The Supreme Court made today a good day

[John Galt]

I've been working too much and been too grumpy lately, but this has cheered me up and made my day.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/index.html

[albionmoonlight]

I agree. The government should not have the right to control what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home. Period.

To me, the issue of whether sodomy is "right" or "wrong" does not even enter the debate.

I have yet to read the case, but I am interested when I get a chance. I assume, John, that Scalia was none too happy?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Agreed. Makes up for the travesty that was Bowers. Between this and the UofM Law affirmative action case, it hasn't been a bad week for US jurisprudence.

[Ben E Lou]

I guess the 10th Amendment is no longer valid...

[Ben E Lou]

Dola....well actually I'm not sure it ever was...

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
I agree. The government should not have the right to control what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home. Period.

To me, the issue of whether sodomy is "right" or "wrong" does not even enter the debate.

I have yet to read the case, but I am interested when I get a chance. I assume, John, that Scalia was none too happy?

Of course. The usual three, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist all dissented. Scalia made some pithy comments about the Court taking sides in a cultural agenda.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
I have yet to read the case, but I am interested when I get a chance. I assume, John, that Scalia was none too happy?

I haven't seen too much except for the parts in the CNN article (that he actually read his decision from the bench and criticized the Court for taking sides in the "culture wars"). I think Rehnquist is probably the most upset. He dissented from a University of Missouri decision in the 70s that allowed a gay student organization to exist. He compared allowing a gay club to allowing an organization of rapists. He seems to be the by far the most homophobic of the Justices. I had a chance to meet him a few years ago and he didn't express any regret in what he wrote in that decision.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Honolulu_Blue
Agreed. Makes up for the travesty that was Bowers. Between this and the UofM Law affirmative action case, it hasn't been a bad week for US jurisprudence. Ummm....the Michigan case scares me. Did anyone HEAR a Supreme Court Justice of the United States say that the ruling was based on "the good of society?" I guess that whole thing of making rulings based on the United States Constitution is a thing of the past... :(

[Samdari]

Never is probably not true SkyDog.

However, lately.....

[albionmoonlight]

The 10th says that the states have the powers that are not given to the fed.

The 14th says that States cannot violate someone's due process rights.

The 10th amendment is not applicable here. This is not an area where the fed was trying to legislate in an area that was reserved to the states. It is simply a case of the state passing a law that conflicted with the federal constitution. When there is a conflict, the constitution wins by virture of it being the "supreme law of the land"--a stipulation to which every state agreed when it ratified the U.S. constitution.

For a quick example. A state could not pass a law that said that no woman could inheret property. That law would conflict with the 14th amendment. Even though local issues of property decent are certainly areas in which states have control over acts of congress, the laws that the state passes cannot conflict with constitutional provisions.

[Craptacular]

It's better than Monday's U of Michigan Law School ruling.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
I guess the 10th Amendment is no longer valid...

SD, the decision doesn't affect interpretations of the 10th Amendment. If there is a core liberty or constitutional right at issue, it never gets to federalism questions. You may believe that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, but once you decide there is, federalism isn't an issue. Otherwise, states would be able to obliterate free speech, deny due process, and inflict cruel and unusual punishment (notice that the Bill of Rights doesn't include references to state actions). Once the 14th Amendment was passed, the Court "incorporated" almost all the rights in the first 9 Amendments to apply to the states (they didn't actually apply until that point). Nowadays, almost every constitutional protection applies to actions by the states, with the right to a jury being a notable exception.

[Coffee Warlord]

This doesn't make up for the 2 revolting US Supreme Court decisions monday.

One, the Univ of Michigan one, upholding what is in my mind reverse discrimination, 'point system' or not.

Two, and far worse, the lawsuit brought about the the Librarians Association, upholding enforced censorship of library internet access points.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
You may believe that there is no right to privacy in the ConstitutionOf course not. That's a silly statement to make.

Nowadays, almost every constitutional protection applies to actions by the states[/B]Unfortunately, you're spot on there...


For the record, I don't care about that particular law itself. However, it frightens me that the Federal Government is sticking its nose in more and more where it doesn't belong.

[sachmo71]

Welcome to the 21st century, Texas.

Skydog, why is it that any government, state or federal, should be allowed to dictate what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes? I'm glad the government stepped in an struck down the law. In my mind, it's no ones business.

If the State sticks it's nose where it doesn't belong, isn't it a good thing that the government can call them on it?

[albionmoonlight]

But this is not the Federal Government sticking its nose in where it does not belong. The Constitution is the law of the states as much as it is the law of the feds (which, in part, is why states have to ratify amendments to the constitution before they can become effective). The Supreme Court of the United States interperted a provision of the Constitution to conflict with a state law. According to the Constitution, when a state law or an act of the US Congress conflicts with the Constitution, the state law/act of congress "loses."

I think the distinction here may be that I am thinking of the Constitution as the law of the land, and you are thinking of it as federal law.

Here's another example to illustrate my point.

In a recent case (Lopez), the U.S. Congress had passed a law saying that you could not possess a gun within X feet of a school. Mr. Lopez was busted under this law. The U.S. Supreme Court found that there was no basis in the Constitution for Congress to pass this law. Accordingly, the power to control this action was reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. Congress had no right to pass the law. The Constitution says when Congress has no right to pass a law, the law must die. So it died. (rightly, I think).

If, however, in that case, the state has passed a law saying that "no person shall possess a gun within X feet of a school," then that law would not conflict with anything and would be constitutional. That's the 10th Amendment in action.

Finally, if either the state or congress passed a law saying that "no black person shall own a gun," then the law would be struck down as violating the Constitution. Whether the law comes from the state or the fed., if it conflicts with the constitution, it is unconstitutional.

I can understand where you are coming from, SkyDog. From the perspective of Texas, Washington D.C. is telling them how to run their sherrif's office. Whether the decree comes from the Supreme Court, Congress, or the President may be a cute issue of interest to the lawyers, but from the state's perspective, it is all the same thing.

However, and I am one of the lawyers who enjoys this kind of hair splitting, I think that the distinctions that John and I have laid out are important in a larger sense--even if the immediate effect of them cannot be felt.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by SkyDog
For the record, I don't care about that particular law itself. However, it frightens me that the Federal Government is sticking its nose in more and more where it doesn't belong.
It sounds here like you do not believe that you think the federal government should be preventing the states from denying us constitutional rights, which is what this case was decided on.

You really think states should be able to deny us rights guaranteed in the U.S. constitution?

[albionmoonlight]

Dola--I don't want to understate my case. I would actually argue that those distinctions--in the long run--are much more important than the results in any individual case. Without them, we would not have a government by, of, and for the people.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by sachmo71
Skydog, why is it that any government, state or federal, should be allowed to dictate what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes? I'm glad the government stepped in an struck down the law. In my mind, it's no ones business. That sounds great, but what happens when the Imperial Federal Government sticks its nose in again where it doesn't belong and changes a law that you DO happen to agree with? My concern isn't with that particular law, but with the power that the Feds are haphazardly wielding.

[scooper]

Originally posted by SkyDog
I guess the 10th Amendment is no longer valid...

Uh Oh. Sounds like succession grumblings out of Georia. :D

[Tekneek]

If all the US government did everyday was protect me from the tyranny of state governments attempting to restrict/invade my privacy, I would actually enjoy paying my taxes!

It is the job of the government to step in when your rights are being violated. They have determined that Texas telling you what sexual acts you are allowed to perform with other consenting adults is a violation of your freedom. This is a fantastic decision for everyone in this country. Hopefully it will be a sign that, in the future, the citizen will win the battles over privacy and individual rights, instead of the government always winning.

I don't know how anyone could be upset about this ruling, unless you think you really have a right to tell other adults what they are allowed to do consensually in the privacy of their own homes. If you think you have the right to do that, I really feel sorry for you.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by SkyDog
That sounds great, but what happens when the Imperial Federal Government sticks its nose in again where it doesn't belong and changes a law that you DO happen to agree with? My concern isn't with that particular law, but with the power that the Feds are haphazardly wielding.

Unfortunately, I tainted my point with my opinion.

If a law is deemed unconstitutional it should be abolished. The laws of the state should be checked by the federal government. Checks and balances are important. That's how I see this situation. The state of Texas made a law that was deemed unconstitutional by the highest court in the land. I don't see the decision as "haphazard". I would feel the same if it was a law that I didn't agree with.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Samdari
It sounds here like you do not believe that you think the federal government should be preventing the states from denying us constitutional rights, which is what this case was decided on. Well of course not. My concern is that a state made a decision of what was illegal behavior, and the feds overturned it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Tekneek
If all the US government did everyday was protect me from the tyranny of state governments attempting to restrict/invade my privacy, I would actually enjoy paying my taxes! LOL. That's actually a good point...

[Samdari]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Well of course not. My concern is that a state made a decision of what was illegal behavior, and the feds overturned it.
They overturned it because it interfered with Constitutional rights though. You can't have it both ways.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Tekneek
If all the US government did everyday was protect me from the tyranny of state governments attempting to restrict/invade my privacy, I would actually enjoy paying my taxes!

