TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like
Google.
Pages:1
Gay sex A-OK sez supremes
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Dafaso
The supreme court just ruled - states can not outlaw what two consenting adult do in the privacy of their home. All I can say is..whew! :p :cool:
link
Posted by: cello
:up: :up: :up: :up: :up:
(though now I have a friend with a really funny t-shirt that isn't quite as pertinent anymore :D )
Posted by: zaknafein
An intellegent, rational decision out of the government. Wow.
Posted by: WinBear
A T-shirt I saw about 15 years ago:
SODOMY
So Do My
So Do My Friends
So Do My Neighbors
Posted by: TiVoLance
Wooo Hoooo!!!!
http://www.bareboat.com/images/clapping.gif
Posted by: ClutchBrake
Works for me. I'm always glad I have options.
Posted by: Turtleboy
Anyone have a link to the actual opinion? Initial news reports always get these things wrong (like they did in the affirmative action decsion). Did the court overturn Bowers? Did they narrowly rule the the Texas law was invalid because it applied only to same sex indivudals? Did they leave the door open to laws that ban sodomy for everyone?
Posted by: Marco
My skepticism exactly. If I know the Supremes, (and I flatter myself that I do), I bet there's some weasel language in there somewhere.
N.B., I said weasel language, not *gerbil* language. :D
Posted by: Animgif
I am rather amazed, but super happy! I think I shall go celebrate tonight on 4th street :D :D :D :D :D
Posted by: mbklein
I haven't been able to find the actual opinion either.
On a side note, has Clarence Thomas ever voted differently from Antonin Scalia? It's like Scalia is one guy with two votes, and Thomas just sits there and nods.
Michael
Posted by: JPriller
Welcome news! I was surprised to see it 6-3, I was thinking it'd be a 5-4 decision, one way or the other.
Little by little, the Dark Ages in this country are drawing to a close.
Posted by: Turtleboy
Well, when they are up, there will be at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opini...lipopinion.html in pdf format. But they aren't there yet.
Also, Lexis usually gets them a few hours later (in non-PDF), but I'm sure most of y'all don't have access to that.
Posted by: Animgif
Thanks for the link Turtleboy
Posted by: aindik
I haven't seen the full opinion either, but the Washington Post says:
quote:
By a separate 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court also overturned its 1986 ruling that upheld a Georgia sodomy law and that declared that homosexuals have no constitutional right to engage in sodomy in private.
and
quote:
The ruling will invalidate sodomy laws that exist in 13 states. Besides Texas, the other states are Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.
As Turtleboy said, though, newspapers, even the Washington Post, have a tendency to mess up the legal details.
Posted by: Turtleboy
Here ya all go. A link to the majority opinion http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/02-102p.zo.pdf
The concurrences and dissents are elswhere.
Posted by: whoknows55
quote:
Originally posted by Turtleboy
Anyone have a link to the actual opinion? Initial news reports always get these things wrong (like they did in the affirmative action decsion). Did the court overturn Bowers? Did they narrowly rule the the Texas law was invalid because it applied only to same sex indivudals? Did they leave the door open to laws that ban sodomy for everyone?
Will turtleboy read it and give us his interpreted wisdom?
Posted by: mbklein
Justice Thomas, writing his own dissenting opinion, says:
quote:
I join JUSTICE SCALIA's dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is . . . uncommonly silly." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources. Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to "decide cases 'agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.'" Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I "can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy," ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions," ante, at 1.
In other words, "this law is silly and should be repealed, but I don't believe it to be unconstitutional." Interesting take.
Michael
Posted by: Turtleboy
Not only did today's SCOTUS decision overturn the Texas law that prohibted Sodomy between people of the same sex, it overruled the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld a law that prohibited sodomy alltogether, regardless of the sex of the participants.
So male, female, gay, straight, you are now free to sodomize each other to your heart's (and other body parts') conent.
Enjoy.
Posted by: DLiquid
quote:
Originally posted by Turtleboy
So male, female, gay, straight, you are now free to sodomize each other to your heart's (and other body parts') conent.
I wonder if there's anyone "on the fence" out there that didn't engage in sodomy when it was illegal, but will now. I doubt it, but this reminds me of the argument that if drugs are legalized, then more people will take them. Now that sodomy is not illegal in Texas, what will happen? ;) :p
Posted by: doom1701
quote:
Originally posted by mbklein
In other words, "this law is silly and should be repealed, but I don't believe it to be unconstitutional." Interesting take.
Michael
And I might take a lot of heat for it, but I have to agree with Justice Thomas' statement. It was a stupid law, and I think that laws like that should get struck down. But it's not the role of the Supreme Court to do so. Like I've said in other threads, it's the role of the Supreme Court to rule in matters of the constitutionality of federal laws.
Everything affected today was state law, which I don't feel that the Supreme Court should be able to touch. Of course, the decision isn't what is at fault--the Supreme Court should have never agreed to hear the case. Once they agreed to hear it, then I think striking down the laws was the only logical decision.
Posted by: aindik
quote:
Originally posted by doom1701
And I might take a lot of heat for it, but I have to agree with Justice Thomas' statement. It was a stupid law, and I think that laws like that should get struck down. But it's not the role of the Supreme Court to do so. Like I've said in other threads, it's the role of the Supreme Court to rule in matters of the constitutionality of federal laws.
Everything affected today was state law, which I don't feel that the Supreme Court should be able to touch. Of course, the decision isn't what is at fault--the Supreme Court should have never agreed to hear the case. Once they agreed to hear it, then I think striking down the laws was the only logical decision.
That hasn't been the law since at least the Civil War. Discounting the statement that the Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land," the 14th amendment applies specifically to the States, as it reads, in relevant part,
quote:
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.
The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to apply most of the first 10 amendments to the states.
I'm not saying that this particular law was or wasn't constitutional in my opinion, but the Supreme Court clearly has the power to declare state laws unconstitutional. I don't think Justice Thomas or Justice Scalia would challenge that premise.
[Edited to embolden relevant text in the 14th Amendment]
Posted by: Animgif
quote:
Originally posted by doom1701
And I might take a lot of heat for it, but I have to agree with Justice Thomas' statement. It was a stupid law, and I think that laws like that should get struck down. But it's not the role of the Supreme Court to do so. Like I've said in other threads, it's the role of the Supreme Court to rule in matters of the constitutionality of federal laws.
Everything affected today was state law, which I don't feel that the Supreme Court should be able to touch. Of course, the decision isn't what is at fault--the Supreme Court should have never agreed to hear the case. Once they agreed to hear it, then I think striking down the laws was the only logical decision.
I'm going to partially agree with you, but after reading the majoity opinion, they essentialy came back on Bowers and said you can't regulate this because it was privacy.
The reason this is supreme court matter is that they were answering constitutional questions, equal protections under the 14th ammendement and due process clause, also 14th...
Additional decided was whether the overturn a previous supreme court decision on the matter (Bowers)..and that's why it was heard by them.
(Legal scholars please correct me...I am but a person waiting PATIENTLY for his LSAT scores)
Posted by: TiVolcano
quote:
Originally posted by doom1701
Everything affected today was state law, which I don't feel that the Supreme Court should be able to touch.
They can rule on state law if it violates the Constitution. But I agree with Justice Thomas' and your opinion that there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and IMO, this law was not unconstitutional.
Posted by: Animgif
quote:
Originally posted by TiVolcano
They can rule on state law if it violates the Constitution. But I agree with Justice Thomas' and your opinion that there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and IMO, this law was not unconstitutional.
Texas' law specifically targeted Homosexuals...what about equal protections? What's your take on that aspect of the law?
edit: I mean this as an educational argument, not a flame... :)
Posted by: ybrew
quote:
Originally posted by Animgif
Texas' law specifically targeted Homosexuals...what about equal protections? What's your take on that aspect of the law?
edit: I mean this as an educational argument, not a flame... :)
You knew I had to chime in here soonor or later.
No. Texas' law did not specifically target homosexuals.
Homosexuals in Texas were still free to sodomize persons of the opposite sex. That they choose not to is their choice.
Posted by: Animgif
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
You knew I had to chime in here soonor or later.
No. Texas' law did not specifically target homosexuals.
Homosexuals in Texas were still free to sodomize persons of the opposite sex. That they choose not to is their choice.
I was wondering how long it would take for that comment to hit :)
Posted by: TiVolcano
quote:
Originally posted by Animgif
Texas' law specifically targeted Homosexuals...what about equal protections? What's your take on that aspect of the law?
edit: I mean this as an educational argument, not a flame... :)
I'm not saying whether the law was ethical or not, just that it should have been a state matter because IMO, it didn't violate any part of the Constitution.
Posted by: Animgif
As an aside to this, but still quite relevant, Bush is proposing to make it easier for religious organizations who DO get federal money to discrimiate based on sexual orientation and religion (specifically mentioned)...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Jun24.html
One step forward, one step back...
Posted by: whoknows55
IBTLFPL
In before the lock five pages later.:p
Posted by: Animgif
quote:
Originally posted by TiVolcano
I'm not saying whether the law was ethical or not, just that it should have been a state matter because IMO, it didn't violate any part of the Constitution.
I feel (as did the SCOTUS) that it violated the 14th ammendment's equal protections clause...completely ignoring privacy issues, how do you feel that this did not violate equal protections (please don't give the stock yBrew answer).
Posted by: TiVolcano
quote:
Originally posted by Animgif
I feel (as did the SCOTUS) that it violated the 14th ammendment's equal protections clause...completely ignoring privacy issues, how do you feel that this did not violate equal protections (please don't give the stock yBrew answer).
I guess I just interpret it the same way as Justice Thomas. I don't see a "right to privacy" in the 14th Amendment.
And for the record, I think it was a stupid law. I just don't think the Supreme Court should be overstepping it's bounds.
Posted by: ybrew
But the stock ybrew answer is correct.
EVERYBODY in Texas was banned from engaging in same-sex sodomy.
What part of that is confusing?
Posted by: Demandred
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
Homosexuals in Texas were still free to sodomize persons of the opposite sex. That they choose not to is their choice.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Posted by: whoknows55
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
But the stock ybrew answer is correct.
EVERYBODY in Texas was banned from engaging in same-sex sodomy.
What part of that is confusing?
It's adverse impact. It would be the same as saying that Role Playing Games(D&D) are outlawed, but you are not discriminating on the players because no one can play them.
Posted by: Animgif
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
But the stock ybrew answer is correct.
EVERYBODY in Texas was banned from engaging in same-sex sodomy.
What part of that is confusing?
So, (completely hypothetical here), If I became POTUS and put all of homies on the SCOTUS and made all heterosexual relations illegal, but homosexual relations were still legal...you would be A-OK with that on the simple grounds that NO ONE could have heterosexual relations. I get what I want (homosexual relations), but you can't have what you want (heterosexual relations)?
Again, not a flame...an academic argument...
Posted by: deaklet
quote:
Originally posted by TiVolcano
And for the record, I think it was a stupid law. I just don't think the Supreme Court should be overstepping it's bounds.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That was a good one. SCOTUS overstepping its bounds. Heh. They'd NEVER do that.
Posted by: ybrew
Would I be Ok with that?
Obviously not.
Would you get elected?
Obviously not.
Would that violate equal protection?
No.
Posted by: TiVolcano
quote:
Originally posted by whoknows55
It's adverse impact. It would be the same as saying that Role Playing Games(D&D) are outlawed, but you are not discriminating on the players because no one can play them.
The point is, a law that bans RPGs is not unconstitutional. Any state can make any such law and it's perfectly fine. It's not a case of equal protection because the law affects everyone.
Posted by: Animgif
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
Would I be Ok with that?
Obviously not.
Would you get elected?
Obviously not.
Would that violate equal protection?
No.
I still can't see your argument. Even though I can sodomize a woman I couldn't (I can now :) ) sodomize a man...because I could sodomize that woman it's not against equal protection?
That doesn't quite click with my thought processes...I want A, but because B is available I must choose B and not want A when I have no desire for B?
Posted by: Animgif
quote:
Originally posted by TiVolcano
The point is, a law that bans RPGs is not unconstitutional. Any state can make any such law and it's perfectly fine. It's not a case of equal protection because the law affects everyone.
The problem with that argument is that the law affects and treats everyone in an unequal manner.
Posted by: ybrew
quote:
Originally posted by Animgif
I still can't see your argument. Even though I can sodomize a woman I couldn't (I can now :) ) sodomize a man...because I could sodomize that woman it's not against equal protection?
That doesn't quite click with my thought processes...I want A, but because B is available I must choose B and not want A when I have no desire for B?
I couldn't sodomize a man before either.
We had equal protection.
With the ruling today, we still have equal protection.
Posted by: TiVolcano
quote:
Originally posted by Animgif
The problem with that argument is that the law affects and treats everyone in an unequal manner.
How exactly? If no one is allowed to play it, how is that unequal? Because some people want to play it more than others? In the eyes of the law, that is irrelevant.
Posted by: jasonl99
Animgf, how would you feel about a law that allows for siblings to marry and have children? Let's just not include Arkansas in this discussion ;)
Posted by: Animgif
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
I couldn't sodomize a man before either.
We had equal protection.
With the ruling today, we still have equal protection.
Again, I fall back to the argument above:
"The problem with that argument is that the law affects and treats everyone in an unequal manner."
