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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,721-1,734 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,721-1,734 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