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 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,701-1,734 next last

1 posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:24 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Entirely expected. Did Breyer issue the Opinion of the Court??
2 posted on 06/26/2003 7:09:33 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

SCOTUS supports right to Privacy.

3 posted on 06/26/2003 7:10:08 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (White Devils for Sharpton. We're bad. We're Nationwide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Did they back into the opinion ?
4 posted on 06/26/2003 7:10:58 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Invoked the right to privacy under the 14th amendment.

There are no reservations, so Steve Cintani on FOXNEWS speculates that all sodomy laws in the 13 states that have them will also be overturned.

5 posted on 06/26/2003 7:11:02 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
It will be interesting to see if Santorum's argument now comes into play, or if the court will find a way to finagle around it.
6 posted on 06/26/2003 7:11:48 AM PDT by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
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.)
7 posted on 06/26/2003 7:12:20 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Did they find a way for laws against incest to not be subject to the right to privacy ?
8 posted on 06/26/2003 7:12:23 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
What was the vote?
9 posted on 06/26/2003 7:12:35 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
There are things that one should not be able to consent to.

One cannot by law consent to be a slave or another.

This is an example of the govt disallowing consenting adults from doing their thing.

Privacy is not an absolute right - and it certainly is not present in the constitution.
10 posted on 06/26/2003 7:12:50 AM PDT by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
did they issue an oral statement.......
11 posted on 06/26/2003 7:12:55 AM PDT by vin-one (I wish i had something clever to put in this tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
One more indication of America's slow agonizing death.


12 posted on 06/26/2003 7:13:11 AM PDT by poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
I Think it would be hard to fanagle a way around Santorum's argument, but O'Connor is excellent at creating these imaginary lines in the sand.
13 posted on 06/26/2003 7:13:33 AM PDT by sox_the_cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
There is no right to privacy in the 14th amendment. It was invented by leftists to protect certain immoral behaviors, like abortion, and will eventually be used by the left to support overturning laws against child molestation and pornography.
14 posted on 06/26/2003 7:13:33 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
so Steve Cintani on FOXNEWS speculates that all sodomy laws in the 13 states that have them will also be overturned.

Two words: Rita Cosby.

Of the thirteen states, only three or four (I believe) have anti-sodomy laws written narrowly, as the Texas law was. The others are more broad, and may not be affected - depending on just what the Supremes said in their ruling.

15 posted on 06/26/2003 7:13:36 AM PDT by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"Invoked the right to privacy under the 14th amendment. "

So, can I smoke pot in the privacy of my home?

Can I molest my children?

Can I make bombs?

Where will the line be drawn now?

16 posted on 06/26/2003 7:13:48 AM PDT by realpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Wait, are you sure?? The only ruling which appears to have been handed down so far was the statute of limitations [child sexual abuse] ruling; or is AP behind the curve?
17 posted on 06/26/2003 7:14:00 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: poet
One more indication of America's slow agonizing death.

Libertarians are cheering.

18 posted on 06/26/2003 7:14:00 AM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
I wonder how long beofre this SCOTUS decision is blamed on GWB?
19 posted on 06/26/2003 7:14:46 AM PDT by MJY1288 (The Gifted One is Clueless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Good thing we've got all those Republicans on the court.</sarcasm>
20 posted on 06/26/2003 7:14:50 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Did Breyer issue the Opinion of the Court??

I'm guessing Souter. (Is he still single? Does he still live with his mommy?)

21 posted on 06/26/2003 7:15:02 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
bump
22 posted on 06/26/2003 7:15:23 AM PDT by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot
It will be drawn to allow every form of perversion the left can think of, but it will not allow parents to homeschool their children.
23 posted on 06/26/2003 7:15:39 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Unsurprising. Let's see what kind of tortured logic the majority employed here.
24 posted on 06/26/2003 7:15:49 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
good decision.
25 posted on 06/26/2003 7:15:54 AM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
I was expecting Breyer, but he ended up issuing the statutes of limitation ruling. Now I'm not sure, but perhaps Stevens?
26 posted on 06/26/2003 7:15:55 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
SCOTUS supports right to Privacy.

Excuse the pun, but this Sodomy ruling is a very slippery slope. How far are they going to carry this right to privacy, don't forget the man/boy love associations will love this ruling.

27 posted on 06/26/2003 7:16:26 AM PDT by BushCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Invoked the right to privacy under the 14th amendment.

This is bizarro as hell, pardon my french. I could have expected it to have been overturned on equal protection grounds (i.e. because TX didn't forbid male to female anal sex acts on equal terms) but "privacy"?

28 posted on 06/26/2003 7:16:39 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
Santorum's argument will come into play now, if you can’t control that act how can you control all of the other acts, if someone engaging in sex with a animal when the police come in they will have no right to arrest them. That’s what the ruling has set us up for.
29 posted on 06/26/2003 7:16:57 AM PDT by Past Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Griswold continues to haunt.
30 posted on 06/26/2003 7:17:13 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vin-one
Good one.