It is the job of the government to step in when your rights are being violated. They have determined that Texas telling you what sexual acts you are allowed to perform with other consenting adults is a violation of your freedom. This is a fantastic decision for everyone in this country. Hopefully it will be a sign that, in the future, the citizen will win the battles over privacy and individual rights, instead of the government always winning.

I don't know how anyone could be upset about this ruling, unless you think you really have a right to tell other adults what they are allowed to do consensually in the privacy of their own homes. If you think you have the right to do that, I really feel sorry for you.

Tekneek, who's going to protect you from all enemies, foreign or domestic? :D

It's easy to see how people could be upset with this ruling, however. Homosexuality is NOT a popular lifestyle "choice" in this country, and that is what this law was really about.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Well of course not. My concern is that a state made a decision of what was illegal behavior, and the feds overturned it.

SD, you are really confusing me here. It sounds like you are letting your ideology conflate different issues into the same response.

There is a difference between the federal government regulating intra-state (not interstate) commerece and enforcing constitutional rights protections. This Court has been extremely protective of states rights (moreso than any other in history) and since the Lopez decision, it has mostly continued to strike down federal actions beyond the scope of federal authority.

However, when the states adopt criminal laws that violate constitutional boundaries, then the Court strikes the down. If a state decided to execute criminals without an appeal, for example, it would be struck down as a violation of due process. If a state decided to make newspapers illegal, it would obviously be struck down as violating the First Amendment. Surely, you don't oppose action by the Court in those cases. This is no different - you clearly don't believe in a right to privacy, but don't act like this is a federal powers issue - the government has found a right to privacy in a long line of cases and this decision is a simple statement that states can't trample on that right (just like they can't trample on other constitutional rights).

[Anrhydeddu]

You cannot legislate morality. Once you make a moral issue a political one, like in legalizing the killing of unborn children, then it ceases to be an issue since a government should not impede upon the right to privacy. However, it is being extremely hypocritcal because it makes laws all of the time telling what a private landowner or private business what it specifically can and cannot do and will enforce those even without due process. What gives them the right to do this?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
This is no different - you clearly don't believe in a right to privacyLOL. I've said several times that I believe a person should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as by force or fraud it doesn't deprive another of their right to life, liberty or property. I don't trust the Imperial Federal Government though, and anything resembling expansion of its power troubles me.

[Ajaxab]

"I agree. The government should not have the right to control what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home. Period."

This is an argument I cannot buy. Just because two consenting adults agree to do something in the privacy of their home does not make that activity immune from government intervention. There are a lot of consenting adults manufacturing drugs in the privacy of their own home that they then sell to people on the street. Does it mean the government should take its hands off this activity? I don't see too many people arguing that people should be able to make heroin in the privacy of their own homes.

The real question appears to be about the more far-reaching implications of the activity occurring in the privacy of one's home. Rather than confine the discussion to the privacy issue, we ought to be asking if what occurs in this privacy has consequences for society at large. That would seem to be the issue dividing people. Some would say homosexuality has serious consequences for society while others don't think it matters at all.

[sachmo71]

They sure do try, Bucc. Morality is volatile, and gets your name out there. It can turn you into a champion, too, and carry you all the way to Washington.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola---

To summarize my position. I didn't agree that the law should have been there, but I'm far more concerned that the Federal Government saw fit to jump in. We did it right in Georgia. The Feds upheld the law, then the GEORGIA Supreme court struck down the sodomy law a few years later.

[Anrhydeddu]

Morality is volatile

I personally disagree sachmo. It would be for those that makes up morality as they see fit.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Ajaxab
"I agree. The government should not have the right to control what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home. Period."

This is an argument I cannot buy. Just because two consenting adults agree to do something in the privacy of their home does not make that activity immune from government intervention. There are a lot of consenting adults manufacturing drugs in the privacy of their own home that they then sell to people on the street. Does it mean the government should take its hands off this activity? I don't see too many people arguing that people should be able to make heroin in the privacy of their own homes.

The real question appears to be about the more far-reaching implications of the activity occurring in the privacy of one's home. Rather than confine the discussion to the privacy issue, we ought to be asking if what occurs in this privacy has consequences for society at large. That would seem to be the issue dividing people. Some would say homosexuality has serious consequences for society while others don't think it matters at all.

But sexual acts, as long as they are consentual and done in private (i.e. no one can see or hear them) cannot be harmful to anyone except the people performing them. Unless I'm missing something?

[Samdari]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Dola---

To summarize my position. I didn't agree that the law should have been there, but I'm far more concerned that the Federal Government saw fit to jump in. We did it right in Georgia. The Feds upheld the law, then the GEORGIA Supreme court struck down the sodomy law a few years later.
You really need to clarify here. Do you or do you not think that the supreme court should overturn state laws that violate rights guaranteed to citizens in the Constitution?

[albionmoonlight]

AjaxAB--

Yes--you are right. There are some things that one does in the privacy of ones home in which the government has a say. I can take your example and make drugs "to sell to people on the street." Or I can shoot a bullet that goes through my window and hits another person. I'm sure that we can stretch our minds and think of lots of things that one can do in which all of the actors are located inside of a privately owned dewlling and in which all of the actors have expressed consent to do the activity, but which nonetheless demand government intervention.

I do not, however, believe that it is difficult to draw a distinction between those "mind exercise" activities and private sexual conduct.

I'll amend my statement to say that the goverment should not have the right to control the sexual conduct of consenting adults conducted in private.

[Anrhydeddu]

as long as they are consentual and done in private (i.e. no one can see or hear them) cannot be harmful to anyone except the people performing them. Unless I'm missing something?

Like taking illegal drugs?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
You cannot legislate morality. Once you make a moral issue a political one, like in legalizing the killing of unborn children, then it ceases to be an issue since a government should not impede upon the right to privacy. However, it is being extremely hypocritcal because it makes laws all of the time telling what a private landowner or private business what it specifically can and cannot do and will enforce those even without due process. What gives them the right to do this?

Almost all criminal legislation is premised on morality. Murder, stealing, and kidnapping are all illegal under a particular conception of morality. The 8th Amendment bars punishment that is cruel and unusual (which pretty much means "immoral"). The criminal code is mostly filled with society's collective opinion on certain moral issues.

As for the hyprocrisy, I think you are conflating "privacy" with "private ownership." Admittedly, "privacy" is a slippery term, but tends to include things like the rights surrounding the decision to procreate, the rights of persons to not have certain parts of their body invaded, etc. The usually stem around family or very personal issues. Private ownership restrictions, on the other hand, are inevitable. Otherwise, you have no roads, massive pollution, and constant nuisance (noise, light, etc.). Some restrictions go to far, but not for "privacy" reasons.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Samdari
You really need to clarify here. Do you or do you not think that the supreme court should overturn state laws that violate rights guaranteed to citizens in the Constitution? If a state Supreme Court violates the U.S. Constitution, then sure, but look very carefully at the CNN story...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Like taking illegal drugs? Heh. You opened up a can o' worms there now Buc. ;)

[Samdari]

Originally posted by SkyDog
If a state Supreme Court violates the U.S. Constitution, then sure, but look very carefully at the CNN story...
So, if a state legislature enacts a law which violates the U.S. constitution, which is what happened here, the U.S. Supreme Court should stay out of it?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
If a state Supreme Court violates the U.S. Constitution, then sure, but look very carefully at the CNN story...

Technically, a state Supreme Court decision almost NEVER violates the Constitution - I think you mean the law they uphold violates the Constitution. If you arguing that a state Supreme Court always gets first say on the issue, that is pretty much the status quo. With a few extreme exceptions, the states go through their levels of appeals and once the state SC rules, the losing party can apply for a writ to have their case heard by the SC. Very few of these cases are actually heard, but the SC determines if the law in question is unconstitutional, not whether the actions of the state SC are unconstitutional.

[John Galt]

dola, I should say that some states don't actually have the SC rule - in states where the state SC has discretionary jurisdiction, they may refuse to hear the case. Still, the case can't go to the federal SC (except in very instances) until the state SC decides not to hear the case.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by Ajaxab
[There are a lot of consenting adults manufacturing drugs in the privacy of their own home that they then sell to people on the street. Does it mean the government should take its hands off this activity?

The real question appears to be about the more far-reaching implications of the activity occurring in the privacy of one's home.

[snip]

Some would say homosexuality has serious consequences for society while others don't think it matters at all. [/B]

I do not have a problem with people making drugs in their own homes. In fact, I do not have a problem with them selling the drugs to people who are at least 18 years of age, either. I definitely do not have a problem with consenting adults producing any kind of drug in their home if it never leaves that property (keep in mind here, for the household to be consenting adults there cannot be any children there, or it is no longer just consenting adults). So, yeah, I would be in support of the government backing off of that. Now you've seen at least one person take this consistent position.

Homosexuality has serious consequences for society? Please share some of these in this thread. I am not aware of any such impending doom being brought on by homosexuality. If anything, religion and its fundamentalism is what is more likely to have severe consequences for all of civilized society.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally posted by SkyDog
If a state Supreme Court violates the U.S. Constitution, then sure, but look very carefully at the CNN story...


