Scalia: What a massive disruption of the social order this ruling entails.

US Supreme Court ^ | June 26, 2003 | nwrep

[Dimensio]

So...two homosexuals in a completely monogamous relationship is okay?

[cookcounty]

"How are you harmed in a transaction of sex for money?"

So you want to know how am I (a minor) harmed by my mother being involved in a transaction for sex? Or,

How am I (a spouse) harmed by my spouse being involved in a transaction of sex for money? Or,..

How am I (a taxpayer ) harmed by a practice which spreads disease (the definition of "filthy") that I am required under penalty of imprisonment, to pay for? -----( More tax money is spent on promiscuously spread STD's than any other disease including cancer)

[Dimensio]

How am I (a spouse) harmed by my spouse being involved in a transaction of sex for money? Or,..

Wouldn't this violate the marriage agreement? Seems to me like it's a breach of (the marriage) contract.

[TFMcGuire]

You will have me defend hoosexuality and will not be satisfied until I do.

No Homosexual relationship is moral, ethical, or safe.

Monogamous male homosexuals?

I don't believe such critturs exist!

[TFMcGuire]

Prostitution or rank immorality without profit?

[Sparta]

You cannot understand that immorality spreads STD's. People do not contract veneral disease by handshakes, hugs, or even patting on the back.

So you want to legislate stupidity?

Soddom and Gomorrah burned themselves up in their reprobation before God ever judged them with fire.

Sounds like an issue between a person and God to me. Leave the government out of it.

The moral effects of perversion and other immorality on society are manyfold worse thatn the plagues they gender.

Did you know that sodomy was legal in 37 states before today? We'll survive this. We've survived worse as a nation.

[GOPcapitalist]

Segregation applies in as much as it applies to all precedent and the limits of state's rights.

Segregation isn't even an issue in this case. Why you keep bringing it up is a question onto itself.

I never said anyone here was proposing segregation. But previous decisions and societal conflicts are VERY relevant to anything involving federal-state disputes today.

Relevant in historical value but irrelevant as a basis for determining issues of constitutional discretion that do not involve them in any way, shape, or form. To suggest that the federal government should intervene against the states on sodomy just because some states did wrong with segregation is absurd. It presumes irrationally that state exercises of jurisdiction are inherently prone to an abuse when in fact the federal government suffers the same problem in what is often a greater degree.

Put another way, achieving the right thing by the wrong means tends to hurt in the long run more than it helps. You know as well as I do that this law as not challenged out of any great love of liberty or desire for justice. It was challenged for impure motives to advance an agenda and political affiliation that is habitually infringing upon liberty in general. To use an anecdotal conversation with Ron Paul, a comparison may be made to the WTO protesters. On its face value, advocates of liberty oppose the WTO and all those other globalist globalist-type organizations and generally desire to abolish them. This immediate position is shared by the protesters as well. But they do not share it for the reasons we do, which entail the organization's infringement upon liberty and sovereignty. They hold their views because they believe those organizations get in the way of their end goals of marxism. For that reason it is unwise to join them in their protest or to support the WTO in opposition to their marxism. In short, aiding a side would entail choosing between national socialism and communism - neither of which is desirable to liberty. Therefore we must seek our own means of opposing globalist organizations and ensure that means includes a motive that is consistent with liberty.

The exact same thing applies with the sodomy law, and in this case those libertarians who joined in to support its plaintiffs achieved only a minor if not negligable success at an immeasurably greater cost.

[Dimensio]

You will have me defend hoosexuality and will not be satisfied until I do.

No, I was curious as to how far you were trying to carry your justifications. Your argument seemed to be solely based upon "health risks", however two homosexuals in a purely monogamous relationship are not going to spread STDs. Even if they are infected, they can't affect anyone else through their actions.

No Homosexual relationship is moral, ethical, or safe.

The judgement of "ethical" or "moral" is subjective, but how is a monogamous relationship between two homosexuals "not safe"?

Monogamous male homosexuals?

I don't believe such critturs exist!

I was not speaking specifically of male homosexuals, though even in that respect your delusional denial does not affect reality. I can understand, however, the need to cling to such denials in the face of contradictory reality, as it does help you justify your position.

[Skywalk]

LOL

Who told you that tax to pay for others' misdeeds for unfortunate contraction of STDs was constitutional?

And a spouse is hurt by infidelity too, and can get an STD from that. So, you propose jailing people for adultery? Good luck.

[F16Fighter]

"Maybe watching people get arrested for consensual crimes arouses your fascist impulses, but some of us believe such laws to be ridiculous and against the very spirit of liberty."

Amazing how sodomy laws, on the books for some 250 years, are suddenly so restrictive.

May we extrapolate from your belief, and in the "spirit of liberty," that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong?? Or JUST the parts where consenual buggery, "under-age" sex, and bestiality are unfairly deemed taboo for some vague reason(s)?

[Skywalk]

Government is much too big and intrusive

That's from your profile page, genius.

[TFMcGuire]

You know, I confess to simplicity!

I believe Most truth is simple.

On the other hand, one can be educated beyond his intelligence. Liberals are usually in this state.

Man can use his reason to approach God or to flee from God.
Your lifestlyle has chosen your theology, your politics, and even your abiliity to reason.

Our forefathers and their forefathers are much more closely aligned in their thinking moral and legal to Scolia than to the p.c. Activist shills that are usurping powers given to the states.

Scolia is not the reegade here. He is standing for 200+ years of historical Constitutional interpretation.

I promise you. You need have no fear of being a more knowledgable Constitutionalist than Scolia, Rhenquist, and Thomas are. They Stand with historical interpretation.

And quit pulling the Comparison with black civil rights.

And where in the Constitution do you find a defense of sodomy?

[St.Chuck]

The Republicans control every branch of the government, yet we are seeing support of affirmative action, campaign finance reform, prescription drug benefits, nation building abroad, and now, the sanction of sexual deviancy. Think how much worse it would be if the Dems were in power.

[Sparta]

So, you propose jailing people for adultery?

Don't give some on this thread ideas, please.

[GregoryFul]

The "Supreme Court" is putting us back in the "Animal House" by these decisions.

Of course, they only reflect the result of a long slide into this state by the populace - the SCOTUS just make it "official".

[Skywalk]

I agree with your last post, EXCEPT that I think you misstated it a bit.

If anything, people who call themselves pro-liberty and believe in the freedom and sovereignty of the individual in nearly all other aspects of life will join with those who ban behavior simply because it offends them.

You say segregation is not relevant and question my motivation in doing so, and you are wrong to do that. You state that I operate under an assumption that state power will always result in abuse. This too, is wrong. Instead, I say that the supreme law of the land supercedes the state's rights when the state is overstepping its bounds. PERIOD. That means whether its segregation or a future California oppressing non-Hispanic citizens, the federal government can and should resolve the dissonance between the state's laws and the Constitution.

Do you or do you not support lifting all gun laws banning possession or limiting it(by number, cool-off periods, etc) because they are a violation of the 2nd?

How are we in disagreement here, then?

[Sparta]

And where in the Constitution do you find a defense of sodomy?

This case should've been taken by SCOTUS. This is a Tenth Amendment issue. The place to change these laws is on the State level.

[Sparta]

should've not been

[Skywalk]

Damn, where is that constitutional right to ANYTHING not explicitly listed in the constitution?

Dude, because you hate homos doesn't mean we should start making laws based on that.

[F16Fighter]

I'm duly impressed by your noble and attentive need to repeal 250 year old laws which have been enforced about as often as spitting laws.