But don't worry, the perverts will get it in the end.
31 posted on 06/26/2003 7:17:42 AM PDT by tractorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Initial reading of the decision by Steve Centari on Fox News said the ruling was based on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


32 posted on 06/26/2003 7:18:05 AM PDT by justshe (Educate....not Denigrate !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Please tell me where in the Constitution it gives the federal government power over this. It is purely a state government issue through the 10th amendment. Whether or not one agrees with the ban, the federal courts do not have power in the issue.

The SCOTUS just took one more step toward erasing the 10th amendment from the Constitution.
33 posted on 06/26/2003 7:18:33 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Past Democrat
That’s what the ruling has set us up for

It may have set the stage for an amendment to the constitution.

34 posted on 06/26/2003 7:18:37 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

No surprise. They support race quotas and group preferences based on skin color, too.
Well, five scumbags on the court do, anyway.

35 posted on 06/26/2003 7:18:39 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackbill
Of the thirteen states, only three or four (I believe) have anti-sodomy laws written narrowly, as the Texas law was.

The problem with the Texas law, as noted in several of the amicus briefs arguing for upholding the statute, was that it gave the appearance of discrimination by forbidding only homosexual sodomy. This is, of course irrelevant, but the appearance of "discrimination" is what drove this apparently successful challenge.

36 posted on 06/26/2003 7:18:40 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

Well, at least they'll have friends up the A$$ now!

37 posted on 06/26/2003 7:19:09 AM PDT by bullseye1911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
Kennedy.
38 posted on 06/26/2003 7:19:12 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot
How about all of us list our sexual practices in the bedroom here on this thread?

Then we'll all decide what's appropriate, and what should regulated by the government?

Who wants to start?
39 posted on 06/26/2003 7:19:15 AM PDT by mikenola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts; AntiGuv
Kennedy wrote the opinion.

He explicitly said that Bowers was "wrongly decided." Due process means people have a right to the privacy of their bedrooms.

I didn't get it all, but apparently this overturns ALL sodomy laws.

40 posted on 06/26/2003 7:19:24 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: justshe
If so, then it sounds as if the Court reversed Bowers v Hardwick. Good..
41 posted on 06/26/2003 7:19:31 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Libertarians are cheering.

Kevin, you astound me. You're telling the truth this morning ! But not the whole truth, of course.

42 posted on 06/26/2003 7:19:40 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Deeper into the cesspool we slide.
43 posted on 06/26/2003 7:19:44 AM PDT by Aeronaut ("The wicked are always surprised to find nobility in the good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
and will eventually be used by the left to support overturning laws against child molestation and pornography

I don't expect that in my lifetime, but I do expect "compelling state interest" to become a larger and larger factor in SCOTUS decisions (i.e. more police state, less freedom) as the rule of law (fundamentally rooted in Constitution) is eaten away.

44 posted on 06/26/2003 7:19:54 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: justshe
That says nothing about homosexuality or the right to privacy. An equal protection clause ruling would at least have been less flawed.
45 posted on 06/26/2003 7:20:08 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
A right to privacy can be understood to be a right reserved to individuals, clearly the 10th.

I have never had any problem with that "privacy civil right". It was the federalized right to kill preborn children that changed my attitude of SCOTUUS usurpation of power.

Sen. Santorum is proved correct.

14 y.o. and others will be in for the rides of their lives.
46 posted on 06/26/2003 7:20:51 AM PDT by SevenDaysInMay (Federal judges and justices serve for periods of good behavior, not life. Article III sec. 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Breaking on AP:

Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay sex Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

47 posted on 06/26/2003 7:20:56 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Texas' gay sex ban Thursday, deciding that states cannot punish gay couples for engaging in sex acts that are legal for heterosexuals.

The top court's decision overturned a Texas Supreme Court ruling in a case brought by two men who were caught engaging in an illegal sex act.

The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

The case is a major reexamination of the rights and acceptance of gay people in the United States. More broadly, it also tests a state's ability to classify as a crime what goes on behind the closed bedroom doors of consenting adults.

Thursday's ruling invalidated a Texas law against "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex."

Defending that law, Texas officials said that it promoted the institutions of marriage and family, and argued that communities have the right to choose their own standards.

The law "demeans the lives of homosexual persons," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

48 posted on 06/26/2003 7:21:27 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Past Democrat
if someone engaging in sex with a animal when the police come in they will have no right to arrest them

Not on those grounds, but keep in mind that cruelty to an animal is now considered a worse crime than sodomy iswas

49 posted on 06/26/2003 7:23:03 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Entirely expected. Did Breyer issue the Opinion of the Court??

Ginsberg and Souter voted pro-anal, you know that for sure. And which Republican senator proudly takes credit for their appointments? Why, the feckless chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch--who just last week threw the weight of his support behind Ted Kennedy's federal hate-crime legislation as well.

And who will preside over the Judiciary Committee's vetting of replacements for O'Connor and Rehnquist if they retire soon as the rumor has it? None other than Orrin Hatch.

The Democrats don't need the hold a senate majority to pack the SCOTUS with more Ginsbergs, Souters, and Breyers. They already control the appointment process thorough Ted Kennedy's best friend.

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

50 posted on 06/26/2003 7:23:18 AM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 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