What about if a state legislature passes a law that infringes constitutional rights? Do you believe that the United States Supreme Court should strike that law down?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
Technically, a state Supreme Court decision almost NEVER violates the Constitution - I think you mean the law they uphold violates the Constitution. If you arguing that a state Supreme Court always gets first say on the issue, that is pretty much the status quo. With a few extreme exceptions, the states go through their levels of appeals and once the state SC rules, the losing party can apply for a writ to have their case heard by the SC. Very few of these cases are actually heard, but the SC determines if the law in question is unconstitutional, not whether the actions of the state SC are unconstitutional. Ok. Yes on the technicality there. Yes, the law they uphold.

Did this case go to the Texas Supreme Court though? It never says so in the article. It just says an appeals court upheld it. Is it just assumed that every case goes through a State supreme court?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Ok. Yes on the technicality there. Yes, the law they uphold.

Did this case go to the Texas Supreme Court though? It never says so in the article. It just says an appeals court upheld it. Is it just assumed that every case goes through a State supreme court?

See my "dola" post. I believe the Texas SC declined to hear the case and so it was appealed to the SC (the next highest level).

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by SkyDog
LOL. I've said several times that I believe a person should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as by force or fraud it doesn't deprive another of their right to life, liberty or property. I don't trust the Imperial Federal Government though, and anything resembling expansion of its power troubles me.

I can't speak for the state of Georgia, but frankly, having met many of the mongoloids, er, men and women in the Arizona State Legislature in the past, I trust my state to do the right thing with regards to constitutional protections even less than the Federal government. The legislature in this state is so bad that even the Arizona Republic, a moderate-right wing newspaper by most standards, refers to the Republican dominated legislature here as the "90 Dwarves."

All I can say is Thank God for the Supreme Court. The constitution and bill of rights worked the way they were supposed to here. This case was a clear invasion of privacy in what was, after all, a matter between consenting adults.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Ok. Yes on the technicality there. Yes, the law they uphold.

Did this case go to the Texas Supreme Court though? It never says so in the article. It just says an appeals court upheld it. Is it just assumed that every case goes through a State supreme court?


Pretty much. The Supreme Court wants to give states the chance to interpert their own laws and how they relate to the federal constitution.

There is also the chance that a state may strike down a law for a reason unrelated to the federal constitution (say if it violates the state constitution), which would keep the US SC from having to hear the case.

So, both to promote judicial economy and to show respect to state judicial systems, almost all cases must go through the final level of state appeal (whatever it may be) before the US SC will even consider getting involved.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Like taking illegal drugs?

Sure, if you cut of the part where I said "But sexual acts", you can make that argument. That was strange, Bucc, unless I'm missing your point.

For the record, I don't equate sexual acts with taking illegal drugs, nor do I believe that everything done in the privacy of a home should be out of bounds for the law. Nowhere did I attempt to make that statement, and if it was inferred from my sentance, I was in err.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
See my "dola" post. I believe the Texas SC declined to hear the case and so it was appealed to the SC (the next highest level). Ahhh....missed your dola....

Of course this makes me lose a LOT of respect for the Texas SC. Are we to assume then that they'd rather let the Feds deal with this one??? Ugh...

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Ahhh....missed your dola....

Of course this makes me lose a LOT of respect for the Texas SC. Are we to assume then that they'd rather let the Feds deal with this one??? Ugh...

Why not...they had to know it was going to get appealed to the US Supreme Court either way. :D

[Tekneek]

As far as Georgia getting it right, there is actually still a law (at least it was the last time I looked it up) on the books indicating that sex out of wedlock was illegal. Whether or not this is ever enforced is another matter, but one wonders why a law that is never enforced would even be allowed to stay on the books...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by WussGawd
Why not...they had to know it was going to get appealed to the US Supreme Court either way. :D Goes back to my general feeling about those unwillling to do what is right regardless of the consequences... They sound gutless to me. If they wanted to uphold the law, then uphold and deal with the backlash from the liberals and the likely US SC overturning of the case. If they wanted to strike it down, then strike it down and deal with the backlash from the pissed-off homophobes. It is bad enough when we have wimps in elected positions...

[albionmoonlight]

Teenek--

Because if it is not enforced, it is not hurting anyone, and so why take the political risk of overturning it? At least, I assume that's how the politicians look at it.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Goes back to my general feeling about those unwillling to do what is right regardless of the consequences... They sound gutless to me. If they wanted to uphold the law, then uphold and deal with the backlash from the liberals and the likely US SC overturning of the case. If they wanted to strike it down, then strike it down and deal with the backlash from the pissed-off homophobes. It is bad enough when we have wimps in elected positions...


SD--I agree completely.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Tekneek
As far as Georgia getting it right, there is actually still a law (at least it was the last time I looked it up) on the books indicating that sex out of wedlock was illegal. Whether or not this is ever enforced is another matter, but one wonders why a law that is never enforced would even be allowed to stay on the books... Well, that's a whole different discussion. There are a bunch of laws on the books in many states that aren't enforced, but that no politician would have the guts to touch with a ten-foot pole. Not even the most liberal politician in Georgia wants to be labeled as the guy who is in favor of adultery. :p That one will be struck down by courts, f it is EVER enforced...

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Goes back to my general feeling about those unwillling to do what is right regardless of the consequences... They sound gutless to me. If they wanted to uphold the law, then uphold and deal with the backlash from the liberals and the likely US SC overturning of the case. If they wanted to strike it down, then strike it down and deal with the backlash from the pissed-off homophobes. It is bad enough when we have wimps in elected positions...

In defense of state SCs - they can only hear so many cases that get appealled. Maybe they should have heard this one (I definitely think so), but there are always going to be a large majority of cases that don't get reviewed.

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Goes back to my general feeling about those unwillling to do what is right regardless of the consequences... They sound gutless to me. If they wanted to uphold the law, then uphold and deal with the backlash from the liberals and the likely US SC overturning of the case. If they wanted to strike it down, then strike it down and deal with the backlash from the pissed-off homophobes. It is bad enough when we have wimps in elected positions...

There might be an explanation for this, though I'm not sure. Maybe one of our denizens who hails from the Great State of Texas can clarify this, but are judges elected in Texas?

In Arizona, state judges all the way up to supreme court justices are subject to recall and a removal vote every two years...so they *ARE* elected officials...though generally state judges don't get voted out of office unless they've done someting egregious.

[ISiddiqui]

The Supreme Court done good.... since I accept that there is no way that substantive due process will ever be declared unconstitutional, it's a good decision to me :D. I mean they had to expand the right to privacy sooner or later. It was untenable the position they took in Bowers where it was decided on do homosexuals have the right to sex rather than do they have a right to privacy. So, good decision. Great week by the US Supreme Court. I can't say I disagreed with them on a single decision.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
Teenek--

Because if it is not enforced, it is not hurting anyone, and so why take the political risk of overturning it? At least, I assume that's how the politicians look at it.

I wish we judged our elected officials by how many laws they repealed rather than how many they created.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by WussGawd
In Arizona, state judges all the way up to supreme court justices are subject to recall and a removal vote every two years...so they *ARE* elected officials...though generally state judges don't get voted out of office unless they've done someting egregious. If that is the case, that just means they have a bit of justification for the fact that they are gutless. :D

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
Teenek--

Because if it is not enforced, it is not hurting anyone, and so why take the political risk of overturning it? At least, I assume that's how the politicians look at it. Dang, you beat me to it. ;)

[Anrhydeddu]

Well, I guess you knew this would be coming. Actually, it was SkyDog that first brought this up a couple of years ago but consider this (if you are willing):
Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, 10thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers--none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God. 11There was a time when some of you were just like that, but now your sins have been washed away,[3] and you have been set apart for God. You have been made right with God because of what the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God have done for you.
12You may say, "I am allowed to do anything." But I reply, "Not everything is good for you." And even though "I am allowed to do anything," I must not become a slave to anything. 13You say, "Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food." This is true, though someday God will do away with both of them. But our bodies were not made for sexual immorality. They were made for the Lord, and the Lord cares about our bodies.

Three points. First is the fallacy that many "fundamentals" make in that they make homosexual acts a specific criminal target (as apparently what the Texas Legislature did). If they (or anyone) is basing such laws on Scriptures, how can they then ignore other sinful acts - like adultery and greed and getting drunk and using drugs??? They are no different but a lof of folks seems to think otherwise.

Second. The Constitution, English Common Laws and many other codified laws were based on Scriptures. Many of the Framers believed in the Scriptures and subsequently, many regular folks in our history believed in the Scriptures. Were they then not supposed to use any of this in their thinking? If you do (or whatever you believe in), how are to reconcile this and make laws? More rhetorical than anything else.

Third. As Galt seems to always be on the side of homosexual rights, it is not about being homosexual at all. It is not wrong to call yourself "gay" (which some seems to have a problem with) but the Scriptures only talk about homosexual acts, which hetereosexuals can do as well. The point of this passage is that there are better things to be doing, that's all.

So yes, I believe the SC did make the right ruling given the circumstances.

[Franklinnoble]

This is truly a great day for pillow-biters everywhere.

"You're the catcher, and I'm the pitcher!"

[Tekneek]

Hmmm. There is a fundamental difference in how I think about this ruling, and how some of you do. I don't think of this as "homosexual rights" but rather "human rights."