Posted by: Dafaso
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
But the stock ybrew answer is correct.
EVERYBODY in Texas was banned from engaging in same-sex sodomy.
What part of that is confusing?
And yet the SCOTUS didn't have the wisdom to see your valid and logical arguement and overturned the law anyway. Go figure. Maybe you should have been there to argue for the defense! :rolleyes:
Posted by: jasonl99
quote:
Originally posted by Animgif
Again, I fall back to the argument above:
"The problem with that argument is that the law affects and treats everyone in an unequal manner."
No, it doesn't.
The law says that a person cannot sodomize another person of the same sex. It applies equally to heteros, gays, blacks, whites, Chinese, Mexicans, and even union members.
Posted by: Animgif
quote:
Originally posted by jasonl99
Animgf, how would you feel about a law that allows for siblings to marry and have children? Let's just not include Arkansas in this discussion ;)
I'm ambilivant to the issue...I believe this is illegal because of the extremely high risk factor involved...but not 100% sure...
My honest gut reaction is that if it doesn't negatively affect me and it improves the quality of life of another set of individuals, then I honestly am not going to place my moral beliefs upon them.
Speaking of Arkansas...
Posted by: Pablo
quote:
Originally posted by Animgif
The problem with that argument is that the law affects and treats everyone in an unequal manner.
The law does not treat everyone in a different manner. It treats everyone in the same manner.
The law does affect everyone in a different manner. However, this is true of EVERY law. Laws against speeding have a greater impact on those who are inclined to engage in speeding more often. Laws against murder have a greater impact on those who are inclined to engage in murder more often. Laws against same sex sodomy have a greater impact on those who are inclined to engage in same sex sodomy more often. If we got rid of all laws that affected people differently, then we would have no laws at all.
For the record, I think that the law is stupid and I have not formed any opinion on whether or not the court has overstepped its bounds.
Posted by: ybrew
quote:
Originally posted by Dafaso
And yet the SCOTUS didn't have the wisdom to see your valid and logical arguement and overturned the law anyway. Go figure. Maybe you should have been there to argue for the defense! :rolleyes:
Did the supreme court ruling say gays didn't have equal protection here?
If so, please point that out.
Posted by: Animgif
I realy think the core of this case is, as after reading the majority opinion what the SCOTUS also felt, the privacy issue. Page 18, "The right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government." That's really what this case hinges on. Although there is no direct promise of privacy, "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a real of personal liberty which the government may not enter." Case, supra at 847...
Posted by: Animgif
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo
The law does not treat everyone in a different manner. It treats everyone in the same manner.
The law does affect everyone in a different manner. However, this is true of EVERY law. Laws against speeding have a greater impact on those who are inclined to engage in speeding more often. Laws against murder have a greater impact on those who are inclined to engage in murder more often. Laws against same sex sodomy impact those who are inclined to engange in same sex sodomy more often. If we got rid of all laws that affected people differently, then we would have no laws at all.
For the record, I think that the law is stupid and I have not formed any opinion on whether or not the court has overstepped its bounds.
I'll back off of this argument for now because I can't find the words to express exactly what I want to say yet (lunch is too soon)...but the privacy issues, etc...never...
I am very glad that most people on this board are in agreement that it was a bad law and should be repealed in some manner...I can handle some argumentation over the SCOTUS :)
Posted by: Animgif
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
Did the supreme court ruling say gays didn't have equal protection here?
If so, please point that out.
Page 14
"We concluded that the provision was 'born of animosity toward the class of persons affected" and further that it had no rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose." Through out the rest of the decision they speak to the lack of reason and how it was targeted at a certain class (homosexuals)
Page 15 "Its continuance (Bowers) as a precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons."
Posted by: Animgif
It's off to lunch for me...discuss amongst yourselves :)
Posted by: Dafaso
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
Did the supreme court ruling say gays didn't have equal protection here?
If so, please point that out.
I'm not saying we should be able to "sodomize" someone in Macy's window. But what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom can not be regulated by the gov't. It ruled that this law interferred with our pursuit of liberty, guaranteed to me by the constitution.
Quote from the ruling:
"The Georgia Statue [prohibiting sodomy] prohibited the conduct whether or not the participants were of the same sex, while the Texas statute, as we have seen, applies only to participants of the same sex."
Posted by: ybrew
quote:
Originally posted by Animgif
Page 14
"We concluded that the provision was 'born of animosity toward the class of persons affected" and further that it had no rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose." Through out the rest of the decision they speak to the lack of reason and how it was targeted at a certain class (homosexuals)
Page 15 "Its continuance (Bowers) as a precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons."
I will disagree with their use of the word animosity, since they don't know what they're talking about.
Regardless, I stand by what I said earlier - equal protection wasn't violated.
But it sounds like we're done with that argument.
Posted by: ybrew
quote:
Originally posted by Dafaso
I'm not saying we should be able to "sodomize" someone in Macy's window. But what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom can not be regulated by the gov't. It ruled that this law interferred with our pursuit of liberty, guaranteed to me by the constitution.
Quote from the ruling:
"The Georgia Statue [prohibiting sodomy] prohibited the conduct whether or not the participants were of the same sex, while the Texas statute, as we have seen, applies only to participants of the same sex."
FYI, I don't recall ever being in favor or against any kind of law regulating private bedroom behavior.
Posted by: askewed
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
Did the supreme court ruling say gays didn't have equal protection here?
If so, please point that out.
Perhaps the difference is that you aren't interested in having intercourse with a man.
If there were a law prohibiting ybrew from having intercourse with his wife he may not be so willing to adhere to the letter of the law or to use definitions to make arguments.
It is further insulting and moronic to infer that gays are "protected" by a law that makes there sexuality illegal.
How's the job search going???
Posted by: jsmeeker
So, will June 26th be known as "A*al Sex For All Day " from here on out?
Posted by: Bryanmc
Everyone is missing the point.
Legal or not, anal sex is disgusting.
You do know that poop comes out of there, right?
Posted by: jasonl99
quote:
Originally posted by askewed
It is further insulting and moronic to infer that gays are "protected" by a law that makes there sexuality illegal.
I think you misinterpreted ybrew's quote. When he asked "Did the supreme court ruling say gays didn't have equal protection here?" he was not suggesting they were a protected class, but simply asking to point out where the laws in question were denying their right to equal protection under the law.
FWIW, I too think that the govt should have no say in what goes on in the privacy of a person's home.
Posted by: TiVolcano
quote:
Originally posted by Bryanmc
Everyone is missing the point.
Legal or not, anal sex is disgusting.
You do know that poop comes out of there, right?
