Skip to comments.SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban
Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
SCOTUS sided with the perverts.
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.
Legal, I don't know.
As the government is sanctioning marriage, I think laws criminalizing adultery are much more logical than laws criminalizing sodomy.
" '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."
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.
The legal reasoning, and I use that term liberally, is bizarre.
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).
That's the point that's been lost in all of this. The cops cannot enforce this ban. So why am I bitching about it?
It is the job of society to uphold the public morality. It is the job of society to define what is right and wrong and then enforce it informally by shunning, social pressure, standards and so on. When everyone in a society agrees on what is right and what is wrong, then they pass laws to affirm what they already believe to be true. Most of the time, these laws are enforced by social disapproval of the behavior. If people's standards have changed, then they will repeal these laws via their elected officials.
What dimwittitarians don't realize is that every time something like this happens it's not 'liberty'. It's the increasing encroachment of the Feds arrogating more power to themselves. The entire purpose of the enumerated and delegated power structure of the federal Constitution was to let states and localities define for themselves the way they wish to live. Congrats libertarians. You got what you wanted, no voting required.
BTW, libertarians, the Bill of Rights was voted on, wasn't it? Oh, that's right. It was handed down in stone tablets from Mount Ayn Randi.
MICHAEL STUPARYK/TORONTO STAR
Michael Stark, left, and Michael Lashner pop champagne
and kiss after their wedding ceremony yesterday.
Leshner called the ruling, "Day One for millions of gays
and lesbians around the world."
More correctly, any act between consenting adults, which does not result in the intiation of force or fraud against others, is A-OK, as long as it happens on your property.
When did the Bill of Rights change to give this protection to homosexuals and deny the state the power to make this law?
It did not when it was passed. What in the Constitution has changed?
I can understand someone agreeing with the result of the decision, but I cannot understand anyone accepting the process.
Do you have any articles or other citations to back this up, or are you just spewing as usual?
Excuse me if I am wrong, but isn't it a democracy that got us into this discussion in the FIRST place? I believe the judicial branch of the government was something the Founders had envisioned.
BTW, since when does pointing out a philosophical fallacy (the slippery slope argument) make one become a libertarian? I'm sure you are a righteous fellow, no need to act it out by throwing around juvenile names.
1. None. They already see the light.
2. None. It doesn't matter because they're always in the dark.
Either way, the answer is none. ;^)~
As well it should have been.
I prefer to call them "Christian Socialists".
Once again, the Bill of Rights is NOT (and is not intended to be) a comprehensive list of the rights of individuals.
The rights of individuals are as potentially vast and varied as the human imagination, and cannot be listed.
Read the ninth amendment.
I didnt call anyone a child molester Im only saying you support the slippery slope, that doesnt mean you want to engage in those acts.
Oh, Im sorry. You werent saying that people who agree with this ruling are actually child molestors. You were only saying that they support child molestation without actually engaging in it.
Well I wont say youre a moron. I will only say that you produce moronic statements and then back them up with additional moronic statements.
And my comments were on point because I was addressing the slippery slope, and what the real meaning of this ruling is.
The real meaning of this ruling is that this particular law against homosexual sodomy by consenting adults in Texas is considered unconstitutional by the current Supreme Court.
It has nothing to do with age of consent. It has nothing to do with child molestation. You have adhered these things to the ruling, but that doesnt make it so.
Dance around it however you want, Lib, the truth is right in the majority opinion.
Yes the truth is there. I guess you cant read very well. From Kennedys opinion:
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.
I can hardly credit that on a website called "Free Republic", that people would be having a serious discussion of what laws should govern bedroom conduct between consenting adults.
The USSC has just decided the lines were drawn in the wrong place.
Your role is to pay your taxes to continue to fund the welfare system for all of the Dem voters who get your money. </ sarcasam>
Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law
WASHINGTON The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down laws in Texas and 12 other states that criminalize sex between adults of the same gender a decision that will have widespread effect on issues of personal privacy, as well as gay rights.