[digamma]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
This is truly a great day for pillow-biters everywhere.

"You're the catcher, and I'm the pitcher!"

You disrupted a perfectly good discussion with this, because???

[John Galt]

Originally posted by digamma
You disrupted a perfectly good discussion with this, because???

Because everyone knows gay jokes are always funny, right?

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by SkyDog
If that is the case, that just means they have a bit of justification for the fact that they are gutless. :D

Actually, there have only been a couple of guys in the upper courts I can recall being removed in recent years.

A lower court judge was actually stupid enough to try to cross the Mexican border while carrying marijuana (he got busted by Customs).

If I recall correctly, another one was busted on some sort of a morals charge and was removed.

Other than that, we haven't had anything other than the occasional random Justice of the Peace removed in 30 years, so appointment to a judicial position here basically means for life, unless you do something really stupid.

[Marmel]

Only at FOFC would a thread about sodomy get to a second page in just a few hours.

[Samdari]

I have one more question SkyDog.

Since when have politicians needed justification to be gutless?

And Marmel, imagine how long this thread would be if it were about sodomy with, say the winner of "Hot Chick Survivor"?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by John Galt
Because everyone knows gay jokes are always funny, right?

Hey, if you can't mock ankle-grabbing turd burglars, who can you mock?

[albionmoonlight]

You are not supposed to mock anyone.

I disagree with the petty anti-homosexual statements being made by Franklinnoble in this thread.

For the sake of civility, please stop name-calling.

[Marmel]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Hey, if you can't mock ankle-grabbing turd burglars, who can you mock?


John Galt is going to be mad at you.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Marmel
John Galt is going to be mad at you.

John Galt has learned from other threads that this particular pseudo-troll will try to be as rude and vulgar as possible with no apology.

I always wanted to speak about myself in the 3rd person.

But, I'm not really John Galt, so I guess I didn't succeed. :(

[Marmel]

Originally posted by John Galt


But, I'm not really John Galt, so I guess I didn't succeed. :(


Sure you are. Just look to the left of your posts and you will see that, in fact, you are John Galt. I thought you high priced, business casual NYC lawyers were smarter than that.

[Marmel]

Dola....

so does this mean we are once again allowed to use the term 'faggot' here, or does only FranklinNoble get the priviledge? ;)

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Marmel
Dola....

so does this mean we are once again allowed to use the term 'faggot' here, or does only FranklinNoble get the priviledge? ;)

I dunno... can we get a ruling from the Supreme Court on this? Buggery is OK, but what sort of language are we allowed to use to describe its participants?

[QuikSand]

Aside from the recent idiot-jacking, this has been a pretty interesting thread - a more open minded discussion than is often seen on such sensitive subjects. Sorry I've been in crisis mode nearly all day, and missed most of the fun.

The quick summaries of the tenth amendment and how it fits in here were illuminating to me - I don't think I could have been that succinct.

[Marmel]

Originally posted by QuikSand
idiot-jacking

Hmm...

[Cuckoo]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Aside from the recent idiot-jacking, this has been a pretty interesting thread - a more open minded discussion than is often seen on such sensitive subjects. Sorry I've been in crisis mode nearly all day, and missed most of the fun.

The quick summaries of the tenth amendment and how it fits in here were illuminating to me - I don't think I could have been that succinct.

Very succinctly put QS. :)

[heybrad]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Hey, if you can't mock ankle-grabbing turd burglars, who can you mock?
Nice to know this kind of crap is allowed in here. :rolleyes:

[QuikSand]

Maybe it should be "thread-jerking" - you think?

[Subby]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Goes back to my general feeling about those unwillling to do what is right regardless of the consequences... They sound gutless to me. If they wanted to uphold the law, then uphold and deal with the backlash from the liberals and the likely US SC overturning of the case. If they wanted to strike it down, then strike it down and deal with the backlash from the pissed-off homophobes. It is bad enough when we have wimps in elected positions... Why are you always generalizing about liberals and conservatives? I know many conservatives who celebrate personal freedoms, and thus this ruling...

And there are plenty of liberals who are homophobic.

And then there is Fritz.

[Bonegavel]

Here is the point. The supreme court just made a new law. That is not their function.

Yes, we all agree (most of us anyway) that the laws of these states banning this practice is none of their business. People should be allowed to choose to do this. However, it is up to the people of the states to vote people in office that will CHANGE the law. It isn't up to the SC to decide this.

The supreme court has gone from interpreting the laws to creating laws. This is a very, very disturbing.

Be happy when the states change their laws. That is how the system is supposed to work. Don't be happy because the majority of the Supreme Court has forgotten their job.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Here is the point. The supreme court just made a new law. That is not their function.

No, they did not.

All they did was make sure that the state of Texas respected the constitutionally protected rights of private citizens in their own homes.

These rights were already 'law' and they were just enforcing them.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Here is the point. The supreme court just made a new law. That is not their function.

Yes, we all agree (most of us anyway) that the laws of these states banning this practice is none of their business. People should be allowed to choose to do this. However, it is up to the people of the states to vote people in office that will CHANGE the law. It isn't up to the SC to decide this.

The supreme court has gone from interpreting the laws to creating laws. This is a very, very disturbing.

Be happy when the states change their laws. That is how the system is supposed to work. Don't be happy because the majority of the Supreme Court has forgotten their job.


Nope, this is striking down a law, not creating a law. When dealing with other issues, the SC have created laws, but this was a case of striking down a law that should never exist.

[Tekneek]

What the Supreme Court actually did is strike down a law. They did not create 'new law.'

[Chief Rum]

I'm gonna piggy-back on the "What the Hell are you talking about" crowd and point out that the Supreme Court struck down a law and that's it. No new law is on the books.

CR

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by heybrad
Nice to know this kind of crap is allowed in here. :rolleyes: Nope. It isn't. Franklin, I've warned you once before. You'll be able to post again on Monday.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Samdari
I have one more question SkyDog.

Since when have politicians needed justification to be gutless?:D

[Marmel]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Nope. It isn't. Franklin, I've warned you once before. You'll be able to post again on Monday.


So this means we can't use derisive terms, right?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Marmel
So this means we can't use derisive terms, right? No, it means continual trolling and threadjacking won't be tolerated. He's been warned for threadjacking and trolling before.

[Bonegavel]

Whatever. The facts are that some states have it on the books that it is illegal. There is nothing in the constitution that says the states can't make such a law. The supreme court has no business striking down a law that isn't unconstitutional.

The people in the states should elect folks that will change their laws. Did you read the dissention?


here is the whole doc ruling (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jun20031200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf)

[BishopMVP]

This has been a really interesting discussion about the role of the Supreme Court and the 10th Amendment, but with regards to Lawrence v. Texas it wasn't about that. The Texas law banned sodomy among members of the same sex, clearly making it a 14th Amendment case.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This ruling didn't reverse the judgment made in the previous sodomy case or strike down the laws currently in 9 states that ban sodomy among all citizens. While some of the comments in the decision hint towards a position allowing almost every form of sexual encounter not involving threats or money (like sodomy, polygamy, incest) it was not explicitly stated as so.

While I personally hate anti-sodomy laws, as well as other laws affecting freedom of people in private settings, I agree that the federal courts are not the place to change these, it is the state legislatures and courts. But in this instance, I believe it was the correct decision from an equal-protection standpoint.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
This has been a really interesting discussion about the role of the Supreme Court and the 10th Amendment, but with regards to Lawrence v. Texas it wasn't about that. The Texas law banned sodomy among members of the same sex, clearly making it a 14th Amendment case.


This ruling didn't reverse the judgment made in the previous sodomy case or strike down the laws currently in 9 states that ban sodomy among all citizens. While some of the comments in the decision hint towards a position allowing almost every form of sexual encounter not involving threats or money (like sodomy, polygamy, incest) it was not explicitly stated as so.

While I personally hate anti-sodomy laws, as well as other laws affecting freedom of people in private settings, I agree that the federal courts are not the place to change these, it is the state legislatures and courts. But in this instance, I believe it was the correct decision from an equal-protection standpoint.

From what I've read, you are totally wrong on this. The decision was not made on Equal Protection grounds. The Court could have made that limited holding, but instead chose to overturn Bowers. The 14th Amendment reference in the decision is to the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.

[Anrhydeddu]

Curious, if this was a law against Polygamy, should it be struck down as well?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Whatever. The facts are that some states have it on the books that it is illegal. There is nothing in the constitution that says the states can't make such a law. The supreme court has no business striking down a law that isn't unconstitutional.

The people in the states should elect folks that will change their laws. Did you read the dissention?


No offense, but you pretty much ignored most of what was written in this thread. The majority decided that the constitution WAS inconsistent with the law. They didn't strike down a law just because they felt like it. Being condescending when you are just plain wrong is doubly bad.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Curious, if this was a law against Polygamy, should it be struck down as well?

Polygamy is probably the closest analogy to homosexuality among the alternative lifestyle choices (unlike the nonsensical examples of incest, beastiality, rape, etc.). Still, it is pretty different. Polygamy has to do with the state defined institution of marriage, not the act of having multiple partners. The state doesn't prohibit multiple partner relationships, it just doesn't honor multiple marriages. An analogy between polygamy laws and the ban on gay marriage would be closer, but the analogy to sodomy laws is still pretty strained.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by John Galt
From what I've read, you are totally wrong on this. The decision was not made on Equal Protection grounds. The Court could have made that limited holding, but instead chose to overturn Bowers. The 14th Amendment reference in the decision is to the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.