Oh, that made me laugh. :D
Posted by: linh
quote:
Originally posted by jsmeeker
So, will June 26th be known as "A*al Sex For All Day " from here on out?
I thought we all agreed that it was going to be "Or@l Sex For All/Bill Clinton Day"
;)
Posted by: Dafaso
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
FYI, I don't recall ever being in favor or against any kind of law regulating private bedroom behavior.
Did you not read the quote I listed? You asked for an example and I gave you one. The Texas law banned sodomy between same sex partners but not opposite sex partners.
Posted by: Y-ASK
So if it's privacy that's the issue that made the law unconstitutional then what's next? Isn't marriage a private matter or how about more than two individuals in a marriage? Better yet why can't I smoke Pot in my own private home? Either this is going to open the door on a huge list of privacy issues (for good or bad) or the proposition of a right to privacy will have to be taken up by the Govt. and be determined one way or the other.
Y-ASK
Posted by: JPriller
quote:
Originally posted by Bryanmc
Legal or not, anal sex is disgusting.
I'd agree, but whether or not I or anyone else find something disgusting should have nothing to do with whether it is illegal or not.
I find asparagus disgusting, but I'm not trying to get laws against it passed or upheld. If people want to eat asparagus, they should be allowed to do so in the privacy of their own homes, and I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me if I said just the IDEA of someone, somewhere, legally eating asparagus negatively effected my quality of life.
Posted by: ybrew
I thought we were done, but I guess not.
I was bound by the same law as you. Prior to today, I could not sodomize a man.
We had equal protection.
FWIW, I've said the only good thing Clinton ever did while in office was institute the don't ask, don't tell policy. I'm all in favor of that.
Are you still confused?
Posted by: zaknafein
quote:
I will disagree with their use of the word animosity, since they don't know what they're talking about.
:confused:
Main Entry: an·i·mos·i·ty
Pronunciation: "a-n&-'mä-s&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English animosite, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French animosité, from Late Latin animositat-, animositas, from Latin animosus spirited, from animus
Date: 1605
: ill will or resentment tending toward active hostility : an antagonistic attitude
How is a law directed specifically towards gay couples not promoting animosity towards that group?
Posted by: Demandred
Saw this over on Fark with their discussion of this and I thought it was pretty funny...
"Besides- gay men are our friends.... For every gay-male couple that means there are two extra ladies available for the rest of us!"
Posted by: ybrew
quote:
Originally posted by JPriller
I'd agree, but whether or not I or anyone else find something disgusting should have nothing to do with whether it is illegal or not.
I find asparagus disgusting, but I'm not trying to get laws against it passed or upheld. If people want to eat asparagus, they should be allowed to do so in the privacy of their own homes, and I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me if I said just the IDEA of someone, somewhere, legally eating asparagus negatively effected my quality of life.
I'd take that a step further and say if only gay men were banned from eating asparagus, we've got equal protection issues. If everyone was banned from eating it, it might be a silly law, but there are no equal protection issues.
Posted by: Y-ASK
quote:
Originally posted by Bryanmc
Everyone is missing the point.
Legal or not, anal sex is disgusting.
You do know that poop comes out of there, right?
So Funny yet, so right!
Y-ASK
Posted by: TiVolcano
quote:
Originally posted by JPriller
I'd agree, but whether or not I or anyone else find something disgusting should have nothing to do with whether it is illegal or not.
I find asparagus disgusting, but I'm not trying to get laws against it passed or upheld. If people want to eat asparagus, they should be allowed to do so in the privacy of their own homes, and I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me if I said just the IDEA of someone, somewhere, legally eating asparagus negatively effected my quality of life.
Linh?
Posted by: Turtleboy
Come on, Ybrew.
Generally, I think that you get a bad rap, and are assigned ill motives where none exist (and I don't think you have any ill motives here either). But from an equal protection standpoint, you really aren't making any sense.
Take a look at O'Connor's concurring opinion, in which she would uphold Bowers, but strike down the Texas law.
"The statute at issue here makes sodomy a crime only if a person 'engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.' Sodomy between opposite-sex partners, however, is not a crime in Texas. That is, Texas treats the same conduct differently based solely on the partcipants. Those harmed by this law are people who have same sex orientatoin and thus are more likely to engage in [the] behavior probhited. The Texas statute makes homosexuals unequal in the eyes of the law by making particular conduct -- and only that conduct -- subject to crimnal sanction."
Posted by: whoknows55
quote:
Originally posted by Bryanmc
Everyone is missing the point.
Legal or not, anal sex is disgusting.
You do know that poop comes out of there, right?
LOL. And no i'm not explaining it to my coworkers.
Posted by: whoknows55
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
<Good point sniped>
Are you still confused?
Yes, but that's ok because it's my normal state.:D
Posted by: ybrew
I'll back off of this issue since I've had my say. I admit gays were more harmed by this law, but, correct me if I'm wrong here, and this is my whole point:
Did Texas' law prohibit:
i. Deviant sexual activity between homosexuals
or
ii. Deviant sexual activity between two persons of the same sex
If i., I absolutely agree, equal protection was violated.
If ii., I stand by everything else I've said on the matter in this thread.
regardless, as far as I'm concerned, the equal protection issue is laid to rest. I may still stay in this thread, but not with regards to that issue.
Posted by: TiVolcano
quote:
Originally posted by Turtleboy
"The statute at issue here makes sodomy a crime only if a person 'engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.' Sodomy between opposite-sex partners, however, is not a crime in Texas. That is, Texas treats the same conduct differently based solely on the partcipants. Those harmed by this law are people who have same sex orientatoin and thus are more likely to engage in [the] behavior probhited. The Texas statute makes homosexuals unequal in the eyes of the law by making particular conduct -- and only that conduct -- subject to crimnal sanction."
I certainly see the point there. If you go by the exact letter of the law, I don't think this is an equal protection issue, but the spirit of the law does violate that. In my sometimes Jeffersonian way of thinking, I read this law word for word and didn't see a problem, but I can see where the case was made against it.
Posted by: zaknafein
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
I'll back off of this issue since I've had my say. I admit gays were more harmed by this law, but, correct me if I'm wrong here, and this is my whole point:
Did Texas' law prohibit:
i. Deviant sexual activity between homosexuals
or
ii. Deviant sexual activity between two persons of the same sex
Come on.
That's like passing a law that blind people can't vote. Then, saying it is constitutional because it doesn't target blind people, only those who can't see.
Posted by: cello
I'm no legal eagle or anything, but shouldn't the point be that it's not up to any government to say what sexual behavior is deviant or not (assuming that it's consentual and doesn't break other established criminal laws)? Just because you call it deviant doesn't make it so. It's not your judgment call to make, nor is it up to the state of Texas or the federal gov't to say what is deviant sexual behavior. The Supreme Court just undid what shouldn't have existed in the first place.
