libertinism--which is the libertarians' true agenda.

Right. Well, actually, the agenda of Libertarians is to make pastries out of the blood of infants.

247 posted on 06/26/2003 8:20:08 AM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter; B Knotts
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.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that God has given me the right to penetrate another man's rectum with my penis? I'll have to admit that's one place where one is apt to find a penumbra, come to think about it.

248 posted on 06/26/2003 8:20:15 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
Well, I think gay men are naive to think only they like having sex that way. But this ruling (or at least the wording of the AP article) makes it seem like only gay men practice sodomy. For those het couples who enjoy it, they'll like this ruling as well.

BTW, they have legit clubs where you can have sex? Truly, I did not know that. I live in a community where that would never, ever happen.

249 posted on 06/26/2003 8:20:15 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 215 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Four out of five dentists agree that libertarians lead to tooth decay.
250 posted on 06/26/2003 8:21:24 AM PDT by LanPB01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 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