SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

That's an act that makes States have the 21 year old law or they don't get highway funds from the feds. There is no federal law prohibiting States from changing their laws.

[Thane_Banquo]

I'm saying that this right to privacy has never been interpreted by the government to allow homeschooling, yet it has been interpreted to allow abortion and sodomy.

[HumanaeVitae]

Do I have the right, freeee, along with like-minded citizens, to secede from a society that embraces homosexuality. Yes or no.

[LizardQueen]

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.

The post this came from gets my "Post of the Year" award - I saved it for posterity. Excellent.

LQ

[Charles Martel]

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.

Let's see...

Affirmative Action? Check.

Sodomy? Check.

Dang! Why is it getting so hot, and how did I get on this bobsled?

Seriously, my discomfort at the thought of a SCOTUS decision on the 2nd Amendment has risen exponentially over the past week.

[aristeides]

Libertarians may pretty much all disapprove of sodomy laws. I would hazard the guess that there are many of them who do not approve of the reasoning of today's decision.

[Thane_Banquo]

Yes, but where in the Constitution does the government have the right to regulate in this area? The 10th amendment reserves that power to the states and the people.

[OWK]

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?

You have the right to join with others who believe as you do, buy common property, and prohibit homosexuals to access that property, or to engage in commerce with your like-minded compatriots.

What you do NOT have the right to do, is restrict their otherwise peaceful behavior in THEIR homes, businesses, and associations, by force.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

[MineralMan]

"So in your opinion Bill Clinton is innocent?"

Innocent of what, exactly? What does Bill Clinton have to do with this Supreme Court ruling. Clinton was an idiot to have messed around with Monica Lewinsky. It almost cost him the Presidency. Almost. He was an idiot to lie about it, too.

However, he broke no law in fooling around with Lewinsky. He may have broken the law in lying about it.

Innocent is a matter of the law. He was a bad husband, and cheated on his wife. I condemn him for that. Once, in a previous marriage, I committed adultery myself. I'm ashamed of that, but I broke no laws. It took a long time to regain the trust of my wife, and I was simply wrong to do it.

No, I wasn't innocent in a moral sense, but in the legal sense, I was innocent.

[Grando Calrissian]

My point is that if there will never be a concerted effort to legalize incest, why does it always get brought up in these threads?

[yonif]

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.

Oh, if that is the case, then I have mistaken.

[freeeee]

Do I have the right, freeee, along with like-minded citizens, to secede from a society that embraces homosexuality. Yes or no.

Of course you do. Nobody owns you. You don't even need a reason. Secede all you want.

[jimt]

How about my first three answers?

I do know that were I your employer and I found you were having sex with your sixteen year old daughter, your services would no longer be required.

Perfectly legal in Texas.

[OWK]

Thanks for the kind words.

[aristeides]

Actually, there are two substantive due process cases from the 1920's that are sort of the ancestors of the right-to-privacy cases and that Kennedy's opinion today cited with approval. They are Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (right of a parent to choose to send a child to a Catholic school, despite a state law against it), and Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) (right of a parent to send a child to a German-language school, despite a state law against it).

[yonif]

That's an act that makes States have the 21 year old law or they don't get highway funds from the feds. There is no federal law prohibiting States from changing their laws.

OK. Thank you for that clarification!

[yonif]

1000 post

[huck von finn]

Dogs always get brought up in these threads too.

[yonif]

let me try again....1000 POST!

[yonif]

LAST TIME 1000!