Posted by: JPriller
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
If everyone was banned from eating it, it might be a silly law, but there are no equal protection issues.
You need to look at the intent of the law, which from the little I've read I think the Supreme Court did do in this case. If you make something illegal that only a certain segment of the population are interested in doing, is the purpose of the law to provide some benefit to the community (as would be the case of murder, or more arguably close-family marriages) or is it to discriminate, discourage and/or punish that segment of the population most interesting in doing that something?
The Supreme Court ruling, in my interpretation, says that there isn't any beneficial purpose to the law, it was simply meant to discriminate against homosexuals, and is therefore struck down. I don't know if that can justly or legally be called an "equal protection" issue or not, but it does seem to me to be at least related to that idea.
Posted by: JPriller
quote:
Originally posted by TiVolcano
Linh?
No, sorry. :)
Posted by: ybrew
quote:
Originally posted by zaknafein
Come on.
That's like passing a law that blind people can't vote. Then, saying it is constitutional because it doesn't target blind people, only those who can't see.
Why must you drag me back in?
I don't *see* (pun intended) how this is related.
What you're saying is obviously discriminatory against you as a blind person because you can't see.
Whereas in the texas law, gay men *could* sodomize woman.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe a better analogy would have been:
No animals allowed except seeing eye dogs.
Then I'd complain that I can't bring my dog with me, even though I have my eyes closed. Sure I can see, but I choose not to.
Posted by: cello
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
No animals allowed except seeing eye dogs.
Then I'd complain that I can't bring my dog with me, even though I have my eyes closed. Sure I can see, but I choose not to.
oh, please. Gay people are choosing to be attracted to the same sex just as much as you're choosing to be attracted to the opposite sex. i.e. not at all.
Posted by: TiVolcano
quote:
Originally posted by cello
oh, please. Gay people are choosing to be attracted to the same sex just as much as you're choosing to be attracted to the opposite sex. i.e. not at all.
Uh oh. Where's that picture of the can with the worms in it?
Posted by: ybrew
quote:
Originally posted by cello
oh, please. Gay people are choosing to be attracted to the same sex just as much as you're choosing to be attracted to the opposite sex. i.e. not at all.
I never said that.
The direct correlation you made was wrong.
Better:
Oh please, gay people are choosing to sodomize people of the same sex since they are attracted to people of the same sex.
Sure.
they're choosing to act on their attraction.
Do you deny that?
(I did not start any dialogue relating to whether the attraction was a choice and I won't engage in any dialogue in this thread that discusses that)
Posted by: Dafaso
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
FWIW, I've said the only good thing Clinton ever did while in office was institute the don't ask, don't tell policy. I'm all in favor of that.
Are you still confused?
I'm not surprised you are all for DA,DT since it totally suppressed gays and lesbians in the military. If a hot chick walked by and a bunch of army guys said "Hey, she's fine, I'd like to 'do' her", they'd all be high fiving each other. But if a gay guy did the same when a another man walked by he'd be kicked out.
But, of course, you would say that it's not discriminatory since all men in the military can not admire and comment on other men. :rolleyes:
Thankfully, the SC has the wisdom to see past this ridiculous argument. Liberty for all is what it's all about - not just for heteros.
Maybe you could think of it like this: There are different types of people in the world. Not everyone is a White, Male, Christian, Heterosexual. Everyone, including Homosexuals, are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as long as we live in the United States of America. By not allowing gays to engage in what is a totally loving and intimately expressive act for us (just like hetero relations is to you) is denying this right to gays, but not to heteros. This is discrimination. My right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - one of the cornerstones of our constitution - is denied, but yours is intact. To simply say that I'm still allowed to have relations with a woman doesn't give me this right.
I'm still amazed that you have this opinion since, as it was pointed out to you in another thread, your own marriage would have not been allowed years ago. I'm sure there were people arguing back then that 'everyone's in the same boat - we all can't inter-marry. No discrimination here.' But your L, L and PofH were being violated and the law was overturned. We are just asking for the same consideration given to you, which you took advantage of.
Posted by: doom1701
I'm kinda 50/50 on ybrew's point. Like it or not, the law didn't target homosexuals. The law targetted an activity, not a class or group, even though a certain group is affected more than others by the law. Pablo has a very good point--almost every law that prohibits an activity ultimately affects one group more than another. But that doesn't lead to unequal protection, because it's the activity, and not the group, that is targetted.
On the other hand, the Texas law had one fatal flaw. You can't sodomize a member of the same sex. So, as a guy, I can't sodomize another guy, but I can a woman. A woman can't sodomize another woman, but can do a man. If the action is truly targetted by the law, then we must afford equal protection to both sexes. If one gender can sodomize a guy, then the other gender must be allowed to do so. So, based on aindik's lesson to me on the 14th ammendment, I can agree with the SCOTUS giving this law the boot.
From what I've seen of the Georgia law (which is pretty much just here), I don't think the Supreme Court should have been able to interfere. Sodomy is illegal in Georgia (or was illegal, I guess), across the board. Everyone is equal in those terms. But, it probably would have looked really bad if the SCOTUS had struck down the Texas law, but not the Georgia law.
Posted by: ybrew
Dafaso,
Please point out where I said anything regarding this law in general or its merits.
Did I ever say this law should be upheld?
Posted by: OregonDuck
For the record - I agree with O'Connor's opinion. I also agree with what Thomas said, but he misses the point, in this case.
It's interesting how free will relates to human behavior, or doesn't. Am I genetically predisposed to eat too much, more so than ybrew, who is in much better shape than I am? Or does it even matter to anyone besides myself?
Posted by: cello
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
they're choosing to act on their attraction.
okay, so then gay people can't act on their sexual attractions if some judges think that it's disgusting? Let them be attracted to each other, but they can't have intercourse? How is that legal?
sorry you don't want to discuss this, but you started the analogy. I know that this discussion won't go anywhere, but I can't stand to see such hateful things said without defending my friends. And yes, saying or implying that certain people are as not as free as others to expreess themselves sexually is hateful.
Posted by: Dafaso
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
Dafaso,
Please point out where I said anything regarding this law in general or its merits.
Did I ever say this law should be upheld?
Oh, so you support today's ruling? Ok, then, we're in agreement! I knew you'd come around! All's well again in TiVoland.:D
Posted by: TiVolcano
Punch out, Maverick!
Posted by: doom1701
quote:
Originally posted by cello
okay, so then gay people can't act on their sexual attractions if some judges think that it's disgusting? Let them be attracted to each other, but they can't have intercourse? How is that legal?
sorry you don't want to discuss this, but you started the analogy. I know that this discussion won't go anywhere, but I can't stand to see such hateful things said without defending my friends. And yes, saying or implying that certain people are as not as free as others to expreess themselves sexually is hateful.
cello, I have to ask, did you want to end your first paragraph with "How is that fair?" Because that's the way it read for me. You're looking at an activity that you don't have any problems with (and, for the record, I don't either, as long as I'm not invovled in it :eek: ), and saying that it should be allowed because people want to do it.
The government is supposed to (and I'll emphasize "supposed to"--we all know it doesn't happen that way usually) look at activities that are harmful to those three basic rights--life, liberty, and property ownership, and, if an activity infringes on one of those rights, make the activity illegal. While I'm sure there was plenty of homophobia going on when Georgia passed it's sodomy law, let's just assume that they did it with the proper intentions--they felt sodomy was harmful, probably to someone's life. Much in the same way that doing drugs is considered harmful. Exactly like murder is harmful.
Our government has to operate under the assumption that laws such as these are passed not because "some judge thinks it's disgusting", but because the appropriate research has been performed to find that the activity is harmful. The minute we just assume that one law was passed because of bigotry or personal taste, we have to assume that all laws were passed because of that.
Posted by: ybrew
quote:
Originally posted by Dafaso
Oh, so you support today's ruling? Ok, then, we're in agreement! I knew you'd come around! All's well again in TiVoland.:D
Well, since you asked,
I don't have an issue with the ruling.
I don't think the government should be going in people's private bedrooms.
And I still firmly support Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
So yes, TiVoLand is once again The Happiest Place on Earth.
Posted by: JPriller
quote:
Originally posted by doom1701
I'm kinda 50/50 on ybrew's point. Like it or not, the law didn't target homosexuals. The law targeted an activity, not a class or group, even though a certain group is affected more than others by the law. Pablo has a very good point--almost every law that prohibits an activity ultimately affects one group more than another. But that doesn't lead to unequal protection, because it's the activity, and not the group, that is targeted.
Again, look at the INTENT of the law. Does it provide a benefit to society (and if so, what?), or is its sole purpose the targeting of a given segment of the population?
Forget asparagus, I suspect too many of you agree with me about it. Let's say I pass a law forbidding say, home woodworking. No, I don't care if you soundproof your garage and I never get woken up early Saturday (before noon, that is) by the sound of a table saw, it's illegal. Now, do I want this law because I see a tangible benefit to society, or am I trying to punish and stigmatize woodworkers? Is it still not an equal protection issue, as the law effects woodworkers and klutzes like myself alike?
Posted by: doom1701
quote:
Originally posted by JPriller
Again, look at the INTENT of the law. Does it provide a benefit to society (and if so, what?), or is its sole purpose the targeting of a given segment of the population?
Forget asparagus, I suspect too many of you agree with me about it. Let's say I pass a law forbidding say, home woodworking. No, I don't care if you soundproof your garage and I never get woken up early Saturday (before noon, that is) by the sound of a table saw, it's illegal. Now, do I want this law because I see a tangible benefit to society, or am I trying to punish and stigmatize woodworkers? Is it still not an equal protection issue, as the law effects woodworkers and klutzes like myself alike?
I would fight such a law tooth and nail, but ultimately I feel that the government would be able to pass it. If woodworking is considered detrimental or harmful, than the government should make it illegal. The law would be intended to, as you put it, provide a tangible benefit to society.
Posted by: stujac
I was shocked and pleased that 6 justices came to the realization that nobody can say what two consenting adults can do behind closed doors. My only question is what motivated the 3 idiots (Renquist, Scalia & Thomas) to vote against. Scary thought.
Please dear God don't allow a single judge to be appointed by the Bush administration - we can't take another idiot.
Posted by: jasonl99
quote:
Originally posted by stujac
[B
Please dear God don't allow a single judge to be appointed by the Bush administration - we can't take another idiot. [/B]
Ya just had to come in and wreck an interesting, polite thread, didn't you.
Don't worry, the congressional idiots on the left are doing their best to hijack the constitution and prevent Bush from appointing any judges.
Posted by: JPriller
quote:
Originally posted by doom1701
I would fight such a law tooth and nail, but ultimately I feel that the government would be able to pass it. If woodworking is considered detrimental or harmful, than the government should make it illegal. The law would be intended to, as you put it, provide a tangible benefit to society.
Yes, but I should be required to PROVE that it does, right? I shouldn't be able to get away with just waving my hands and proclaiming it DEVIANT, should I? (It IS deviant, by the way, how many people can actually do it well? I can't. BURN THE WITCH! :))
Tying this to a point in another post of yours, I disagree that we should assume the sodomy laws passed ages ago had anything to do with community health, or any reasonable interpretation or motive like that. They were against homosexuality, pure and simple, because it was a SIN condemned in the Bible. Now, did they want to keep people from sinning, I'm sure they did, and I'm sure they thought that was a good thing. But one person's or one group's definition of sin shouldn't be the law of the land.
(forget the can opener, it's too slow - I buy my worms in the cans with the pull-tab)
Posted by: cello
Well, since there isn't anything inherently harmful about sodomy, I find it hard to believe that the reasons for passing any laws banning it were based on fact and reason. And even if those were the intentions, they are clearly factually wrong. If the law was based on a fallacy (hehe, wanna make the pun), shouldn't it be overturned as soon as we know that the fallacy is indeed false?
People used to claim that masturbation would make you blind, or cause any of a variety of other ailments. But they didn't manage to ban that. I've heard that lesbians are at the lowest risk for STDs - maybe we should ban everything but lesbian sex. Guys can't complain about that - they can always choose to have a sex change operation. :D
quote:
Originally posted by doom1701
cello, I have to ask, did you want to end your first paragraph with "How is that fair?" Because that's the way it read for me. You're looking at an activity that you don't have any problems with (and, for the record, I don't either, as long as I'm not invovled in it :eek: ), and saying that it should be allowed because people want to do it.
The government is supposed to (and I'll emphasize "supposed to"--we all know it doesn't happen that way usually) look at activities that are harmful to those three basic rights--life, liberty, and property ownership, and, if an activity infringes on one of those rights, make the activity illegal. While I'm sure there was plenty of homophobia going on when Georgia passed it's sodomy law, let's just assume that they did it with the proper intentions--they felt sodomy was harmful, probably to someone's life. Much in the same way that doing drugs is considered harmful. Exactly like murder is harmful.
Our government has to operate under the assumption that laws such as these are passed not because "some judge thinks it's disgusting", but because the appropriate research has been performed to find that the activity is harmful. The minute we just assume that one law was passed because of bigotry or personal taste, we have to assume that all laws were passed because of that.
Posted by: Dafaso
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
Well, since you asked,
I don't have an issue with the ruling.
I don't think the government should be going in people's private bedrooms.
