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 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,701-1,734 next last
To: tractorman
Thanks,
add some levity to an argument, that many people will only look at the pervert end of it( ha ha)

that being said,
I really don't look at it as a perverted standpoint,
but from a morality standpoint, and the gov't should not regulate morality....
as well, in VA. if a married couple has consenual sodomy. technically they could be charged.

Not sure who is getting this in the end.
Still waiting for the oral arguments.
51 posted on 06/26/2003 7:23:32 AM PDT by vin-one (I wish i had something clever to put in this tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
I guess Rhenquist, Thomas, and Scalia were the only ones dissenting.
52 posted on 06/26/2003 7:23:54 AM PDT by Pyro7480 (+ Vive Jesus! (Live Jesus!) +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
"demeans the lives of homosexual persons,"

Just my opinion, but I think they do that to themselves by their perversion.

53 posted on 06/26/2003 7:23:57 AM PDT by Aeronaut ("The wicked are always surprised to find nobility in the good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Past Democrat
Well, Texas doesn't criminalize bestiality anyhow (go figure) so I guess it won't matter one way or another..
54 posted on 06/26/2003 7:24:03 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
I never cease to be stunned by Freepers who want big government in people's bedrooms.
55 posted on 06/26/2003 7:24:07 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Freedom: America's finest export.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
deciding that states cannot punish gay couples for engaging in sex acts that are legal for heterosexuals.

OK, so Texas fix the anal intercourse ban so it applies to all genders. Problem solved.

56 posted on 06/26/2003 7:24:15 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: BushCountry
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.
Age-related laws have not been overturned nor will they be, indeed the Constitution not only allows age restrictions it contains them. This ruling only says that it is none of government's business what grownups do.

-Eric

57 posted on 06/26/2003 7:24:38 AM PDT by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

But I thought the left says all supreme court decisions must never be overturned. I guess they will reverse course on Roe v. Wade.
58 posted on 06/26/2003 7:24:50 AM PDT by sharkhawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Ms. Grundy is crying in her beer.
59 posted on 06/26/2003 7:25:05 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mikenola
You first. ;)
60 posted on 06/26/2003 7:25:29 AM PDT by Xenalyte (I may not agree with your bumper sticker, but I'll defend to the death your right to stick it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Aeronaut
Deeper into the cesspool we slide.

Indeed. Mark my words: This decision will be used by NAMBLA and other child molestors and child pornographers to challenge bans on sexual abuse of children.

61 posted on 06/26/2003 7:25:30 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
I guess Rhenquist, Thomas, and Scalia were the only ones dissenting.

The real judges.

62 posted on 06/26/2003 7:26:05 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Texas' gay sex ban Thursday, deciding that states cannot punish gay couples for engaging in sex acts that are legal for heterosexuals.

From what I've read thus far on this thread, this is not the basis that the SC used to strike down the law. Wasn't it a right to privacy and not equal protection?

63 posted on 06/26/2003 7:26:28 AM PDT by rockinonritalin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Good decision. And let's not forget that the appeal of the sodomy conviction was supported by the Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and the Republican Unity Coalition. Government needs to stay the hell out of the bedroom.
64 posted on 06/26/2003 7:26:33 AM PDT by Mister Magoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Past Democrat
if you can’t control that act how can you control all of the other acts,

Stop and think about what you wrote. You want the Reno justice department deciding what you should or should not be doing with your spouse? Any government intrusion in people's private lives is unsupportable.

65 posted on 06/26/2003 7:26:41 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Freedom: America's finest export.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: vin-one
the gov't should not regulate morality....

I agree. Let's immediately strike down laws on rape, child molestation, murder, fraud, perjury, tax evasion, treason, assault, battery, etc. etc. ad nauseum. All laws are regulations of morality.

66 posted on 06/26/2003 7:26:59 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
This decision will be used by NAMBLA and other child molestors and child pornographers to challenge bans on sexual abuse of children.

This law concerns adult behavior.

