Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
Many, many have done so, not knowing his secret perversions. Quite a few have died. My sister did not. Many others' have.
I'm sorry, but could translate the above sentence into English, and then perhaps expound on what the hell it's supposed to mean?
Legal, I don't know.
As the government is sanctioning marriage, I think laws against adultery are much more logical than laws against sodomy.
Unless the police are there for some other reason, or a witness reports it.
The Bill of Rights doesn't include a 'right to privacy', dead.
That is a very nice statement that has absolutely nothing in the least to do with my point (or your original statement.)
The Bill of Rights overrules democracy in favor of individual rights. Libertarians support this concept, which you seem to have a problem with.
Legal, I don't know.
As the government is sanctioning marriage, I think laws criminalizing adultery are much more logical than laws criminalizing sodomy.
" 'Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from con- stitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to pro- duce offspring, are a form of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons. 478 U. S., at 216 (footnotes and citations omitted).'
"JUSTICE STEVENS analysis, in our view, should have been controlling in Bowers and should control here. Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding prece- dent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled. 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.
"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosex- ual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their exis- tence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. Casey, supra, at 847.
"The Texas statute furthers no le- gitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual. Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its mani- fold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
"The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered."
I think that's what many are reacting to, while others consider it reactionary.
We all have seen over the years what happens when the camel gets his nose in the tent. We've seen it with our schools.
In my opinion, the way is being cleared for same-sex marriages.
The legal reasoning, and I use that term liberally, is bizarre.
Democracy is mob rule. The U.S. is not a democracy.
If we were a democracy, this ruling may have ostensibly been the wrong decision if the majority of people were in favor of singling out gay people for prosecution under sodomy laws.
But since we're not a democracy, this ruling correctly protects the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority (read: mob).
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.