Speaking for a 6-3 majority that struck down the Texas law, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that gays are "entitled to respect for their private lives" and that government "cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."
He was joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stephens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter.
Justice O'Connor, while joining the majority against the Texas law in a concurring opinion, also defended the court's ruling in a past sodomy case, leaving a majority of 5-4 to strike down the other states' laws.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented on both counts. Writing for the minority, Justice Scalia said that the majority had "taken sides in the culture war."
The decision reversed the court's 1986 ruling in the Bowers vs. Hardwick case, in which a 5-4 majority affirmed a Georgia criminal law banning consensual sex between same-sex adults. At the time, Justice Byron White rejected the notion that any private sexual conduct, even within the home, is constitutionally protected.
"This is a historic day," said Ruth Harlow of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, a gay-rights advocacy group. "The court has had the courage to reverse the decision it made 17 years ago and the wisdom to decide that case was wrong even then."
Of 13 states that criminalized sodomy, four, including Texas, apply the law only to same-sex intercourse defined in Texas as anal or oral sex. Texas' law Section 21.06 of the Texas penal code, also known as the Texas Homosexual Conduct Law. originally included even married heterosexual couples but was changed in 1973.
Although the change was intended to liberalize laws on sexual conduct, gays and lesbians charged that it, in effect, disqualified homosexuals from employment and social opportunities by declaring their private behavior against the law.
The case the Supreme Court heard involved two Houston men, John G. Lawrence and Tyron Garner, believed to be the only consenting adults ever prosecuted under Texas' law.
In September 1998, police responding to a report of an angry gunman, burst into a Houston apartment and discovered Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Garner engaging in consensual sex. Instead of ignoring the false alarm, they arrested the two men for violation of Section 21.06.
Although the caller later identified and prosecuted admitted that he had intended to harass Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Garner, the case was not dropped. Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Garner pleaded "no contest" to the charge and were fined $200, but they made clear their intention to challenge the law.
"This is a new day for gay Americans, starting today," said Paul M. Smith, who argued the case for Houston plaintiffs.
In a brief arguing for the Texas law, Harris County prosecutors had argued that the Supreme Court had never recognized a right to sexual conduct "outside the venerable institution of marriage."
But during oral arguments in the Houston case in March, several justices openly questioned both who and what was being protected by the Texas law.
More than 100 organizations, including the AFL-CIO, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Public Health Association and the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, filed briefs in support of Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Garner. They were opposed by groups such as Jerry Falwell's Liberty Counsel and the American Family Association, a Christian lobbying group, along with the states of Alabama, South Carolina and Utah all of which have sodomy laws.
Gay rights groups had said that a court ruling against the sodomy laws could vastly expand privacy rights and protections for gays. They noted, for example, that without the laws on the books, homosexuals could apply for jobs in fields such as law enforcement and to adopt children without lying when asked if they had broken the law.
In one "friend of the court" brief filed for the American Civil Liberties Union, Harvard constitutional lawyer Laurence H. Tribe argued that the Bowers decision was "an anomaly." In the last 40 years, he said, the court has struck down a number of state laws that tried to regulate sex, and even child-bearing, among married and unmarried couples.
Mr. Tribe argued that sodomy laws have existed for centuries but have seldom resulted in the prosecution of consenting adults. Neither Mr. Tribe nor the Harris county prosecutors were aware of any similar Texas case.
"It was gratifying today to hear the court in ringing affirmation join the community of nations," he said. "The state has no business dictating the most intimate, private relations of consenting American adults."
Mr. Tribe said the ruling extended not only to the criminalization of sexual behavior but also spoke to the discrimination against gays and lesbians made possible by such criminal laws.
"They said it's not the state's business to categorize people in these ways," he said.
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/latestnews/stories/062603dnnatsodomy.61aef.html
That is the basis of socialism.
Oh yeah. How could I forget. I just mailed a huge property tax payment for my house the other day. I've got to get out of Johnson County.
None. The lightbulb has a right to be left alone.