Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law - Page 4

Brian in Mesa · June 29th, 2003, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
What's the point of having sodomy against the law if no one prosecutes it? It doesn't make a lick of sense.

Pun intended?

WaywardFan · June 29th, 2003, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KingofCards
It isn't privacy superceeding the law. This was about the law superceeding privacy.

You have it the other way around, I think (and fear). Besides, where is the right to privacy in the Constitution?

Quote:

We are talking about people behind their walls doing what should be legal activities. In Texas today they made it legal for consenting adults to have sex.

Are you sure that's what they said?
I'm not sure. It seems to me they didn't actually say sodomy was wrong or evil. They said no one can do anything about it because it is behind closed doors. Why are homosexuals happy about that?

Quote:

Rightwingers on this board have taken the party line on this subject and have tried to distort the result.

Because the leftwingers NEVER do that.

Quote:

This, or any judgment of the type, is about allowing people to partake in legal activities behind the privacy of their homes.

Again, it seems to be to allow ILLEGAL activities to take place behind closed door with no consequence.

Quote:

Wayward and others compared the ruling to allowing molestation, incest, and biogamy a brand new defense. This is a rIduculous analogy. (please notice the "I")

Okay, what's with the 'I'?

And my analogy is sound, thank you very much. Shall we wait and see how long it takes for someone to use it?

Quote:

Legal activities behind closed doors: allowed.

The ruling didn't say sodomy was legal, did it?

Quote:

Illegal activities behind closed doors: not allowed.

Until the axiom of Unintended Consequences kicks in, no one is sure of this. Not even you.

Quote:

That being said. Today in Texas it became legal for men and women, of legal age, to have consentual sex, regardless of gender.

So, as long as no one complains, whatever, WHATEVER happens is legal? This is what I'm asking.

Quote:

It might have been based on Privacy, but only in the context of doing legal things in the privacy of your home and changing an archaic law.

It sure feels like you're bending over backwards to try to brush away our LEGITIMATE concerns.

Quote:

Sorry, but if you don't understand that, then you are blinded by one of many things. One being your Religion, two being your political party.

And I can easily say the exact same thing about you. If you don't understand or appreciate our concerns, then you are blinded by one of many things: One being radical hatred, two being your political party.

Quote:

Besides it was about sodomy. What red blooded American hetro hasn't at least tried/thought about penetrating the anus of their woman....

I fail to see the relevance of such a statement.

Quote:

Oh and Sean, don't waste your time cutting and pasting my post. Readers saw it, they understand what I said, and it is insulting for you to try and take my words out of context.

I think what you find insulting is taking your own exact words and using them against you. I'm not taking your words out of context. You're right. They're already there, so people will see I'm NOT taking them out of context. I include fully what you say (only snipping irrelvant sections, something also determinable by seeing your previous posts). Besides, if I do MISINTERPRET what you say, you or someone else can clarify. Misinterpretation is much different from 'taking out of context'.

Finally, to even say such a thing is like saying, 'I get to say whatever I want, regardless of accuracy or inflamatory language and you aren't allowed to say anything about it or else I'll be all righteously indigant.'

If you don't want me or anyone else to respond, don't post.

King, if you really want to see well a well reasoned (and appreciably posted) argument to your side, go back and read schutd's commentary. I don't see how this post of yours, despite your stated hopes, has settled this topic or put us 'radicals' in our place.

WaywardFan · June 29th, 2003, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by schutd
That might be a valid argument, but the fact of the matter is, we are at the core talking about two adults engaging in sex. SO homosexuality is part of this. If a defense attorney went to court and used the provacy argument for someone accused of shooting up, and whatever he'd be laughed out of the courtroom. Lets not get all paranoid here. The reason the privacy issus is to task here is we are discussing a behavior that while at one point may have been illegal, the point is, it shouldn't be. Lets not make more of this than necessary.

schutd, I appreciate your reasoning and your point of view is logical (to which I seem to forever cleave).

However, the 'right to privacy' was MANUFACTURED from a 60's case regarding contraceptives. It is this 'right to privacy' that the court used for Roe v. Wade. So, essentially the right to privacy arguably (please note the terminology) allows for the murder of innocent unborn lives. So, if the right to privacy arguably allows for murder, is it really so far off to suggest this same 'right' will allow for in home drug abuse or rape? Seems to me that rape and drug use is a step down from murder so courts could be more apt to allow it.

Again, schutd, I really hope you're right. I just don't like the idea of our rules and laws subjugated by some manufactured 'right to privacy'. I fear for the unintended consequences it might bring.

Assface · June 29th, 2003, 08:18 PM

The reason the U.S. is the greatest country in the world is becaues the government was designed to be run by it's citizens instead of running them. Our forefathers stated "by the people, for the people, of the people." It was never intended to enforce morality or religion because that is what they were escaping from. How can you say privacy in our own homes will lead to murder is ok if done in privacy? Do you just not grasp what laws are intended for? The whole purpose for our laws is to protect everyone's rights. Why is murder not ok? You are infringing on another persons rights. You can't steal from someone in private because you are hurting that person by doing so. If two consenting adults have sex in privacy, who are they hurting? Who is the victim?

Why do the conservative right wingers constantly call for less government but want as much legislation as possible to enforce their morals? Every year the battle cry is "no big government, give the power to the states, less government regulations." It's bad to regulate big corporations, but ok to tell people how to live their lives?

KingofCards · June 29th, 2003, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Floridacard
The reason the U.S. is the greatest country in the world is becaues the government was designed to be run by it's citizens instead of running them. Our forefathers stated "by the people, for the people, of the people." It was never intended to enforce morality or religion because that is what they were escaping from. How can you say privacy in our own homes will lead to murder is ok if done in privacy? Do you just not grasp what laws are intended for? The whole purpose for our laws is to protect everyone's rights. Why is murder not ok? You are infringing on another persons rights. You can't steal from someone in private because you are hurting that person by doing so. If two consenting adults have sex in privacy, who are they hurting? Who is the victim?

Why do the conservative right wingers constantly call for less government but want as much legislation as possible to enforce their morals? Every year the battle cry is "no big government, give the power to the states, less government regulations." It's bad to regulate big corporations, but ok to tell people how to live their lives?

Great post.

Dback Jon · June 30th, 2003, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Floridacard
The reason the U.S. is the greatest country in the world is becaues the government was designed to be run by it's citizens instead of running them. Our forefathers stated "by the people, for the people, of the people." It was never intended to enforce morality or religion because that is what they were escaping from. How can you say privacy in our own homes will lead to murder is ok if done in privacy? Do you just not grasp what laws are intended for? The whole purpose for our laws is to protect everyone's rights. Why is murder not ok? You are infringing on another persons rights. You can't steal from someone in private because you are hurting that person by doing so. If two consenting adults have sex in privacy, who are they hurting? Who is the victim?

Why do the conservative right wingers constantly call for less government but want as much legislation as possible to enforce their morals? Every year the battle cry is "no big government, give the power to the states, less government regulations." It's bad to regulate big corporations, but ok to tell people how to live their lives?

Excellent post.
Just this morning Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is quoted in the Tennessean decrying the Supreme Court ruling as trampling on state's rights, while in the next breath advocating a FEDERAL consitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Talk about a hypocrit.

I emailed him and called out his bigotry. Told him he was unfit to be a US Senator, and that he should resign and take his Un-American activities elsewhere.

Krangthebrain · June 30th, 2003, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Floridacard
The reason the U.S. is the greatest country in the world is becaues the government was designed to be run by it's citizens instead of running them. Our forefathers stated "by the people, for the people, of the people." It was never intended to enforce morality or religion because that is what they were escaping from. How can you say privacy in our own homes will lead to murder is ok if done in privacy? Do you just not grasp what laws are intended for? The whole purpose for our laws is to protect everyone's rights. Why is murder not ok? You are infringing on another persons rights. You can't steal from someone in private because you are hurting that person by doing so. If two consenting adults have sex in privacy, who are they hurting? Who is the victim?

Why do the conservative right wingers constantly call for less government but want as much legislation as possible to enforce their morals? Every year the battle cry is "no big government, give the power to the states, less government regulations." It's bad to regulate big corporations, but ok to tell people how to live their lives?

Amen Brother!

I'm glad that at least "we" have some say in this government.

If the religious right ran this country the way they wanted, I don't think this country would be that different from Iran.

SirStefan32 · June 30th, 2003, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dback Jon
Excellent post.
Just this morning Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is quoted in the Tennessean decrying the Supreme Court ruling as trampling on state's rights, while in the next breath advocating a FEDERAL consitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Talk about a hypocrit.

I emailed him and called out his bigotry. Told him he was unfit to be a US Senator, and that he should resign and take his Un-American activities elsewhere.

I am the only one who doesn't see any contradictions in what he said? The Supreme Court decision was indeed trampling on state's rights. Now that they have done that, we have to fight on the FEDERAL level.

Passing the amendment is the only way to stop the slippery slope, and then hoipefully get some more decent judges on the Supreme Court and reverse this terrible rulling.

Stefan

Dback Jon · June 30th, 2003, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SirStefan32
I am the only one who doesn't see any contradictions in what he said? The Supreme Court decision was indeed trampling on state's rights. Now that they have done that, we have to fight on the FEDERAL level.

Passing the amendment is the only way to stop the slippery slope, and then hoipefully get some more decent judges on the Supreme Court and reverse this terrible rulling.

Stefan

The contradiction is in his assertion that things like bedroom behavior/marriage are a state issue, then supports an amendment that would overrule any state law. Hypocrite.

And Scalia is THE WORST judge the US Supreme Court has seen in decades, if not ever. He is arrogant, sarcastic when he loses, and unlike what he proclaims, he tries to impose his personal morality and beliefs in his decisions, instead of ruling on the law.

SirStefan32 · June 30th, 2003, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dback Jon
The contradiction is in his assertion that things like bedroom behavior/marriage are a state issue, then supports an amendment that would overrule any state law. Hypocrite.

And Scalia is THE WORST judge the US Supreme Court has seen in decades, if not ever. He is arrogant, sarcastic when he loses, and unlike what he proclaims, he tries to impose his personal morality and beliefs in his decisions, instead of ruling on the law.

Take it easy Jon.
You are a smart man, so just try to analyze this:
Bedroom behavior is a state issue. The Supreme Court chose to take that power away from the state and play on the federal level. Now that the ball is in the federal gov't's court, we have to play there. I know you would love if we gave up, but that's not going to happen.

I think that Scalia is an excellent judge, and more importantly a decent man with high moral standards.

Krangthebrain · June 30th, 2003, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SirStefan32
Take it easy Jon.
You are a smart man, so just try to analyze this:
Bedroom behavior is a state issue. The Supreme Court chose to take that power away from the state and play on the federal level. Now that the ball is in the federal gov't's court, we have to play there. I know you would love if we gave up, but that's not going to happen.

I think that Scalia is an excellent judge, and more importantly a decent man with high moral standards.

Being both a Southern (who fought a war over state's rights) and the future husband of a black female, I could give a rat's --- about states rights.

I grew up believing in state's rights, but now I see how big of a joke it is. Most of the time it is used as a way of oppressing someone, and there is this "if you don't like it, move" attitude in it.

I want my rights (and other's rights that don't apply to me) mandated at the Federal level. Now other things, such as taxation, I want mandated at the state level.

SirChaz · June 30th, 2003, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
Being both a Southern (who fought a war over state's rights) and the future husband of a black female, I could give a rat's --- about states rights.

I grew up believing in state's rights, but now I see how big of a joke it is. Most of the time it is used as a way of oppressing someone, and there is this "if you don't like it, move" attitude in it.

I want my rights (and other's rights that don't apply to me) mandated at the Federal level. Now other things, such as taxation, I want mandated at the state level.

See Admendment 10 of the US Constitution. The idea was a limited federal government and I believe that idea still holds the best promise for a free country for everyone, Including those that was to sodimize each other and those that don't want that considered OK.
I respect your opinion Krang but you attitude frightens me. The more federal mandates we have the closer we creep tword an authorian regime in this country.
If the people of a State don't like the laws they should change them or move to another State. There are 50 States and I am sure we can all find one we can live with.

IMHO.

Krangthebrain · June 30th, 2003, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SirChaz
See Admendment 10 of the US Constitution. The idea was a limited federal government and I believe that idea still holds the best promise for a free country for everyone, Including those that was to sodimize each other and those that don't want that considered OK.
I respect your opinion Krang but you attitude frightens me. The more federal mandates we have the closer we creep tword an authorian regime in this country.
If the people of a State don't like the laws they should change them or move to another State. There are 50 States and I am sure we can all find one we can live with.

IMHO.

Well, history has shown that state's rights leads to less freedom, not more.

I will have to respectfully disagree on this. The Civil Rights movement was fought against and defeated for years on the basis of "state's rights". I don't want to see something like that happen again.

Dback Jon · June 30th, 2003, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
Well, history has shown that state's rights leads to less freedom, not more.

I will have to respectfully disagree on this. The Civil Rights movement was fought against and defeated for years on the basis of "state's rights". I don't want to see something like that happen again.

Exactly.

History has shown time and again that the states are poor defenders of civil rights. Blacks would probably still have limited voting rights in the Deep South if "States Rights" had held sway.

Krangthebrain · June 30th, 2003, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dback Jon
Exactly.

History has shown time and again that the states are poor defenders of civil rights. Blacks would probably still have limited voting rights in the Deep South if "States Rights" had held sway.

I believe that the Civil War technically was more about States Rights than anything else. The south was wrong, and the right side won, though the north handled victory very poorly (reconstruction).

State's rights is a ruse, to blind people from the real issue. It has been used time and time again to hide injustice. Our rights have to be guaranteed by the federal govt. or the Bill of rights is meaningless.