SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[tdadams]

Maybe my disagreement is with your wording. Many people, straight and gay, may get titilated by the idea of public sex, but do they consider it a right? Absolutely not.

[jmc813]

We alreaqdy have a nice keyword war going on I see.

[rintense]

It comes down to whom you know and what they believe. I can only draw conclusions- albeit irascible to some- based on what I know. If that is objectionable to some people, so be it.

[unspun]

No. I meant what kind of lack of judgment does your sister have that she would marry a homosexual?

Many, many have done so, not knowing his secret perversions. Quite a few have died. My sister did not. Many others' have.

[Pahuanui]

If sodomy is an accepted form of sex, sodomy is then mandatory to consume the marriage. End of story.

I'm sorry, but could translate the above sentence into English, and then perhaps expound on what the hell it's supposed to mean?

[RAT Patrol]

Prepare yourself for gay marriage the Canadian way. Who needs legislatures?

[jimt]

Is it legal for any adult to have sex with any other consenting adult? What about orgies?

Legal, I don't know.

As the government is sanctioning marriage, I think laws against adultery are much more logical than laws against sodomy.

[The Red Zone]

Prostitution arrests do not depend on spying into private homes, while sodomy arrests must.

Unless the police are there for some other reason, or a witness reports it.

[MineralMan]

"What's next? The legalization of prostitution? "

It's already legal in several counties in Nevada. So?

[MineralMan]

"What's next? The legalization of prostitution? "

It's already legal in several counties in Nevada. So?

[dead]

The Bill of Rights doesn't include a 'right to privacy', dead.

That is a very nice statement that has absolutely nothing in the least to do with my point (or your original statement.)

The Bill of Rights overrules “democracy” in favor of individual rights. Libertarians support this concept, which you seem to have a problem with.

[rintense]

No, you're correct. But there are some who believe it is their right- gay or straight. My problem is that too many people think they have the right to do anything they want.

[jimt]

Is it legal for any adult to have sex with any other consenting adult? What about orgies?

Legal, I don't know.

As the government is sanctioning marriage, I think laws criminalizing adultery are much more logical than laws criminalizing sodomy.

[Torie]

"The rationale of Bowers does not withstand careful analysis. In his dissenting opinion in Bowers JUSTICE STEVENS came to these conclusions:

" 'Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from con- stitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to pro- duce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.” 478 U. S., at 216 (footnotes and citations omitted).'

"JUSTICE STEVENS’ analysis, in our view, should have been controlling in Bowers and should control here. Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding prece- dent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled. The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosex- ual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their exis- tence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847.

"The Texas statute furthers no le- gitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual. Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its mani- fold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

"The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered."

[Lijahsbubbe]

In the next 10 years, we will see the following: sodomite marriage, marriage between siblings, and the lowering of the age of consent.

I think that's what many are reacting to, while others consider it reactionary.

We all have seen over the years what happens when the camel gets his nose in the tent. We've seen it with our schools.

In my opinion, the way is being cleared for same-sex marriages.

[Belial]

It seems to be a faction of them that believe this.

That seems more like it. Note that you originally posted that MOST gays believed that public sex is some sort of right.

[NeoCaveman]

Can anyone give me one good reason not to be distressed over the "times have changed" underpinning of the Court's decision? Slippery slope, my eye, we're almost at the bottom of the sliding board. States' rights, fugghedaboudit. Except, of course, for the "compelling interest" of "diversity." Aaargh.

The legal reasoning, and I use that term liberally, is bizarre.

[tdadams]

Libertarians aren't friends of democracy.

Democracy is mob rule. The U.S. is not a democracy.

If we were a democracy, this ruling may have ostensibly been the wrong decision if the majority of people were in favor of singling out gay people for prosecution under sodomy laws.

But since we're not a democracy, this ruling correctly protects the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority (read: mob).

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's a real estate thing: location, location, location.