Posted on 01/17/2003 2:25:27 PM PST by Robert_Paulson2
Why would you need to push a right into law? Maybe I'm not understanding the question. Let's take freedom of religion. It's a God given right. You don't need (or shouldn't need) a law in each state that says "People can worship". It's stating the obvious- like "It is legal to breathe". Now, Freedom of religion is enumerated so maybe that's not the best example I can throw out there but I would hesitate to provide an example of an unenumerated right because I don't know how germane it would be to the question you're asking.
Could you expand on this? Give some examples?
The US Supreme Court has no dog in the fight and should keep its leftist buttinski nose out of it.
That's why the states have legislatures: to address and answer questions such as this. If it's too much trouble, they may refuse. But it's still the call of the state legislatures and the electorates that vote them in.
For example- gun laws. This is the perfect example because the lefties use the wording of the Second to try and strip people of their Second Ammendment Rights. Now, an American either has a right to own a gun or he doesn't. If your State is passing a law that says you have to turn your guns in, you should be able to challenge that law right up to the Supremes. This is an area the court doesn't want to get into and, although I understand why that is, I think they should.
A previous poster asked me about unenumerated rights. That's a big can of worms. What are unenumerated rights? They weren't defined in the Constitution but if an unenumerated right is indeed a right, the gov't- be it State or Federal- has no power to deny you that right.
The question is- is sex an unenumerated right? Well, the answer there is no, it's not. You can't have sex on your front lawn or on the sidewalk. Clearly, it's not a right. But is sex between two adults in the privacy of their own home a right? That's the tricky bit. Before I would try to answer that, I would fall back on the Fourth Ammendment and claim that the State has no right invading your privacy without probable cause and then go on to build my case around how you would determine probable cause in the case of a man and wife having oral or anal sex. It would be impossible for the State to do in a practical sense.
Like my questions to buffyt- what is it (oral and anal sex)? These questions would have to be clearly defined in a State law and there could be endless legal hairsplitting about whether an act constituted an act of oral sodomy. The more exactly you endeavored to define the terms is the level of detail the State will have to prove and by default the level of your privacy they would have to intrude upon to make their case. They'd literally have to be under your sheets with a flashlight going "Bingo! We've got lips on genitals! Book 'em Danno!"
I think a citizen of any State in this Union who was arrested and incarcerated in such a way has every cause in the world to take such a case up with the High Court and it would be entirely appropriate for the Court to hear it on Fourth Ammendment grounds if for nothing else.
Yes, it certainly was an infamous pro-gay decision. Not only was it a masterpiece of shoddy legal reasoning, it was totally bereft of common sense. Infamous is right. There was nothing praiseworthy about it at all.
Yes, exactly. The only way to protect sodomy constitutionally is for SCOTUS to usurp the prerogatives of the state legislatures by creating a "penumbra" out of thin air in the same manner it did in Roe v. Wade and hiding the filthy, death-delaing, disease-inducing, socially destructive, taxpayer-bleeding behavior within it.
Judicial activism of the despicable Roe v. Wade kind is a leftist specialty--not a conservative one.
Wake up, Chuck! Every criminal law is subjected to endless legal hairsplitting. "Hairsplitting" is what defense lawyers get paid to do.
If a risk of "hairsplitting" were a disqualifying factor in the criminl law, we would have no criminal law.
Consider what they had to work with. The Colorado statute itself was badly written. It said, in effect, the State won't do anything for people who self-identify as gays. Justice O'Connor interpreted it to mean that state-funded hospitals would have to deny providing healthcare to gays, or that a city could deny a gay civil rights group permission to hold meetings at a library, but tax protesters could use the same facilities as of right. "This Colorado cannot do," she wrote awkwardly (albeit correctly.) Had the original statute been written less vaguely, like, for example, specifically denying funding for gay organizations, the Supremes would probably have upheld it.
Thanks. I'm awake now. I agree with you because you have seen the light and I've just been asleep this whole time. So, are you interested in discussing or what? I'm open to discussion, but when you start in with condescending stuff like that- I see no reason to bother myself. I have done nothing to you other than disagree with you. You're just an average Joe like me. You're certainly entitled to your opinion but that doesn't necessarily make you an authority or an oracle of the truth.
Let me ask you then- when, in your opinion is it appropriate for a citizen to appeal his case to the Supreme Court?
Question Two, what would the point to a sodomy law be? What is it supposed to protect society against and how would you enforce it? If a law can't be enforced it is effectively not a law. How would you enforce it without intruding upon someone's Fourth Ammendment Rights?
Don't start in with name calling now. I'm asking serious questions, I haven't been condescending to you and I'd like a polite answer. This isn't a matter I care to fight about.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
As far as the homosexuals spreading disease argument? How effective is this law at preventing the spread? Is this to say that homosexuals have in any way been deterred from their sexual practices because of this law? I sincerely doubt it has prevented even one single instance of buggery.
Someone else mentioned it earlier but it bears revisiting. This is the same logic the gungrabbers use to restrict gun ownership. It is to protect society. And every member of this forum knows the laws don't stop criminals from using guns. How is this different when applied here?
Many communities still outlaw dildos (rubber penises) and inflatable sex dolls. So far they aren't raising up these "rights" to the Supreme Court. Could it be shame and embarassment that keep them from stepping forward?
Many communities also outlaw extreme porn with "golden showers" and other sexual uses of bodily wastes. I do not know if there are ordinences agsinst these "sex" acts, just that there are laws against the trafficking in the depictions of these acts (community standards and all that).
Again, no one steps forward to defend these freakish acts.
There is little likelihood of individual case prosecution but they can be used to compound charges in some circumstances.
If discussion of these "sex" acts offends you, then perhaps you begin to understand where other people's disgust at same sex behavior hits.
So far no one wants to touch this angle of the story (although I have offered it up several times for discussion).
There were homosexual advocates pushing for just such normalization of age of consent laws in England and elsewhere so it is not a "side effect" of such legistation change. There are those who do seek to make this change in law. I haven't been able to get anyone to defend the lowing of the age of consent for homosexual sex acts with adults (over 18) but then again, they won't speak out against it either or setting up measures to prohibit such activity.
Additionally, if it can be established that "homosexuals" are a classification of people that can be discriminated against (on the basis of behavior like vegatarians) then they should be able to "marry", receive partner benefits (after marriage), have acts of safe sodomy taught in sex education (since it will no longer be reproduction education)...
Of course smokers (who are using a legal product) can still be denied jobs, health care, restaurant service, etc...
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.