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.
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 ... 941-960, 961-980, 981-1,000 ... 1,721-1,734 next last
No one is saying anyone has a right to child abuse or bestiality- only the common sexual practices of consenting adults.
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.
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?
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.
posted on 06/26/2003 12:17:12 PM PDT
The question is what are the consequences of a law against lying. How do you prove lying vs merely difference of opinion vs mistake? Should one have a court case when a politician makes a campaign promise?
posted on 06/26/2003 12:17:20 PM PDT
by Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
Many other Rights came into being thanks to the Supreme Court, such as the Right to Privacy, Miranda Rights,
...abortion 'rights'. Aparently you like being governed by an unelected judicial Nonumvirate. Ave Souter.
posted on 06/26/2003 12:18:04 PM PDT
Did you read the post I was replying too? He said the government shouldn't regulate morality. I was merely pointing out that all laws are based on moral principles, and thus all laws must be repealed if we don't want the government engaging in moral regulation.
"Godless atheist HOMOSEXUAL? Is that you?
Nope. Just a godless atheist. I'm a happily-married straight guy. But, if you want, you can gossip about me, since you seem to enjoy such things.
posted on 06/26/2003 12:18:32 PM PDT
So in your opinion Bill Clinton is innocent?
Seriously, if under the age of consent, it violates the child's rights as they're not capable of consenting, if over the age of consent, because the state has a compelling interest in preventing the types of disabilities prevalent in births from incestual sexual contacts.
Birth control covers the birth problems. 16 is age of consent.
posted on 06/26/2003 12:19:15 PM PDT
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: RAT Patrol
The problem with your "two guys having poop-sex in their own appartment doesn't harm anyone" argument is that they leave that appartment frequently with diseases and social behaviors that we all have to finance. Now, if they lived on their own island maybe you would have an argument.
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.
posted on 06/26/2003 12:19:35 PM PDT
by Dead Corpse
(For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
There's no federal law that raises the drinking age to 21. However, buried withing congressional transportation appropriation bills are riders which specify any state without a drinking age of 21 will not receive money highway funds. I believe Lousiania is the only state with an 18 drinking age.
posted on 06/26/2003 12:19:39 PM PDT
by Liberal Classic
(Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est.)
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.
Yes, but just like Roe, it will be expanded to allow those behaviors.
I don't think she can. Literally. I don't.
They are necessarily arbitrary sometimes, but as I said, most of us accept that as the natural state and have no problem accepting that. Being arbitrary doesn't exactly create the slippery slope into a moral wasteland that all the doom and gloomsayers on this board predict.
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.
posted on 06/26/2003 12:20:09 PM PDT
No there isn't.
"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)
posted on 06/26/2003 12:20:53 PM PDT
There is a federal law that states you must be 21 to drink.
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.
Your rights afford you the opportunity to condemn homoesuality...
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?
posted on 06/26/2003 12:21:54 PM PDT
But I'm sure you'd agree as a libertarian that people have the right not to associate with people they don't like or of whose behavior they do not approve.
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.
posted on 06/26/2003 12:22:03 PM PDT
To: Liberal Classic
There's no federal law that raises the drinking age to 21. However, buried withing congressional transportation appropriation bills are riders which specify any state without a drinking age of 21 will not receive money highway funds.
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.
To: Grando Calrissian
And it won't end there, no sir! It will begin with naked people atop pianos, and it will end with a plague the likes of which the world has yet to imagine.
This is not an issue of religious police. The 10th amendment guarantees to the states and the people themselves all powers not granted to the federal government. The Constitution does not give the power to the federal government to regulate in this area. But the courts did a huge power grab today.
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.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 941-960, 961-980, 981-1,000 ... 1,721-1,734 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson