Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
I understand that, but this case will be used by NAMBLA, the ACLU, et al to challenge state laws against child molestation, and, depending on the state they sue in, they may get an appeals court to side with them (the 9th circuit is probably salivating in anticipation).
As it is in America today, SCOTUS would allow laws against molestation, but give it 20 years of molestors bullying there way into the mainstream (just like the homosexuals started to do in the 1970s) and you may have a different verdict.
Your rights afford you the opportunity to condemn homoesuality.
They also afford you the opportunity to discriminate against homosexuals in commerce, in association, and in any manner which requires your consent.
They afford you the opportunity to deny them access to your personal and business property.
They afford you the opportunity to protest, or boycott homosexuality.
They also afford you the opportunity to join with others to do likewise.
What they do NOT afford you the opportunity to do, is prohibit or mandate the peaceful, private, sexual actions of consenting adults by force.
For that is a violation of THEIR rights.
This seems to be the problem in America today.
Activist homosexuals snivel about "inclusion" and "diversity" and therefore seek to subjugate the legitimate rights of free association, and property rights, in the name of false civil rights which are not rights at all. No one has a right to access the property of unwilling owners, or to force their unwanted association on others.
Likewise, no one has a right to mandate or prohibit the otherwise peaceful and private actions of consenting adults.
But rather than leave each other alone, left authoritarians, and right authoritarian wrestle for control of the big-government stick with which to beat their neighbors into submission, destroying legitimate rights in the process.
And so it goes.
...abortion 'rights'. Aparently you like being governed by an unelected judicial Nonumvirate. Ave Souter.
Birth control covers the birth problems. 16 is age of consent.
The cure for socialism is not more socialism. As has already been pointed out if you would bother to read what has already been posted.
Yes, but just like Roe, it will be expanded to allow those behaviors.
The ridiculous reasoning offered here, and put forth in all seriousness, is asinine. It's more typical of leftists usually, but I guess some 'conservatives' have no problem adopting leftist rhetorical tactics when it suits them.
Since society's rules are arbitrary, what's to stop me from speeding at 100 miles an hour through a school zone? If an intoxicant like alcohol is legal, why not heroin? It's an arbitrary distinction. If I have the right to own a gun, why not a bazooka, why not a tank, why not a nuclear bomb? It's all arbitrary afterall.
We know you don't agree with the ruling, but don't be so daft.
"The National Minimum Drinking Age Act is perhaps the law that has the most impact on the day-to-day lives of America's youth since it was signed into law on July 17, 1984."
(sources at the bottom)
http://www.asfar.org/zine/5th/cover.html
What I think the federal law does is to deny federal funding to states that don't enact a drinking age of at least 21. That's not the same thing.
Honest question OWK...do I and people like me have a right to secede from a society that condones homosexual behavior and form our own society?
Absolutely.
You say: aberrant behaviors by small groups of people affect the whole.
And give examples of: Court systems, the military, roads and so on.
While I agree those are legitimate public works, I'm curious, how does sodomy affect any of them?
If someone is a serious heroin addict, and blows through their money and ends up at the door of the county hospital with a severe OD and can't pay for it, the hospital will treat that person and society will have to pick up the tab.
Wait a minute, you just switched from legitimate public works to socialist entitlement. The two are not the same. Not even close, no matter how much Democrats say they are. If the OD guy can't pay, and private charity won't pay, out the door and into the gutter he goes. Tough. Personal responsibility is necessary for libertarianism. (BTW, I'd prefer this not turn into a drug thread)
What if I want to secede from homosexuals? Don't I have a right to free association? To not be affected by homosexuals? If homosexuals are going to claim a "right" to engage in their destructive behavior, can't I claim a right to not be affected by it?
The only cost incurred to you by homosexuals is in health care. Being in that I wouldn't make you pay a thin dime for their care, you would be free to entirely disassociate yourself from them. Fire them, shun them, refuse to do any sort of business with them for all I care.
I think you're starting to get the point: in the absence of socialism, their behavior is none of your concern.
Yes, I am quite aware. It just bothers me that there are people out there who actually think that there is as law, and that its not just bribery and blackmail at the tax-payer's expense.
The portion of the 10th amendment reserving non-federal powers to the states has been de facto repealed by this ruling and others like it over the past 70 years.
And with political correctness run amuck, the move is already under way to remove the non-federal powers reserved for the people, and that means all our liberties.
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.