That is what Justice Kennedy says in his opinion. The concurrence, written by Justice O'Connor seems to go for the much narrower equal-protection angle. I can't find who Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsberg joined. If all 4 agreed with Kennedy, then it would overturn Bowers.

[digamma]

They joined with Kennedy, making it a true majority opinion.

[albionmoonlight]

A--

I agree with John. I think that states have the right to define marriage however they want. You do not have a right to be married. I think that if a state were to ban the institution of marriage, it should be allowed to do that.

[ISiddiqui]

You know what is amusing (to me), if the court followed O'Conner, and ruled this on Equal Protection, it might NOT be narrow. After all, gays could be able bring suits, say on marriage, and use this case as precedent for an equal protection argument. By confining this to having a right to privacy in the bedroom, gays cannot use this suit to benefit them in other areas. So the 'narrow' interpretation actually may have allowed broader rights.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
You know what is amusing (to me), if the court followed O'Conner, and ruled this on Equal Protection, it might NOT be narrow. After all, gays could be able bring suits, say on marriage, and use this case as precedent for an equal protection argument. By confining this to having a right to privacy in the bedroom, gays cannot use this suit to benefit them in other areas. So the 'narrow' interpretation actually may have allowed broader rights.

No, the decision would still be narrow. Gays can already bring any suit they want under Equal Protection. The problem is that they are not considered a "suspect class." The result is that the court applies a "rational basis" test which almost always upholds the statute in question. The concurrence in this case applied rational basis, but struck down the statute. It did not extend or alter equal protection analysis for gays.

[ISiddiqui]

No, the decision would still be narrow. Gays can already bring any suit they want under Equal Protection.

Wouldn't matter if it was narrow. Its more precedent to bring forth to try to get gays on the same level as women (semi-suspect). A more gay-friendly court in the future could basically say that O'Conner said she applied rational basis, but actually applied middle-tier scrutiny, and read it that way.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Wouldn't matter if it was narrow. Its more precedent to bring forth to try to get gays on the same level as women (semi-suspect). A more gay-friendly court in the future could basically say that O'Conner said she applied rational basis, but actually applied middle-tier scrutiny, and read it that way.

That would be a stretch. I think her opinion, if it were the majority opinion, would only ensure gays never achieve suspect status. It would pretty much lock them into rational basis and people would just think it was an outlier decision on the application of the test. I think it would be almost like a reverse-Korematsu. That is, Korematsu started strict scrutiny, but was the only opinion to survive the test. If the concurring opinion were the majority, I think future courts would always apply rational basis, but uphold the statutes in question. I'm just happier the way the opinion is now - hopefully a real EP decision will come down the road.

[ISiddiqui]

That would be a stretch.

It wouldn't be the biggest stretch the Court has made, not by a long shot. You know this and I know this :D.

[SplitPersonality1]

Great discussion guys (barring the mini-troll session). I am actually learning quite a bit here. Keep it up.

- Splits

[CamEdwards]

I too am learning quite a bit here. I wish I could have John Galt or another attorney come on the program tomorrow to help me understand this issue a little bit better.

[JPhillips]

From Scalia's dissent:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.


Conservatives, how can you put up with a guy that thinks government should have the right to criminalize masturbation?

[superbama]

J Phillips- I read out of it he was basically throwing his hands up saying " Why don't we french kiss our sister/wife while beating off our husband who happens to be a goat. Let's do it at the Pick n Pay." A basic what is the world coming to kinda thing, is sounds to me.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by JPhillips
From Scalia's dissent:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.


Conservatives, how can you put up with a guy that thinks government should have the right to criminalize masturbation?

We put up with him the same way you liberals put up with a guy who thought it was a great idea to get a hummer from an intern in the Oval Office. the same way you put up with a woman who blamed the whole thing on a vast right wing conspiracy, the same way you put up with a man who says "Clarence Thomas may be my color, but he's not my kind", the same way you put up with a man who says "When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day."

Should I keep going? :)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
the same way you put up with a man who says "When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day."That guy is SCARY. When I heard that yesterday, it sent shivers up my spine.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by JPhillips
From Scalia's dissent:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.


Conservatives, how can you put up with a guy that thinks government should have the right to criminalize masturbation?


Though I don't think I'm the guy you had in mind to respond to this question - I find Scalia's logic here pretty sound. While I (and many people) bristle at the potential repercussions of many of Scalia's articulated opinions, he is rarely without well-conceived backing for his positions.

Actually, I think Cam's response (while partially intended to be humorous, I understand) gives Scalia short shrift. The man is a bona fide deep thinker, and whether you like his views or not, he generally merits respect for that.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
We put up with him the same way you liberals put up with a guy who thought it was a great idea to get a hummer from an intern in the Oval Office...

Well at least that guy could negotiation sound, intricate foreign policy issues on the phone while getting said hummers for an intern in the Oval Office. The current guy can't even eat a pretzel and watch TV at the sametime.

[JPhillips]

Cam: Do you have anything that actually supports Scalia, or do you only have shots at liberals? Why is it that every time conservatives are questioned they fire back with "well liberals suck"? Can't you come up with a defense of your guys?

For the supposed small government party, its amazing how you are either willing or complicent with government imposing authority over our private lives. Scalia and Santorum and others think the governmant should be allowed to criminalize sexual behavior between consenting adults. How is this conservatism?

[albionmoonlight]

I am on the opposite end of the political spectrum from Justice Scalia, but I have a lot of respect for the man. He is a great writer. People today generally do not respect those with whom they disagree--and that is a damn shame.

Having read the opinions last night, I must say that I was not very impressed with the majority opinion. The majority spent a lot of time explaining that laws and attitudes against homosexual conduct were not as pervasive as the Bowers court claimed that they were at the time and then said that the conduct in question was a legitimate exercise of liberty. They did not discuss the problem in the traditional due process (or even the right to privacy) framework.

As a quick primer. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment protects liberty. People have liberty interests in doing lots of things. Most of those things, however, are not "fundamental rights." If the liberty you want to exercise is not "fundamental," then the government only needs a rational basis for depriving you of that liberty. So, you have a right--a liberty interest--to walk when and where you want. The government, however, only needs a rational basis to prevent you from exercising that right. So, the governmental interest in stopping jaywalking or protecting the grass in the park is enough to allow the government to pass laws that prevent you from walking in certain places at certain times. The "rational basis" test almost always goes to the government. The governmental action would have to be almost insane for a court to say that it was not "rational" as that term is defined in this context. Even if you could somehow provide evidence showing that walking on the grass was good for it, the government would still win in my example. The question under rational basis is not whether the government action is right--but whether any rational person could believe that it was right.

Certain rights, however, are considered "fundamental rights." (Some of these are expressly listed in other amendments to the constitution--the most obvious being the right to free speech. However, for the sake of this discussion, we will limit ourselves to the due process clause of the 14th amendment). For example--the right to custody of one's child. In those instances, the government needs a "compelling interest" in depriving you of that right, and the means they use to deprive you of that right must be "narrowly tailored" to meet that interest. Such a test is called "strict scrutiny." The government has a much harder time winning these cases. Even if the government could show that taking high IQ children away from their family and letting QuikSand raise them would allow them to reach their full potential and be better for society--the government will not be allowed to do that because the interest in having smart kids reach their potential--while rational (and even important)--does not reach the level of "compelling."

A state does have a "compelling" interest in preventing child abuse. However, taking away all children from, say, a neighborhood where a child abuse occurred on the theory that the neighbors may have picked up the habit would be too broad of an action. It would not be "narrowly tailored" to serve the interest--no matter how compelling.



What constitutes "fundamental rights" under the 14th Amendment is one of the main points of contention between ideological conservatives and ideological liberals in the law. The most strict conservatives would state that if a right is not expressly granted in the constitution (i.e. free speech), it is not fundamental. To them, liberty means nothing more than the ability not to be forcibly detained by the government without cause. They argue that to continue to expand the definition of "liberty" to make more and more rights "fundamental" is to turn the constitution into nothing more than a blank slate unto which the popular sentiment of the day can constrain governmental action in a way never intended by the founders. Such an approach also raises the problem of 9 un-elected lifetime tenured people in Washington D.C. getting to strike down the laws promulgated and enforced by the elected representatives of the people. It is too easy, they argue, for courts to abuse their unchecked power to "interpret" the constitution to force their idea of good government unto the rest of us. Based on my example above, their view raises a problem (which may have occurred to some of you). Specifically, the government under their view of the constitution has the right to take our children and raise them as long as it has a rational basis for thinking it can do a better job than us. I think I have read some science fiction books about that world, and it is not a good place. The conservatives, however, would respond that if we do not want such a system, then we should not elect a government that will pursue such a policy. We have rights to free speech, press, and elections that would allow us to keep informed about what “big brother” is doing and allow us to stop it. Also, the conservatives point out, the constitution is amendable--if the vast majority of the country (2/3 of congress and ¾ of the states) believe that something is a fundamental right, then we can amend the constitution and expressly make it such. Because a lot of strict conservatives are painted as compassionless men, it is worth noting that many of them disagree with the policies that they would uphold (Justice Thomas wrote a short additional dissent in the case yesterday just to indicate that he thought that the law at issue in Texas was silly and wrong), but feel that their duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States requires it.