Age specific laws were not overturned, nor will they be.

67 posted on 06/26/2003 7:27:08 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: vin-one
I have heard of an American man who served in the military, was heterosexual and married, who was charged under the UCMJ for sodomy with his wife. Then again, I don't think he counter sued the US Navy.
68 posted on 06/26/2003 7:27:13 AM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife (Lurking since 2000.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
Government needs to stay the hell out of the bedroom.

Unfortunately the consequences of the acts don't stop at the bedroom door. They leave the bedroom with the participants.

69 posted on 06/26/2003 7:27:43 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

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

An amendment to do what?

70 posted on 06/26/2003 7:27:44 AM PDT by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
" This ruling only says that it is none of government's business what grownups do.

I will wait for the section of this that says this applies to "Grown-ups" only. Let me know when you find it.

71 posted on 06/26/2003 7:27:58 AM PDT by JustAnAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: jimt
Kevin, you astound me. You're telling the truth this morning ! But not the whole truth

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.

And they are cheering the gagging and suffocation of America on the excrement of libertinism--which is the libertarians' true agenda.

72 posted on 06/26/2003 7:28:41 AM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: vin-one
I believe it's a States' Rights issue and the Supreme Court should butt out.
73 posted on 06/26/2003 7:28:55 AM PDT by tractorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
This ruling only says that it is none of government's business what grownups do.

Yeah. None of the state's business when they get together in gay bath-houses and engage in unprotected sex and then get the AIDS virus and then go on public assistance and use their insurance coverage to pay for the cost--which you pay for too. Yeah, public health and public morality are none of the state's business.

74 posted on 06/26/2003 7:29:07 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
An equal protection clause ruling would at least have been less flawed.

Fox News is saying the rational is that you can't punish one group for performing an act that is legal for another group to perform.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Texas' gay sex ban Thursday, deciding that states cannot punish gay couples for engaging in sex acts that are legal for heterosexuals.
75 posted on 06/26/2003 7:29:11 AM PDT by Daus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
that's why we had a civil war.
76 posted on 06/26/2003 7:29:12 AM PDT by liberalnot (democrats fear democracy. /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mikenola
What I do with my animals is my own business now.</fatigued sarcasm>
77 posted on 06/26/2003 7:29:15 AM PDT by capydick (TaxCuts are for TaxPayers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo

78 posted on 06/26/2003 7:29:22 AM PDT by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding; CholeraJoe
"Right to Privacy... let's see, Right to Privacy..."

Hmm....

Don't seem to really find that in the Constitution....
79 posted on 06/26/2003 7:29:26 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Past Democrat
...if someone engaging in sex with a animal when the police come in they will have no right to arrest them.

I wasn't aware the police encountered that situation with any great frequency.

80 posted on 06/26/2003 7:30:14 AM PDT by nravoter (I've given a name to my pain, and it's "Hillary".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
This law concerns adult behavior.

"Adult" is whatever a legislature says it is.

Watch for boy-lovers to push the defintion down.

81 posted on 06/26/2003 7:30:33 AM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123

82 posted on 06/26/2003 7:31:01 AM PDT by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Try the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "

83 posted on 06/26/2003 7:31:27 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (White Devils for Sharpton. We're bad. We're Nationwide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Agreed. There is absolutely no rational comparison between homosexual sex between willing partners and incest, child rape or forced sodomy.

It is NOT the same thing and Santorum was 100% wrong on this. I hope the wacko NAMBLA types who are the REAL PERVERTS in America try to push for legalization of child rape. They will be slapped back sof ast it will amke their heads spin.

84 posted on 06/26/2003 7:31:34 AM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Past Democrat
O'Connor will say that an animal cannot give consent, and that therefore its rights have been violated.

We do wish to encourage diversity, but not to that extent...
85 posted on 06/26/2003 7:31:53 AM PDT by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law
The Supreme Court struck down a Texas ban on gay sex Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

The justices voted 6-3 in striking down the Texas law, saying it violated due process guarantees.

