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 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 1,721-1,734 next last
To: dubyaismypresident
Should the SCOTUS void a states anti-nose picking law, hypothetically? Or do states have the right to pass silly laws?

SCOTUS really should have that "Stupid, but Constitutional" ink stamp.

621 posted on 06/26/2003 10:12:50 AM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
I don't know about your history, but none of the 10 Amendments is particularly offensive. The fictiticious "Privacy Amendment" is a tad annoying, however.
622 posted on 06/26/2003 10:13:06 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: Trace21230
The main reason incest is criminalized is because children from incestuous unions are more likely to be deformed, mentally retarded, and generally undesirable.

So, If I put my 17 year old daughter on the pill we can then have sex.

623 posted on 06/26/2003 10:13:23 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 619 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
I hope that the SCOTUS uses the same 'privacy' logic to apply to 2nd Amendment issues based on the 5th & 9th Circuit Courts' recent decisions, should the high court ever stop ignoring the issue.

Everywhere in the USA, consenting adults can keep their sexual relations private. What's not to like?

624 posted on 06/26/2003 10:13:45 AM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone
"OK, so Texas fix the anal intercourse ban so it applies to all genders. Problem solved."


In case it hasn't already been pointed out, it's not just anal -- it includes oral sex. So you want the state to also outlaw oral sex between consenting heterosexuals???
625 posted on 06/26/2003 10:13:47 AM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
SCOTUS really should have that "Stupid, but Constitutional" ink stamp.

I tend to agree.

626 posted on 06/26/2003 10:14:05 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (Ohio Chapter. Original White Devil for Sharpton!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: Trace21230
We're not "simpletons" to believe that the Constitution doesn't prohibit laws on the books for 140 years that say that buggery is illegal. We're constitutionalists.
627 posted on 06/26/2003 10:14:11 AM PDT by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: 88keys
The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional right, unlike "privacy rights" or various other "rights" that have been more or less "judicially legislated" under the guise of protecting "life, liberty" etc...
The point is, if it's not a guaranteed specific "right", then it's under the law, and the judiciary is not supposed to be making laws.
568 -88k-



The 14th addressed our specific rights to 'life liberty, and property':

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of the States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects.
[See U.S. Const., Amend. 9.]

As the second Justice Harlan recognized:
    
"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.

This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;

the freedom of speech, press, and religion;

the right to keep and bear arms;

the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. 

It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . .
and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."



628 posted on 06/26/2003 10:14:12 AM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: Belial
It always strikes me as odd that the heartland is the center of gay activism, and not SF, NYC or LA. I'm sure it's a plot or something.

It's all part of the gay conspiracy. You can look it up in the "American Gay Agenda, 3rd Addition" on page 467.

629 posted on 06/26/2003 10:14:18 AM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
What this idiotic decision says, basically, is that the Founding Fathers who wrote the constitution then went home and created unconstitutional anti-sodomy laws.

All hail the Supreme Court! Our fearless cultural dictators!
630 posted on 06/26/2003 10:14:22 AM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"If their behavior isn't infringing on my Rights, then why the hell should I care what they do? If they are committing force, fraud, or theft against me... then they will have to answer to my personal protection equipement first. If they survive that, then I will go before the courts to have them prosecuted."

To an extent I agree, but a reality check tells me we don't really want unlimited 'rights'....but what do I know? This decision came frome the same bunch of people that just decided it was OK to discriminate against white people.
Heck, I thought that was wrong too!

631 posted on 06/26/2003 10:14:35 AM PDT by bk1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
A very strong, simple, and supportable Equal Protection argument.

Which wasn't elucidated by the court.

632 posted on 06/26/2003 10:15:04 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona
Yessirree - everyone is going to drop what they're doing and run right out to have sex with dogs!

hehehe, we better guard the mortuaries too, not to mention the slaughterhouses

They're very shrill today, aren't they?

Trace

633 posted on 06/26/2003 10:15:12 AM PDT by Trace21230 (Ideal MOAB test site: Paris)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

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

I'm ready. It's time for a Marriage Amendment. Is there any doubt it would pass???

Let's get moving on it!
634 posted on 06/26/2003 10:15:22 AM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
Don't count on it. The ACLU's agenda is in control of the majority of the "Justices".
635 posted on 06/26/2003 10:16:16 AM PDT by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
is that the Founding Fathers who wrote the constitution then went home and created unconstitutional anti-sodomy laws.

As well as unconstitutional laws denying women and blacks the right to vote and perpetuating slavery.

636 posted on 06/26/2003 10:16:19 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (White Devils for Sharpton. We're bad. We're Nationwide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: Trace21230
The main reason incest is criminalized is because children from incestuous unions are more likely to be deformed, mentally retarded, and generally undesirable.

But what if she takes the pill? Then is it OK?

637 posted on 06/26/2003 10:16:45 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone
But it is a very white day for germs and diseases nationwide.

Criminalize the common cold now!

638 posted on 06/26/2003 10:16:47 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
No, it's the whole truth. Libertarians are cheering the usurpation of the legislative powers reserved to the states by an all-powerful federal governmental body. The federal leviathan has spoken through SCOTUS and the libertarians are applauding.

What the majority is saying is that there are certain personal rights that no government, on any level, can infringe. It is not a matter of liberal political correctness or favoritism to one group, since you are just as free to dislike homosexuality and/or refuse to engage in "sodomy" as you were before. Because the decision expands individual freedom, it's a huge victory for conservatives. It limits government intrusion into our private lives.

639 posted on 06/26/2003 10:16:57 AM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: huck von finn
Have you visited public restrooms recently? Have you visited public parks? I've seen them doing it there.
640 posted on 06/26/2003 10:17:09 AM PDT by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 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