On the flip side, extreme liberals want every “good idea” to become a “fundamental right” protected by the 14th Amendment. The right not to live in poverty; the right to health care; the right to an education; the right to consume any substance that one wants, etc. Some of these more extreme examples aside--they believe that the constitution is a document based, above all else, on personal liberties. They believe that the drafters specifically used a vague world like “liberty” precisely because they wanted future generations to have the flexibility to decide what issues are core to issues of personal freedom and expression. They believe that it is as silly to expect the drafters to have been able to write down in detail all of the personal freedoms that they wanted to protect until the end of time as it would be to expect them to have had strong opinions about the Internet. They also point out that certain liberties were so obvious that they did not need to be written down (just like when you send out a wedding invitation, you don’t feel a need to tell everyone not to show up drunk, or naked, or covered in blood. You just assume that people understand what is so basic that it goes without saying, and you only bother to write down clarifications of the more questionable aspects of behavior--i.e. “black tie required.”) They also argue that the constitution was drafted by people who, while virtuous, were also certainly human and who had their own interests in mind, too. Accordingly, the constitution protects white landowners AND is very hard to amend. The amendment process is too cumbersome to be anything more that a theoretical protection against the tyranny of government. Finally, they also point out that the whole point of courts and personal liberties protected in the Constitution is to protect the 49% of the people from the will of the 51% of the people who want to take away their rights.

Most people fall somewhere in the middle of this spectrum. They believe that certain rights, such as the right to raise your children, are fundamental rights. They believe that others, such as the right to not live in poverty, are great ideas, but not fundamental rights. Others “fundamentl rights” are more controversial--such as the fundamental right to an education, the fundamental right to an abortion (which has developed its own jurisprudence, actually), and the fundamental right to engage in private consensual sexual conduct.

Since the court expressly overruled Bowers in this case, I think that they could have gone farther (it is rare for the court to [i]expressly overrule another case. A lot of times they just ignore it and let it die a slow death). I would have said that consenting adults have the “fundamental right” to engage in private sexual conduct. The majority did not go that far--and Scalia took them to task for it. Such a ruling would have required overturning some precedent, but since they did that anyway, I would have gone a step further.

Of course, such a ruling would have opened the door to incest. I would claim that a state does have a compelling interest in preventing incest, but not one in preventing other forms of consenting sexual conduct. Justice Scalia would jump down my throat and tell me that I am simply imposing my personal views on what is compelling and what is not. On some level he may be right. However, I think that I could defend my opinion.

The majority of the Supreme Court yesterday said that the government cannot intrude on your right to engage in private sexual acts in your bedroom. Good for them. They did not, however, really explain how they reached that decision. Bad for them. Perhaps the whole rational basis/strict scrutiny framework needs to be tweaked (and indeed, in the context of equal protection, abortion, etc. deviations from the framework are made). I would, however, have appreciated the justices making things a bit more clear in this instance.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by John Galt
No offense, but you pretty much ignored most of what was written in this thread. The majority decided that the constitution WAS inconsistent with the law. They didn't strike down a law just because they felt like it. Being condescending when you are just plain wrong is doubly bad.

None taken and I wasn't being condescending, but you are apparently quick to judge. Emotions are hard to handle I'm sure. Also, how am I wrong on this? Oh that's right, I don't agree with you. (now I'm being tongue-in-cheek)

FWIW, your statement is backward. The law is inconsistent with the constitution (constitution being the base class).

[John Galt]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
None taken and I wasn't being condescending, but you are apparently quick to judge. Emotions are hard to handle I'm sure. Also, how am I wrong on this? Oh that's right, I don't agree with you. (now I'm being tongue-in-cheek)

FWIW, your statement is backward. The law is inconsistent with the constitution (constitution being the base class).

This was your original quote:

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Whatever. The facts are that some states have it on the books that it is illegal. There is nothing in the constitution that says the states can't make such a law. The supreme court has no business striking down a law that isn't unconstitutional.

The people in the states should elect folks that will change their laws. Did you read the dissention?

I think the "whatever," "the facts," and "did you read the dissention?" was pretty condenscending. And I have no idea what you mean about emoticons when none were present.

And your statements that, "There is nothing in the constitution that says the states can't make such a law. The supreme court has no business striking down a law that isn't unconstitutional." are non-sequiters with the way this case was decided. The majority believe that there is something in the Constitution that the states can't make such a law. If you disagree with that statement, then argue it - don't say that they are striking down just for the fun of it.

And as an aside, what would possibly make people think that getting new people elected is EVER a solution? Gays are unpopular, blacks were unpopular (and still are in many places), and women were held in lower regard. Sometimes it is popular to discriminate and minority interests aren't well reflected in a system that uses simple majority rule. "Tough luck" seems to be a pretty easy thing to say when you aren't allowed to be intimate with the person you love because some people in power don't like you.

[John Galt]

dola,

Good post albionmoonlight. While I generally agree that Scalia is a good writer and his opinions are pretty smart (with a few notable exceptions), I think his analogies are weak in this case. Sure, the majority didn't handle them, but majorities often don't reply to the concerns of the dissent (especially when they are busy replying to an old decision). Incest, for example, is objectionable on biological grounds (which is proven by the fact that some incest - usually 2nd cousins) is allowed). The marriage issues are also different as the discussion with Arn&$&@) above indicated. I just don't think there is another issue that is analogous. Yes, the majority didn't really define privacy, but that may have been because they couldn't agree on one. They all agreed that this was a privacy issue, but that doesn't mean they agree on where privacy begins and ends.

[Anrhydeddu]

is objectionable on biological grounds

Hmmm...

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Hmmm...

I take it you disagree or is that just thinking outloud?

I admit I'm not super educated on the ways of incest, but the reason for not allowing it seems to be premised on the dangers of shrinking a genetic pool with inbreeding.

[albionmoonlight]

It's a tricky issue. If, as I want, you define consenting sexual conduct ("csc") as a "fundamental right," then you need a compelling state interest to overcome that right.

Assume for the sake of argument that the "eleven-fingered" kid reason is "compelling?" Then could a couple be allowed to engage in incest if no child could come of that union (say, homosexual incest). The "narrowly tailored" portion of the fundamental rights analysis would say yes.

Personally, I think that the socital taboos against incest, combined with the biological arguments do make incest different in kind than other types of csc and give the state a compelling reason to ban it wholesale. Strict concervatives would say that that kind of weighing is the exact sort of thing that judges should not be doing.

I say that judges are human, not robots, and sometimes choices have to be made. The choice that incest is different in kind than sodomy is one that I believe that a judge can make while still being true to the constitution and judicial principles.

FWIW--and I feel somewhat weird even writing this--if it somehow came down to a world where I had to choose between the state prevening people from engaging in private consentual sexual conduct, and a world where incest was allowed--I would have to go with world two. In my mind, the right to freely express oneself sexually is so important and so fundamental to the notions of personal liberty and privacy on which this country was founded, that I would allow something like incest to exist if it were the only way to protect it.

That said--I think that it does a disservice to homosexuality and to hetrosexuals who wish to engage in sodomy in general--to compare it to incest. I only use the analogy because it seems to be a logical extention of the framework that I laid out above. (And that the majority avoided--for what are now probably obvious reasons).

[albionmoonlight]

Dola--

John, I did think that Scalia hurt his case by focusing so much on the Casey case, too.

Proof that the justices are human--the majority could not stop talking about homosexuality, and the dissent could not stop talking about abortion in a case, IMO, that at core did not need to discuss either.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by John Galt
This was your original quote:



I think the "whatever," "the facts," and "did you read the dissention?" was pretty condenscending. And I have no idea what you mean about emoticons when none were present.

And your statements that, "There is nothing in the constitution that says the states can't make such a law. The supreme court has no business striking down a law that isn't unconstitutional." are non-sequiters with the way this case was decided. The majority believe that there is something in the Constitution that the states can't make such a law. If you disagree with that statement, then argue it - don't say that they are striking down just for the fun of it.

And as an aside, what would possibly make people think that getting new people elected is EVER a solution? Gays are unpopular, blacks were unpopular (and still are in many places), and women were held in lower regard. Sometimes it is popular to discriminate and minority interests aren't well reflected in a system that uses simple majority rule. "Tough luck" seems to be a pretty easy thing to say when you aren't allowed to be intimate with the person you love because some people in power don't like you.

Wow. Maybe I should have recorded my voice saying "whatever" being that inflection is the key. Just as the term liberties can mean different things, so can "whatever."

My comment wasn't about 'emoticons', it was about emotions. There seemed to be a lot of emotion coming through your post. Maybe I had assumed incorrectly as had you. Maybe we all are reading too fast.

For the record, I think that these laws against what people do in the sexual department are ludicrous. I think other laws are ludicrous, but that doesn't mean they aren't law. I can't pick and choose which laws to obey (if I wish to remain out of jail or keep from monetary fines).

This law wasn't based on race which would have made in unconstitutional. It was based on a preference which isn't neccesarily protected. That is why drugs are illegal and it is constitional for this to be. It is something society deems bad, so there are laws against their use (for everyone).

If this is the prevailing thought, then anti-drug laws should be stricken from the record. If I make a meth-lab in my bedroom and only make drugs for myself without intent to distribute, that should be legal under this thought process. I'm not hurting anyone and it is no business of yours what I do in my bedroom.

[Malificent]

Don't the vast majority (if not all) sodomy laws also apply to oral sex? Making the vast majority of Americans criminal? :)

[ISiddiqui]

Conservatives, how can you put up with a guy that thinks government should have the right to criminalize masturbation?

Because... he's correct? :D

I mean, Scalia believes that the 'right to privacy' and 'substantive due process' are extra-Constitutional concepts. That the court just made them up out of thin air (and they kinda did, IMO... I agree with Scalia here). Of course he knows you can't put the genie in the bottle, so he'd rather narrowly constrain what is 'fundamental' and what the 'right to privacy' is (I'd rather make it consistant since it is here to stay).

If there is a limited right to privacy, than the states can criminalize masturbation and there is nothing wrong that.

I guess based on my belief that Substantive Due Process is not under the Constitution, you could put me under the grouping of 'thinks the government has the right to criminalize masturbation'. BUT just because it has the right, doesn't mean it has to exercise it. After all, the government has the right to ban computer sales (interstate commerce), but it doesn't. I'm a moderate libertarian, so I would like to see Prostitution, Masturbation, Sodomy, etc legal, but I also believe that it should be by the democratic process.

[Bonegavel]

John Galt, I just didn't want you to miss my post. Please read and follow up on our discussion. Thanks.

bone

[John Galt]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Wow. Maybe I should have recorded my voice saying "whatever" being that inflection is the key. Just as the term liberties can mean different things, so can "whatever."

My comment wasn't about 'emoticons', it was about emotions. There seemed to be a lot of emotion coming through your post. Maybe I had assumed incorrectly as had you. Maybe we all are reading too fast.

For the record, I think that these laws against what people do in the sexual department are ludicrous. I think other laws are ludicrous, but that doesn't mean they aren't law. I can't pick and choose which laws to obey (if I wish to remain out of jail or keep from monetary fines).

This law wasn't based on race which would have made in unconstitutional. It was based on a preference which isn't neccesarily protected. That is why drugs are illegal and it is constitional for this to be. It is something society deems bad, so there are laws against their use (for everyone).

If this is the prevailing thought, then anti-drug laws should be stricken from the record. If I make a meth-lab in my bedroom and only make drugs for myself without intent to distribute, that should be legal under this thought process. I'm not hurting anyone and it is no business of yours what I do in my bedroom.

BG, I think you are missing my point that whether or not you believe gayness is the same as race (a point I believe and is supported by evidence) in regards to immutability, ultimately moral judgments are essentially popularity contests. Many scholars argued blacks were inferior, dangerous, and a threat to white America. Similar (albeit less extreme) arguments are made today about those of Middle Eastern dissent. Minorities (be they racial or otherwise) suffer the brunt of society's disfunctional attitudes. Any group can be discriminated against if you get enough people behind it. There are checks against racial discrimination, but I'll be damned if I have to wait centuries for their be protections against heterosexism.

Gays will NEVER be able to vote out people who oppose them, because they only are a small portion of the population. Even if they could make gay rights the single issue defining an election (something that is extremely unlikely), they would always lose in a landslide. Saying minorities should just get the laws changed is a recipe for constant and continual discrimination.

And sodomy laws are a horrific violation of a person and their identity. Fearing that you cannot be sexually intimate with your loved one because the police can come through the door at any minute is wrong. This is not about making meth in your home or building bombs in the bedroom - this about people having the right to love. These analogies deny gays the right to exist - they are no danger and it is fundamental to who they (we) are.

This is not Mill's harm principle - it is not just that you aren't hurting anyone - it is that you are exercising a basic right essential to your identity. Being gay isn't wrong and this Court finally removed the ugly blemish that was Bowers from saying it was wrong. That is why yesterday was a good day. :)

[albionmoonlight]

Originally posted by John Galt
That is why yesterday was a good day. :)


Well . . .that and it has finally stopped raining here in DC :)


Also, John, let me express my happiness for you, for whom this decision is more than an intellectual exercise. Sometimes it is easy for me to forget that the law has real effects on real people--and is not just a big brainteaser put here for my amusement. I am happy for everyone for whom this decision represents more than the abstract exercise of 9 old people in D.C.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by John Galt
BG, I think you are missing my point that whether or not you believe gayness is the same as race (a point I believe and is supported by evidence) in regards to immutability, ultimately moral judgments are essentially popularity contests. ...

[cut for brevity]

...
That is why yesterday was a good day. :)


Very well said and you are right, I don't believe that being gay is the same as race anymore than I think being straight is the same as race.

Bottom line is that nobody should be discriminated against due to race or sexual preference, just as one shouldn't for being a computer geek, because of how one dresses, or for being over weight. But, one of the curses of our freedom is that people are allowed to be bigots, homophobes, nerd-bashers, fashion police, and just plain insensitive schmucks.

In their personal lives that is true. In business world, thank god, that is illegal. Does that mean it doesn't happen? Of course not. I'm sure it happens all the time. When it can be proven, it goes to court and the situation is rectified and the person is "made whole" again to the fullest extent of the law.

I think you are making a mistake by lumping all gays together into a militant group of anti-establishment dissidents. There are many gays that are very "mainstream" and actually agree with scalia. Just because you are gay doesn't mean that you think the law should be subverted and/or ignored. I am good friends with several gays and the subject itself (i.e. being gay) never comes up. Same for my hetero friends. We don't around and talk about how we sleep with our wives or girlfriends. Just doesn't happen.

The case for being gay NEVER need come up exactly the same as the case for being straight NEVER need come up. This is never placed on a resume or asked on a job application. So how does the employer know unless the person tells them? And if that is the case, why would they say this, when I have never heard of a hetero mentioning this to an employer. "Oh yeah, by the way I sleep with women."

Also, who is to say that all gay men practice this custom? That is another assumption that is made. I never conducted a survey of this subject, but I'm sure that it is fair to say that this isn't done by all gay men. I'm sure you don't wake up one day and think that the ONLY way a person can show love for me and be intimate is to have anal sex. Besides, this act isn't limited to gay men. Plenty of male-female couples do this as well. Again, that is their business. Who cares.

I still go back to the fact that this opens up a lot of doors for a lot of lawyers and should have been handled by Texas. Remember, privacy cannot supersede the law. The authorities can come into your home without your permission in certain cases: search warrant etc.

If you are a gay man living in texas where your idea of intimacy is illegal, why don't you move? Do you know how many people move all the time because of laws etc.? My brother-in-law is thinking of moving from NJ to PA because of the gun laws. He loves guns more than my sister and he is thinking of uprooting himself because of the law. People move to Florida to avoid income taxes.

[Bonegavel]

Oh john, and your point about being gay isn't wrong is very subjective. Some people (me not included) think it is wrong. Are they not allowed their belief? If they are to be tolerant of gays, shouldn't gays be tolerant of them?

My mom is a bible thumpin' christian and she thinks it is against god's will to be gay. I always argue with her that (genetic argument aside) people don't choose with whom they fall in love. She doesn't understand how I can think this, but I do understand how she thinks. I think she is wrong, but I understand her.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Very well said and you are right, I don't believe that being gay is the same as race anymore than I think being straight is the same as race.

One point that is an easy test on this issue (that was made in other threads). If you believe that being gay is a choice and not largely determined by genetics, then go sleep with a man. If it is a choice, then go do it - be gay for a day. There is a lot more powerful arguments on this point, but that is usually the easiest to make.

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Bottom line is that nobody should be discriminated against due to race or sexual preference, just as one shouldn't for being a computer geek, because of how one dresses, or for being over weight. But, one of the curses of our freedom is that people are allowed to be bigots, homophobes, nerd-bashers, fashion police, and just plain insensitive schmucks.

No one has suggested they can't - the question is do bigots get to decide what I do?

Originally posted by BoneGavel
In their personal lives that is true. In business world, thank god, that is illegal. Does that mean it doesn't happen? Of course not. I'm sure it happens all the time. When it can be proven, it goes to court and the situation is rectified and the person is "made whole" again to the fullest extent of the law.

It is actually still an open question as to whether you can be fire for being gay. Title VII only protects people from gender discrimination. Gays have been successful in arguing that they experienced "gender" discrimination, but it is far from settled. And how many employers actually fire someone for being gay and say so. It is almost impossible to prove unless they were stupid about it.

Originally posted by BoneGavel
I think you are making a mistake by lumping all gays together into a militant group of anti-establishment dissidents. There are many gays that are very "mainstream" and actually agree with scalia. Just because you are gay doesn't mean that you think the law should be subverted and/or ignored. I am good friends with several gays and the subject itself (i.e. being gay) never comes up. Same for my hetero friends. We don't around and talk about how we sleep with our wives or girlfriends. Just doesn't happen.

I would be willing to bet there isn't a gay man alive who agrees with Scalia on this issue. The gay population overall is actually quite right-wing (they are called Log Cabin Republicans), but no one would support Scalia on this issue.

And you continue to beg the question. I am not arguing that the law shoud be subverted or ignored. I am arguing (and the SC agrees with me now) that the law (the Constitution) says sodomy laws cannot exist.

Originally posted by BoneGavel
The case for being gay NEVER need come up exactly the same as the case for being straight NEVER need come up. This is never placed on a resume or asked on a job application. So how does the employer know unless the person tells them? And if that is the case, why would they say this, when I have never heard of a hetero mentioning this to an employer. "Oh yeah, by the way I sleep with women."

This is where I think you are just missing reality. Everyone talks about family, significant others, or personal issues. That is what happens at work. Gays are left with a choice - come out or lie. If they come out, they risk retribution and attack. If they lie, they don't have a chance to get close to their co-workers.

And of course, you don't say that you sleep with women, but I bet you mention a girlfriend or wife.

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Also, who is to say that all gay men practice this custom? That is another assumption that is made. I never conducted a survey of this subject, but I'm sure that it is fair to say that this isn't done by all gay men. I'm sure you don't wake up one day and think that the ONLY way a person can show love for me and be intimate is to have anal sex. Besides, this act isn't limited to gay men. Plenty of male-female couples do this as well. Again, that is their business. Who cares.

Now, you are just talking crazy. I'm sure not all gay man have anal sex, but for gays it is the logical analog to vaginal intercourse. It is a way to be intimate and share closenss. It is not a vile act. Would you support a government effort to ban vaginal sex and anal sex for heteros, but allow it for gays? Even if you wouldn't support it, would you think the Court should strike it down? No, of course, you would just believe that you could get the law changed. And you are right, because heteros are the majority. That is the naivete of privilege.

And sodomy has been defined to include oral sex sometimes. So no intimacy for gays is the law.

Originally posted by BoneGavel
I still go back to the fact that this opens up a lot of doors for a lot of lawyers and should have been handled by Texas. Remember, privacy cannot supersede the law. The authorities can come into your home without your permission in certain cases: search warrant etc.

Totally irrelevant. Search and seizure doesn't mean they can break into your house, steal everything and rape your wife. My example and yours have nothing to do with sodomy laws.

Originally posted by BoneGavel
If you are a gay man living in texas where your idea of intimacy is illegal, why don't you move? Do you know how many people move all the time because of laws etc.? My brother-in-law is thinking of moving from NJ to PA because of the gun laws. He loves guns more than my sister and he is thinking of uprooting himself because of the law. People move to Florida to avoid income taxes.

Voting with your feet is nice in theory. Of course, what happens when other states don't like gays because they are all flocking there? They pass more laws. Then all the gays can flock to one or two states and live on their own. Segregation - yeah that is a solution.

And mobility is a pipe-dream for lots of people. Family, work, friends, etc. make it hard to leave. People shouldn't be forced to choose between their identity and those other things.

And notice that 80% of what you posted above has nothing to do with sodomy laws. This is about a person's right to love - something that should not be taken lightly.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Oh john, and your point about being gay isn't wrong is very subjective. Some people (me not included) think it is wrong. Are they not allowed their belief? If they are to be tolerant of gays, shouldn't gays be tolerant of them?

My mom is a bible thumpin' christian and she thinks it is against god's will to be gay. I always argue with her that (genetic argument aside) people don't choose with whom they fall in love. She doesn't understand how I can think this, but I do understand how she thinks. I think she is wrong, but I understand her.

And notice that I have not argued that there should be a law prohibiting homophobia? Unfortunately, gays are not afforded the same treatment.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
Well . . .that and it has finally stopped raining here in DC :)


Also, John, let me express my happiness for you, for whom this decision is more than an intellectual exercise. Sometimes it is easy for me to forget that the law has real effects on real people--and is not just a big brainteaser put here for my amusement. I am happy for everyone for whom this decision represents more than the abstract exercise of 9 old people in D.C.

Thanks. And I make the same mistake. When you practice law, you often forget about people. It is sad, but true.

[Bonegavel]

Well John, I'll have to give you this round. Not being a constitutional scholar, my above opinions are based solely on my personal beliefs and thoughts.

I don't claim to know the plight of gays anymore than I can claim to understand the plight of any situation with which I am not involved or engaged in.

I think my concern with this thread stems from the fact that I am made nervous any time Supreme Court rulings cause this sort of stir. They have used their power both for good and bad, but my main concern is that, despite the good they accomplish (subjective subject, I know), the Supreme Court should not go around the constitution to accomplish what they feel is for the greater "good" of the people. I think we can all agree the latter is bad.

I have rarely, if ever, agreed with any posts you have ever made, but I am glad to have had this civil discussion with you regarding matters so important.

[QuikSand]

You two (and others who contributed to this thread) have done this forum a service. This was a very enlightening discussion - and the tone stayed very appropriate throughout. Thanks.

[sabotai]

Agreed with QS. It's a rare thing to see a serious thread on this board make it to the 3rd page without it turning into an insult throwing affair, or even a flame-war. Well done.

[Killebrew]

Yes, yes.

[CamEdwards]

so now that we've acknowledged that... can we start the childish insults? :)

[sabotai]

Ugh....Cam, I hate you so god damn much!

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Malificent
Don't the vast majority (if not all) sodomy laws also apply to oral sex? Making the vast majority of Americans criminal? :)
You're not married, are you?

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by sabotai
Ugh....Cam, I hate you so god damn much!

That was a good start, but I would have been more specific.. made fun of my weight or something like that.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Samdari
You're not married, are you?

clapclapclap

[sabotai]

"That was a good start, but I would have been more specific.. made fun of my weight or something like that."

Shut the fuck up you fat fuck!!

[CamEdwards]

hmmmm... better, but still not there yet.

On a more serious note, what does everyone think of Frist's backing of a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriages? I don't think it's going to happen, but I'm still trying to decide how it's going to fail: not getting 3/4 of the states to approve the measure, or the House or Senate not passing it with a 2/3 majority.

I'm guessing it doesn't even get out of the House.

[sabotai]

"hmmmm... better, but still not there yet."

Pfft, typical fucking conservative. Nothing's ever good enough for you! Take you hypocritical republican fat ass back to the fucking trailor park where you were spawned. Fuckin' white trash...

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by sabotai
"hmmmm... better, but still not there yet."

Pfft, typical fucking conservative. Nothing's ever good enough for you! Take you hypocritical republican fat ass back to the fucking trailor park where you were spawned. Fuckin' white trash...

It's "your".

Just for future reference.

Now, play nice. Remember, you're supposed to be tolerant of others.

[JPhillips]

I really hope we don't add a Constitutional Amendment re marriage. I don't think gays should be allowed to marry as that has very specific religious implications, but I do favor a civil union law or something similar. I think we should encourage stability and monogamy in the gay community. A constitutional amendment would be an appalling testament to bigotry and fear. There has to be a better alternative.

[CamEdwards]

thanks JPhillips. I would have actually posted this in Husker-for-Life's thread... but I automatically assume every one of his postings is about TCY2 so I didn't read it. :)

[Daimyo]

So should it be illegal for atheists to marry?

[Arbitrary Aardvark]

Originally posted by Tekneek
As far as Georgia getting it right, there is actually still a law (at least it was the last time I looked it up) on the books indicating that sex out of wedlock was illegal. Whether or not this is ever enforced is another matter, but one wonders why a law that is never enforced would even be allowed to stay on the books...

In Oklahoma they went through the old laws (back in the 70s IIRC) and removed things like the prohbiition on racing steamboats on the Arkansas river.

[Arbitrary Aardvark]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Goes back to my general feeling about those unwillling to do what is right regardless of the consequences... They sound gutless to me. If they wanted to uphold the law, then uphold and deal with the backlash from the liberals and the likely US SC overturning of the case. If they wanted to strike it down, then strike it down and deal with the backlash from the pissed-off homophobes. It is bad enough when we have wimps in elected positions...

A lot of times unconstitutional laws are enforced, and appeals are made against the initial overturn by appelate courts, for political reasons. In a lot of states, you can get re-elected by being firmly anti-abortion, and it is better for one's political career to spend $20 million of the state's money appealing the overturn of a blatently unconstitutional law than it is to appear "soft" by not fighting the overturn. Fourty years ago you could replace "anti-abortion" by "pro-segregation".

[Arbitrary Aardvark]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
We put up with him the same way you liberals put up with ... a woman who blamed the whole thing on a vast right wing conspiracy, ...

I agree with Molly Ivans. It isn't a vast right wing conspiracy, since conspiracy implies secrecy, and the right wing has been anything but secret about their agenda.

[scooper]

Frankly, I think racing a steamboat sounds like a heck of a good time.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by JPhillips
I really hope we don't add a Constitutional Amendment re marriage. I don't think gays should be allowed to marry as that has very specific religious implications, but I do favor a civil union law or something similar. I think we should encourage stability and monogamy in the gay community. A constitutional amendment would be an appalling testament to bigotry and fear. There has to be a better alternative.


For many people, marriage has nothing to do with religion.