Skip to comments.
Supreme Court urged to kill Texas' sodomy law
Houston Chronicle via World Net Daily-- Associated Press ^
| 1-16-2003
Posted on 01/17/2003 2:25:27 PM PST by Robert_Paulson2
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
To: All
2
posted on
01/17/2003 2:27:05 PM PST
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: Robert_Paulson2
Well, this news certainly sucks.
To: Robert_Paulson2
Throwing out stupid laws should be done by the State's legislature not the US Supreme Court.
To: Robert_Paulson2
The case began when sheriff's deputies, responding to a false report of an armed intruder, went into John Lawrence's apartment and discovered him having sex with Tyron Garner. Both men spent the night in the Harris County Jail ...
... where they met Ben Dover ...
5
posted on
01/17/2003 2:56:01 PM PST
by
eastsider
To: Libertarianize the GOP
Throwing out stupid laws should be done by the State's legislature not the US Supreme Court. We might still be counting chads in Florida if that were truly the case. Sometimes it's those state legislatures themselves that made the stupid law in question.
To: Robert_Paulson2
"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in 1986 that consenting adults have no constitutional right to private homosexual sex, upholding laws that ban sodomy"
unless I am missing something, isn't this a good thing? a precedent has been set to ban homosexual activity, chances are good it won't be heard or the verdict will go against the gays.
7
posted on
01/17/2003 3:25:42 PM PST
by
COKE623
To: COKE623
Watch what you ask for. Some state laws banning sodomy apply to both homosexual and heterosexual participants in activities like oral sex and anal sex.
8
posted on
01/17/2003 3:34:22 PM PST
by
wildbill
To: wildbill
Exactly.
To: wildbill
It's only applied to heterosexuals when there is evidence of sexual assault or rape. The Founders and the original 13 states were right on this issue.
To: Robert_Paulson2
Oh, yes ! That law is a (giggle !) pain in the a**
To: COKE623
unless I am missing something, isn't this a good thing? a precedent has been set to ban homosexual activity Ummm... why would you want to do that?
To: Prodigal Son
We would not still be counting chads in Florida. Their election number had to be certified by a certain date. If the count had been delayed long enough, their electoral votes may not have been cast at all.
The Florida Supreme Court tried to redefine election standards after the votes had been cast.
The US Supreme Court would not let such action stand.
13
posted on
01/17/2003 4:52:09 PM PST
by
weegee
To: Robert_Paulson2
I don't see any new details in this case. Lambda Legal has been wanting the law overturned from the beginning.
I still alledge that the 2 convicted men (and their convicted gay ex-lover neighbor, the one who made the false call) conspired to create the scenario by which they were "caught" in the privacy of their own home.
14
posted on
01/17/2003 4:54:40 PM PST
by
weegee
To: Robert_Paulson2
SLOUCHING TOWARD GOMORRAH as Bork said..... Just go ahead and throw out all laws that have to do with morality!
15
posted on
01/17/2003 5:00:49 PM PST
by
buffyt
(Can you say President Hillary?.......Me neither....)
To: wildbill
Oral and Anal ARE sodomy.
16
posted on
01/17/2003 5:01:42 PM PST
by
buffyt
(Can you say President Hillary?.......Me neither....)
To: COKE623
a precedent has been set to ban homosexual activityYou a liberal or something? You still believe that laws just stop activity you don't like?
While you're at it, why not pass some laws to ban drugs and guns?
17
posted on
01/17/2003 5:04:01 PM PST
by
BfloGuy
To: weegee
My point was, it is appropriate for the Supreme Court to decide on States' matters once the normal appeals process is gone through. That's one of the things they're there for.
To: COKE623
a precedent has been set to ban homosexual activity, chances are good it won't be heard or the verdict will go against the gays.It will be heard, and anti-sodomy laws will be overturned. The 1986 vote in Bowers vs. Georgia was 5-4 and, years later, Justice White said it was the worst decision he ever made and wished that he'd voted the other way (from supporting the laws to voiding them.) Since that time, the Supremes ruled against Colorado in that infamous pro-gay decision.
19
posted on
01/17/2003 5:19:21 PM PST
by
ItsJeff
To: buffyt
Oral and Anal ARE sodomy. I can't resist this one. Can you define oral and anal sex for me? Is kissing oral sex? What about kissing the belly button? Inner thighs? Pubic region? Or does there have to be specific genital contact? Does an orgasm have to be involved?
The point here is, the gov't has no business in your bedroom in the first place shining a flashlight under your bedsheets in order to clearly define when your lips actually touch your partner's thing-a-lingy. What me and my wife do in our bed- that's nobody's business.
Sure you can make a law, but what's the point of the law if the only way to enforce it is for the gov't to go where they have no business going? And what does a law proscribing what my wife and I do in bed actually protect? How are you harmed by the things we do in our bedroom? What is this law for?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson