SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[Im Your Huckleberry]

You've been politically corrected to absurd levels...just goes to show their brainwashing has worked on you, too...

[wimpycat]

I want a specific yardstick. It should be a fairly easy question.

If it's a "fairly easy" question, then you ought have the answers all prepared already. No, I'm not asking you to answer your own questions, but I'm asking if you know the answers to the questions you're asking.

[Antoninus]

Absolutely brilliant post and certainly worth repeating....

So giving unelected federal judges the power to write state law is decreasing the size of government?

There are actually some restrictions on liberty that enhance liberty overall.

Think of it like this. Traffic laws restrict your liberty. They require you to stop at red lights, drive on the right side of the yellow line, etc. However, they actually enhance your liberty to travel. How far would you get if all the traffic laws were repealed, and people were "liberated" to drive on whichever side of the road they wished, to ignore red lights and stop signs, to park wherever they wished?

Laws which keep homosexuality in the closet do, technically, restrict the liberty of the few people wishing to engage in that disgusting behavior. But they enhance the overall liberty of society. Because uncloseted homosexuality goes on a rampage against the liberty of the general populace.

It starts with disease. Homosexual acts are far more likely to transmit disease than heterosexual acts. So the bathhouse culture that arises when homosexual conduct is legalized and tolerated triggers a sharp increase in AIDS and other STDs. The result? Billions more in tax dollars is siphoned out of our pockets to pay medical bills, and taxation is itself a restriction on liberty.

Next, uncloseted homosexuals demand that opposition to or even disapproval of their conduct be suppressed. So we get speech codes telling us what we can and can't say. We get called a bigot if we fail to take our small children to Disneyworld on "Gay Day". We get governmental decrees ordering schools to teach your kids that homosexuality is normal, and if your religion teaches otherwise, well then, it's "bigoted". We get more and more laws dicatating who people can hire, who they can rent an apartment to, etc. It'll soon be a federal crime to refuse to rent to a pair of drag queens carrying whips and chains. In California, they're about to pass a law requiring employers to hire cross-dressers.

To satisfy the gay lobby, we came within one Supreme Court vote of completely losing our freedom of association (the Boy Scout case) and the pro-gay forces are determined to overturn that ruling just as they did the Hardwick ruling today.

So in return for a few perverts being able to freely engage in their sickness, we, as a people, see a decrease in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, property rights, monetary rights, and state's rights.

We'll soon be like Sweden, where even ministers can be jailed for up to four years for saying that homosexuality is wrong in the pulpit of their own church.

The gay movement is not libertarian, and neither is the pro-abortion movement, though both present themselves as such when manipulating the libertarian crowd.

[wardaddy]

I don't think so but I think a grandchild (dog) can breed with the grandparent(dog)??

Sort of like that old country funny song...."I'm my own Grandpa"

I am not knowledgable enough on this case or ruling to make a strong opinion.

From my gut, I feel that what folks do in their bedroom is their business as long as children are not involved or serious physical harm done.

But, like most banner rulings like this one, I fear it will likely lead to a slippery slope as precedent for sexual deviancy (can I still say that word now?)

My wife who is infinitely more astute than I about the pulse of culture and hardly a prude (far from it thankfully) sees this as not good from the state's power perspective and more so because the homosexual (and anyone else) activists will exploit it.

I'm more ambivalent.

[spunkets]

" I was hoping to address the more fundamental question.
What ARE rights?

How do we know what we SHOULD consider a right, and what we should not?"

Yes I know. I wasn't going to give an answer though. LOL! Here's a short one.

Rights are claimed by the individual to protect his nature, essence and sovereignty of will. Just as he claims the right ot life, he also claims the right to wear a blue shoe and a yellow one at the same time. The only limits on what is claimed as his right, is that it not infringe on the rights of others. This is the nature of Freedom. Govm'ts role is to protect life and rights, nothing more.

[OWK]

If it's a "fairly easy" question, then you ought have the answers all prepared already.

I do.

But I want the answer from the one I've asked it of first.

[Grando Calrissian]

Without hyperbole, that is the greatest post of all time.

[OWK]

Another good answer.

I wonder why others won't offer an answer?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Or are you also married to the state?

All Conservatives are married to the State. So are all Liberals, for that matter.

[huck von finn]

This decision should cut both ways. What people do in the privacy of their bedroom shouldn't entitle them to preferential treatment.

What preferential treatment is that? Seriously. Is there some preferential treatment going on with this law?

[freeeee]

To all the people claiming the sky is falling, you can relax.

This ruling has no practicle effect on anyone's behavior.

The vast, vast amounts of people who engage in oral and anal sex don't give a damn what the law says about it.

They're going to do it anyway, and there's nothing the state can do about it.

And no one is going to have oral or anal sex that wouldn't have done so while it was illegal.

The only thing sodomy laws do is foster massive contempt for the law. You see, if you make someone a felon for having oral sex, they're going to think the legal system is a big joke, and they're going to get used to breaking the law. Later, when they contemplate breaking a real law, it won't be such a big deal.

[Dead Corpse]

If it's a "fairly easy" question, then you ought have the answers all prepared already. No, I'm not asking you to answer your own questions, but I'm asking if you know the answers to the questions you're asking.

It is. He does. Most libertarians can rattle it off in their sleep. Most anyone who has made even a cursory study of Natural Rights theory, and/or our Constitution, ought to be able to do the same thing.

[HumanaeVitae]

And then there was no one left to speak up for the window-peeping blue nosed religious extremists

Hey, if you want to pick up the tab of this blue-nosed-religious-extremist's share of the costs of the AIDS epidemic, be my guest.

[f.Christian]

right ... flailing your fists --- wrong ... hitting someone !

In this case --- state's (( society )) rights !

[kegler4]

"Morality and legality are often (but not always) two very different things."

I realize we have two main objections going on here -- the moral crowd and the constitutional crowd. It appears from Thomas' remark that he doesn't agree with the morality viewpoint.

I'm not sure exactly here I fall as to whether the court should have intervened, but I know I don't like it that my own state has a law that allows the police to arrest me and my wife if they were to catch us performing a certain sex act in the privacy of our bedroom. I know the police aren't likely to break down our door looking for sodomy violations, but that doesn't make it right. And yes, I've expressed my opinion to my state representatives.

[puroresu]

Thanks!

One of the problems with libertarianism is that it's self negating. The pathologies they unleash in the name of "liberty" create so many societal problems, pressures, and interest groups, that ten times more governmental controls end up being invoked than were necessary to suppress the pathologies in the first place.

[The Red Zone]

Scalia would allow masturbation to be made illegal, too

IIRC at one time it was. ("That unnatural act" or similar terminology.) But Scalia would not REQUIRE it to be.

Scalia's view of the Constitution is similar to mine: a covenant among We the People that was struck to mean certain specific things, and once struck it should be held to what it was understood to mean at the time it was struck, not viewed through some kaleidoscopic funhouse mirror lens that changes all the time. It can certainly be amended, but please, none of this "living Constitution" crap. I could only wish. We could well do without the cancerous commerce clause which represents better than half of the control the Fedguv now wields over our personal lives.

[jimt]

The media is already talking about HUGH and SERIES victory for gay rights.

The whole concept of "gay rights" is moronic. Homosexuals should have no more or less rights than anybody else.

But as the media is full of 'rats and morons, no wonder they're characterizing it this way.

[OWK]

right ... flailing your fists --- wrong ... hitting someone !

In this case --- state's (( society )) rights !

Dude, your really shouldn't get so worked up and flail about like that.

Now your shopping cart full of garbage bags has rolled halfway down the hill, and you ripped your "will mumble incoherently for food" sign.

Settle down.