Is Lawrence Worse Than Roe?

CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter ^ | 6/27/03 | Deal Hudson

[Polycarp]

This is gravely serious, folks.

[toothless]

the sky is falling!
the sky is falling!
the sky is falling!

[Polycarp]

Only fools fail to see the danger of this decision. Fool.

[Always Right]

If the Supreme Court finds the amendment unconstitutional -- which, thanks to Lawrence, they now claim the right to do -- then we're sunk.

How can the Supreme Court can find a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional? That makes no sense at all.

[demkicker]

I agree that this is serious and think all sane people better make their voices heard NOW. Folks, do not wait until the left gets their shrill supporters of gay marriage whipped into a vitriolic freenzy. Pretend you are the leader of a PAC, get off your butts and find your voices now! We need to flood our representatives with a show of force. Call, write and fax your opposition to gay marriage unless you want to see it made legal.

[toothless]

Only fools fail to see a slippery slope falacy. Fool.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

[dogbyte12]

Only fools fail to see the danger of this decision. Fool.

Matthew 5:22

This decision is not even close to being as bad as Roe vs Wade. Two homosexuals killing themselves spiritually and physically, does not even touch the taking of a defenseless life. Not even close.

[MalcolmS]

I'm confused.

On the one hand, the right to privacy does not appear in the Constitution, as stated in the article.

On the other hand, is it a natural right, not assigned to the Federal government, and therefore devolving to "the state or the people?"

[sinkspur]

If the Supreme Court finds the amendment unconstitutional -- which, thanks to Lawrence, they now claim the right to do -- then we're sunk.

The Supreme Court can not overturn a Constitutional Amendment.

[Polycarp]

Of course, you are right. Lawrence wasn't a point on the trajectory of the slippery slope of Roe. Roe was not a point on the trajectory of the slippery slope of Griswold Vs Connecticut. Griswold Vs Connecticut was not a point on the trajectory of the slippery slope of the 1930 Lambeth Conference. The 1930 Lambeth Conference decision was not a point on the trajectory of the slippery slope of the Reformation. Ad nauseum.

Of course, you are 98% ignorant of what I'm referring to. Go back to your TV and vegetate. Everything is just fine.

[Ahban]

don't expect W to help you on this one. he is one the wrong side. Personnel is policy. We can get worked up over issue after issue, but we will keep losing if we don't elevate the right PEOPLE to office. That no longer includes most Republicans.

www.constitutionparty.com

[Paulie]

From your previous post, that sounds like you.

[LarryM]

The Supreme Court can't invalidate a Constitutional amendment.

[sinkspur]

Howard Phillips is unelectable. Fat, scowling middle-aged men don't win national office.

[Paulie]

What the fool doesn't understand he laughs at, thinking by his laughter he demonstrates his intellectual superiority, when in fact he does nothing more than demonstrate his own latent idiocy.

From your previous post, that sounds like you.

[TheGrimReaper]

Rehnquist was correct when he wrote that the Court's majority had "entered the culture wars"... where the Court has no business meddling. Those 6 justices have effectively used the bench to make social commentary - and the usual "unintended consequences" are inevitable.

The 10th Amendment has again been spat upon. The debates and deliberations of state legislatures to write statutes have been rendered null, void and meaningless.
Despite the majority's protests, they have given the nod to virtually any deviant, dangerous, harmful behavior - with the only requirement being that such acts must occur behind closed doors.

The "slippery slope" is real...and it looks like we're on our way down it.

[toothless]

I guess you are right, I'm not one of the wisened 2%ers. lol.

[VOA]

Is Lawrence Worse Than Roe?

Both are terrible.

And as much as I have serious trepidation about suspending the statute of
limitations on any crime, about the only things I can think about the US Supreme Court
is this:

1. You have the right to slice, dice, and Julienne-fry any "non-viable tissue mass"
as long as it hasn't fully exited the birth canal before being "terminated".

2. You have the right to anything you want with any orifice or appendage of the
body as long as everyone involved is over legal age and doesn't call the cops.

3. If you molest children...be sure to lay low until the statute of limitation runs.
(I about screamed today to see the angelic smile on the face of Father Wempe here
in California, realizing that his confederates on the US Supreme Court were going
to make sure he never faced scrutiny (and the justice he probably deserves) for his
relationships to little boys.

Former Governor Frank Keating was right to attribute qualities of La Costra Nostra
to the pedophile conspirators/enablers of his church...now I wonder if the conspiracy
has spread to the guys in the robes in Washington, D.C.

The silver lining?
Democrats/Liberals/Libertines don't anything to gripe about.
Most of Dubya's constituency have now been mobilized...the left has
foolishly never learned to check to see if a big doy is securing chained before
laughinly prodding with a stick.

[tdadams]

I'm not surprised to you see posting this hysteria.

How many people are going to jump on board and parrot this ridiculous line that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. News flash, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights was ever intended to be an exhaustive enumeration of a person's rights. Can we all agree on this?

Secondly, following Bowers v. Hardwick, eleven states abolished their anti-sodomy laws. So far we've not seen an alarming rise in the incidence of bestiality and incest in those states. Let's relax, OK?

Does anyone think that any homosexuals out there chose to abstain from their preferred sexual practices due to these laws being in place anyway?

Even proponents of anti-sodomy laws admit ther were rarely if ever enforced. That tells me that they weren't intended to uphold personal morality so much as they were to persecute a disfavored minority.

I've looked out my window the last couple of days. The sun is still rising and setting as usual. Relax.