And I still firmly support Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
So yes, TiVoLand is once again The Happiest Place on Earth.
Happiest and Gayest!!;)
Posted by: sWampy
quote:
Originally posted by JPriller
They were against homosexuality, pure and simple, because it was a SIN condemned in the Bible. Now, did they want to keep people from sinning, I'm sure they did, and I'm sure they thought that was a good thing. But one person's or one group's definition of sin shouldn't be the law of the land.
Most of the laws we have now are based on religion, all religions are is a mean to enforce laws without police/armies. Do you want to throw out all based on religion?
Posted by: JPriller
quote:
Originally posted by sWampy
Most of the laws we have now are based on religion, all religions are is a mean to enforce laws without police/armies. Do you want to throw out all based on religion?
No, I want a solid, non-religious rationale for all laws we intend to keep on the books. Just because the Bible says murder is wrong doesn't mean that we should now accept murder because we're moving toward a more secular society. But if a religious motive for a law is the ONLY reason that can be found, then we should seriously consider scrapping it.
Posted by: aindik
quote:
Originally posted by cello
okay, so then gay people can't act on their sexual attractions if some judges think that it's disgusting?
Not judges. No judge made the law at issue in today's ruling. The law was enacted by the Texas legislature, and signed by the Texas governor, who were popularly elected by the people of Texas. The law was the result of majority rule. The question before the Court (and the Texas state courts beforehand) was not whether they agreed with the law or thought that homosexual sex was disgusting, but whether the people of Texas, acting though their elected representatives, were allowed to enact it, under the Texas constitution and the United States Constitution. In other words, does the Constitution prohibit the people of Texas from outlawing homosexual conduct because they believe it to be immoral, deviant, or disgusting? If not, then the Court cannot overturn the law.
Posted by: DBCooper
quote:
A long list of legal and medical groups joined gay rights and human rights supporters in backing the Texas men. Many friend-of-the-court briefs argued that times have changed since 1986, and that the court should catch up.
That's the kind of reasoning that torks me. Thomas is absolutely right. Just because we don't like a law is absolutely no reason for the Supreme Court to strike it down. That's called "making new law" and it is not their job. Bad laws should be changed by legislatures or constitutional amendments, not by judges. There is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution of the United States. If there is a federal law that applies, let the justices point it out. "Catching up" is ridiculous; it's not a basis for judicial reasoning.
Posted by: Animgif
quote:
Originally posted by DBCooper
That's the kind of reasoning that torks me. Thomas is absolutely right. Just because we don't like a law is absolutely no reason for the Supreme Court to strike it down. That's called "making new law" and it is not their job. Bad laws should be changed by legislatures or constitutional amendments, not by judges. There is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution of the United States. If there is a federal law that applies, let the justices point it out. "Catching up" is ridiculous; it's not a basis for judicial reasoning.
I completely agree...but one thing I would point out is that in the previous hundred or so messages it has been pointed out that this really is a supreme court matter...be it privacy, equal protections, or Bower (previous SCOTUS case) that was overturned today.
The SCOTUS is not here to make law, only to define what is and is not constitutional.
Posted by: esperantisto
It is interesting that it is Scalia that makes the case that this ruling leads to same-sex marriage. ;-)
Posted by: Animgif
quote:
Originally posted by esperantisto
It is interesting that it is Scalia that makes the case that this ruling leads to same-sex marriage. ;-)
Which is immediately rejected/pointed out no link to on the last page of the majority opinion :)
Posted by: JPriller
quote:
Originally posted by esperantisto
It is interesting that it is Scalia that makes the case that this ruling leads to same-sex marriage. ;-)
I found his comment about the Court "signing onto the homosexual agenda" amusing, myself. He hasn't signed onto one himself?
I hope this DOES lead to legalized same-sex marriage. Scalia is worried about a "slippery slope"? Strap on the skis and smear on the grease, boys! If this keeps up, by the time the ride is over we just might have a far more just and decent society. Scary, isn't it?
Posted by: zaknafein
quote:
Originally posted by JPriller
Strap on the skis and smear on the grease, boys!
:D
Posted by: jasonl99
I heard an interesting question raised on the radio today (local show, not Mr. Limbaugh). I am going to pre-emptively state ask that you don't read anything into this question. But it does bring up an interesting point.
What about sodomy with animals? Since, presumably, animals have no rights, there is one consenting adult in the privacy of his own home.
I thought further about it and came up with another. How about prostitution? If two adults (hetero or otherwise) consent to have sex in the privacy of a home, how is that any different? Yes, one of them happens to get some cash out of the deal, but you could pretty easily make the argument that no one is hurt in the transaction. Could this ruling open the door for a Supreme Court ruling on the states' rights to outlaw prostitution?
Posted by: Animgif
quote:
Originally posted by jasonl99
I thought further about it and came up with another. How about prostitution? If two adults (hetero or otherwise) consent to have sex in the privacy of a home, how is that any different? Yes, one of them happens to get some cash out of the deal, but you could pretty easily make the argument that no one is hurt in the transaction. Could this ruling open the door for a Supreme Court ruling on the states' rights to outlaw prostitution?
The ruling specifically states that prostitution is not included here...
Posted by: JPriller
quote:
Originally posted by jasonl99
What about sodomy with animals? Since, presumably, animals have no rights, there is one consenting adult in the privacy of his own home.
It isn't exactly true that animals have no rights - does no one watch Animal Cops? If you're cruel to your dog or cat or rabbit or whatever, you can get fines and jail time. I imagine the same reasoning could be applied to forms of bestiality, which animals cannot consent to anymore than being tied up and beaten, which some people go for but will land you in court if you do it to your dog.quote:
I thought further about it and came up with another. How about prostitution? If two adults (hetero or otherwise) consent to have sex in the privacy of a home, how is that any different?
I think I've seen that thread around here before :). My answer would be it isn't any different, prostitution should be legalized (and taxed and regulated) also.
You're somehow missing the objection I usually hear from conservative co-workers. If two men or two women can get married, how about a man and two women or three men and five women or whatever? My answer doesn't change - if they're all consenting, let them. There'd be real legal snarls to work out for inheritance, child custody in case of divorce and what-have-you, but let them.
If nothing else, the entertainment value at watching the "Moral Majority" reaction would be priceless. :)
Posted by: jasonl99
quote:
Originally posted by JPriller
You're somehow missing the objection I usually hear from conservative co-workers. If two men or two women can get married, how about a man and two women or three men and five women or whatever? My answer doesn't change - if they're all consenting, let them. There'd be real legal snarls to work out for inheritance, child custody in case of divorce and what-have-you, but let them.