The case was seen as testing the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws in 13 states. The justices reviewed the prosecution of two men under a 28-year-old Texas law making it a crime to engage in same-sex intercourse.

John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested in a Houston-area apartment in 1998 by officers responding to a neighbor's false report of an armed intruder. That neighbor wrongly claimed a man was "going crazy" inside the residence. Police crashed into Lawrence's home and discovered Lawrence and Garner involved in a sexual act. They were arrested, jailed overnight and later fined $200.

"It was sort of like the Gestapo coming in," said Lawrence after a court appearance.

The men's lawyers had said that if the convictions were upheld, their clients would be prevented from obtaining from certain jobs and they would also be considered sex offenders in several states. The Texas law, they told the court, gives gay Americans second-class status as citizens.

"I feel like my civil rights were being violated," said Garner, "and I don't think I was doing anything wrong."

Lawrence and Garner were charged under Texas' "homosexual conduct" law, which criminalizes "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." Although only 13 states now criminalize consensual sodomy, a Texas state appeals court found the law "advances a legitimate state interest, namely, preserving public morals."

Landscape has changed since 1986 ruling

The last time the Supreme Court addressed the issue of was in 1986, when the court upheld a Georgia anti-sodomy law. Since then, much has changed in U.S. culture, say gay rights supporters, including changes in public attitudes and the fact that such laws are rarely enforced.

"The state should not have the power to go into the bedrooms of consenting adults in the middle of the night and arrest them," said Ruth Harlow of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay-rights group representing the two Texas men.

"These laws are widely used to justify discrimination against gay people in everyday life; they're invoked in denying employment to gay people, in refusing custody or visitation for gay parents, and even in intimidating gay people out of exercising their First Amendment rights."

Lambda cited recent U.S. Census figures showing about 600,000 households with same-sex partners, 43,000 or so in Texas.

Texas prosecutors argued the government has the right to enforce public morality. Supporters of the Texas law say states have long regulated behavior deemed "immoral," including gambling and prostitution.

"The government has a legitimate interest in helping preserve not only public health, but public morals as well," said Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council, which filed a legal brief backing Texas. "The mere fact that this behavior occurs in private doesn't mean the public doesn't have a stake in these behaviors."

The 1986 Supreme Court ruling, Bowers v. Hardwick, upheld a Georgia state law that effectively made homosexual sexual behavior a crime. In 1998, however, the Georgia Supreme Court overturned that state law.

The late Justice Lewis Powell, the deciding vote in the 5-4 Bowers decision, said afterward that he probably made a mistake with his decision on that case.

State laws have existed for more than a century

State sodomy laws have been on the books for a century or more, and generally define the act sodomy as "abnormal" sex, including oral and anal sex. Such laws were on the books of every state as recently as 1960.

Legal experts on both sides of the issue acknowledge such laws are rarely enforced, but can serve to underpin a basic message of morality in society that courts and government have supported.

The 1986 Bowers case focused on the right to privacy. By the time of Bowers, only half the states carried criminal sodomy laws, and now only a fourth do.

In a 1996 decision, Romer v. Evans, the court voted 6-3 to overturn a Colorado amendment that barred local governments from enacting ordinances to protect gays.

The case has entered the national political debate, stirred by recent comments from Sen. Rick Santorum. The Pennsylvania Republican told The Associated Press in May, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery, you have the right to anything."

Santorum defended his remarks but some fellow Republicans distanced themselves from them.

The case is Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, case no. 02-0102).


86 posted on 06/26/2003 7:31:54 AM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Let's just get simple on this. I will have to read the decision in it's full, but what I gather is, if a woman in Texas performs oral sex on a man, it is legal, but if a man does it to a man it is illegal. That is what the supreme court objected to, not morality laws.

If Texas said oral sex was against the law for everybody, the law would have been less troublesome to the Supremes.

87 posted on 06/26/2003 7:32:03 AM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone
But how can you claim that it is cruelty to an animal when a woman is with a dog and the dog is consenting and enjoying himself. And it’s taking place in the bedroom. Very slippery slope!
88 posted on 06/26/2003 7:32:12 AM PDT by Past Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

COURT RULES ITS NO LONGER DEVIANT SEX BUT IT SLIPS INTO THE MAINSTREAM....

89 posted on 06/26/2003 7:32:38 AM PDT by Bill Davis FR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Indeed. Mark my words: This decision will be used by NAMBLA and other child molestors and child pornographers to challenge bans on sexual abuse of children.

Oh jeez, even on the right, people have to drag "the children" into every argument for emotional shock value.

This ruling is about consenting behavior between adults in private.

Child abuse and sexual age of consent laws are not affected in the least by this ruling

90 posted on 06/26/2003 7:32:40 AM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
The law "demeans the lives of homosexual persons," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

homosexuality demeans the lives of the persons.

91 posted on 06/26/2003 7:33:08 AM PDT by jgrubbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: unspun
"Right to Privacy... let's see, Right to Privacy..." Hmm.... Don't seem to really find that in the Constitution....

Wait, lets get this straight, YOU WANT GOVERNMENT INTRUDING INTO YOUR BEDROOM?

That sounds a lot like socialism or communism to me.

92 posted on 06/26/2003 7:33:17 AM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
"I never cease to be stunned by Freepers who want big government in people's bedrooms. "

Not all freepers are conservatives, many are religious fundamantalists.
93 posted on 06/26/2003 7:33:20 AM PDT by toothless (I AM A MAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
Exactly.
If they can prohibit things in my own home, what's next - enforcement?
94 posted on 06/26/2003 7:33:20 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
"I agree. Let's immediately strike down laws on rape, child molestation, murder, fraud, perjury, tax evasion, treason, assault, battery, etc. etc. ad nauseum. All laws are regulations of morality."

Consenual sodomy - no victim.

Rape has a victim.

Child molestatin has a victim.

Murder has a victim.

etc, etc.

I think maybe you have law confused with religion.
95 posted on 06/26/2003 7:33:43 AM PDT by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Age specific laws were not overturned, nor will they be.

They will be challenged based on this ruling. And it will continue to gain momentum. There is already a sizeable movement in the psychiatry and psychology industries to say that children can indeed consent to being molested and that it is not injurious to them. Once the idea takes hold that children like being molested, it then becomes a "victimless crime," and will be subject to this ruling.

96 posted on 06/26/2003 7:33:57 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: dead
Child abuse and sexual age of consent laws are not affected in the least by this ruling <pP 100% correct.
97 posted on 06/26/2003 7:34:00 AM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: dead
I love how people go nutty. Yeah... the supreme court is going to rule raping 4 year olds and doing cocker spaniels is ok too now. Whatever.

One can disagree with this ruling without engaging in full blown hysterics.

98 posted on 06/26/2003 7:34:15 AM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
This ruling only says that it is none of government's business what grownups do.

Yeah. None of the state's business when they get together in gay bath-houses and engage in unprotected sex and then get the AIDS virus and then go on public assistance and use their insurance coverage to pay for the cost--which you pay for too. Yeah, public health and public morality are none of the state's business.

Public "morality" (as opposed to "morality" in public places) is absolutely positively none of the government's business in a free society. As for "public health", that's the dodge the nanny state liberals would use to ban tobacco, "unhealthy" foods, "unsafe" hobbies, and probably alcohol if they thought they could get away with it.

-Eric

99 posted on 06/26/2003 7:34:28 AM PDT by E Rocc (statism is statism is statism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
The case is a major reexamination of the rights and acceptance of gay people in the United States. More broadly, it also tests a state's ability to classify as a crime what goes on behind the closed bedroom doors of consenting adults.

It's always seemed to me that it would be a bit sticky for states to enforce such laws without violating the 4th Amendment.

100 posted on 06/26/2003 7:34:30 AM PDT by Amelia (It's better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,701-1,734 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