Believe me when I say I'm a conservative. But I'm also not very religious (call it somewhere between agnostic and atheist). I'd honestly prefer that the government be at least half as small as it is today. But I'd also prefer that people do what they want as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others to do the same.
I don't think there should be any laws that interfere with the activity of consenting adults. However, if a particular state, and its officials who were elected by popular vote choose to pass a law that clears the Constitution, I'm all for it. If they pass enough such laws that I don't agree with, I can move to another state that's more to my liking.
It's pretty clear that the United States is moving to a much uniform group of states, with very little leeway between them. I think that's a bad thing.
Posted by: zaknafein
Selling is legal, ****ing is legal, so why isn't selling ****ing legal? Why is it illegal to sell something that is perfectly legal to give away for free?
:)
Posted by: JPriller
quote:
Originally posted by jasonl99
I'd honestly prefer that the government be at least half as small as it is today.
Everybody feels that way. They just can't agree on which half. :)quote:
It's pretty clear that the United States is moving to a much uniform group of states, with very little leeway between them. I think that's a bad thing.
It depends on what that leeway is. Leeway to discriminate against people is bad, regardless of what can sail through the Supreme Court depending on who's sitting on the bench at the time. Leeway on stuff like local taxes, hunting and fishing and highway speed limits is fine (except for the states still trying to enforce 55pmh zones of course, I hate those).
Posted by: aindik
quote:
Originally posted by Animgif
I completely agree...but one thing I would point out is that in the previous hundred or so messages it has been pointed out that this really is a supreme court matter...be it privacy, equal protections, or Bower (previous SCOTUS case) that was overturned today.
The SCOTUS is not here to make law, only to define what is and is not constitutional.
The Supreme Court matter is whether the law is constitutional. Included in that is whether the Constitution contains a right to privacy, and whether the law violates the Equal Protection Clause (fyi, there is no "s" at the end of "Equal Protection"). Also, whether the thing prohibited is something that people have a fundamental right to do, under the Due Process clause, is also something to be considered, because it speaks to the standard of review. However, whether "times have changed," and whether the Supreme Court should "catch up," is completely irrelevant and ignorant of our Constutional system of government.
Also, determining what is and isn't constitutional isn't the Court's only job. It's not relevant to this case, but the Supreme Court is also the final arbiter on the meaning of Federal laws.
Posted by: aindik
quote:
Originally posted by Animgif
The ruling specifically states that prostitution is not included here...
However, at least according to Scalia's opinion, that assertion doesn't make sense. His argument is:
The Court does not overrule the holding in Bowers that the anti-Sodomy law constrained a "fundamental right." Thus, the anti-sodomy law is not subject to "strict scrutiny," and can only be invalidated if the state lacks a "rational basis" for enacting it. The Court thus found that "because a majority of our citizens think it's immoral" is not a "rational basis" for a law. If immorality isn't a rational basis for a law, then the laws against prostitution have no rational basis, and are therefore unconstitutional. Any other finding would be inherently inconsistent.
Posted by: Animgif
quote:
Originally posted by aindik
However, at least according to Scalia's opinion, that assertion doesn't make sense. His argument is:
The Court does not overrule the holding in Bowers that the anti-Sodomy law constrained a "fundamental right." Thus, the anti-sodomy law is not subject to "strict scrutiny," and can only be invalidated if the state lacks a "rational basis" for enacting it. The Court thus found that "because a majority of our citizens think it's immoral" is not a "rational basis" for a law. If immorality isn't a rational basis for a law, then the laws against prostitution have no rational basis, and are therefore unconstitutional. Any other finding would be inherently inconsistent.
I don't disagree one bit... :)
Posted by: ybrew
Is this the armageddon?
Posted by: linh
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
Is this the armageddon?
If it is, you'd better sign over your bank accounts and property over to me for safekeeping. ;)
Posted by: HTH
quote:
Originally posted by DLiquid
I wonder if there's anyone "on the fence" out there that didn't engage in sodomy when it was illegal, but will now. I doubt it, but this reminds me of the argument that if drugs are legalized, then more people will take them. Now that sodomy is not illegal in Texas, what will happen? ;) :p
Buggered if I know.
Posted by: Tori
quote:
Originally posted by Bryanmc
Everyone is missing the point.
Legal or not, anal sex is disgusting.
You do know that poop comes out of there, right?
Thinking back to first hearing about the birds and the bees and my feelings on that, I'd have to point out that a similar argument could be made for sex involving men at all.
Then thinking back to Jr High and seeing a film of a baby being born and my reaction to that.
Okay, sex is just gross all around.
:D
-Tori
Posted by: Tori
quote:
Originally posted by DLiquid
I wonder if there's anyone "on the fence" out there that didn't engage in sodomy when it was illegal, but will now. I doubt it, but this reminds me of the argument that if drugs are legalized, then more people will take them. Now that sodomy is not illegal in Texas, what will happen? ;) :p
Is this fence out in public or in the privacy of their own home? ;)
-Tori
Posted by: ybrew
quote:
Originally posted by askewed
How's the job search going???
Actually, quite well, thanks!
Had one interview locally today.
Still one position in St. Louis that I'm waiting to hear more about.
Had an initial phone screen in Ohio this evening that's going to the next step.
Had a phone interview in Philadelphia yesterday that should be going to the next step.
Two other positions in Houston have been contacting me.
One other position in Houston I've interviewed with is closing in on a decision.
I had an interview with a Vermont company last week that went very well.
The interview in Wisconsin is kinda in a maybe status. Should know more tomorrow.
Same recruiter is working on a position for me in Minnesota.
So, yeah, I'd say it's going about as well as can be expected.
Thanks for your concern.
:)
Posted by: esperantisto
Ybrew: if you move to vermont, your head will explode!
<just looking out for you...>
Posted by: Bryanmc
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
Thinking back to first hearing about the birds and the bees and my feelings on that, I'd have to point out that a similar argument could be made for sex involving men at all.
No argument from me.
Why anyone (female or male) would want to get naked with a man is beyond me. We're gross.
Posted by: Mark Lopez
quote:
Originally posted by stujac
My only question is what motivated the 3 idiots (Renquist, Scalia & Thomas) to vote against. Scary thought.
Pehaps it's because they saw this
quote:
“The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime”
as opening the door to for every other type of sexual act (i.e. incest, beastiality etc).
While I don't care one way or the other about the sodomy thing, I have a feeling this is going to have bigger consequences down the road. Only time will tell.
Posted by: Turtleboy
quote:
Originally posted by stujac
My only question is what motivated the 3 idiots (Renquist, Scalia & Thomas) to vote against. Scary thought.
Did you read the opinion? Scalia clearly says why he voted the way he did. You have no need to wonder. Stare Decisis, inter alia.
Idiots? Who is on the Supreme Court, and who is sitting in front of his computer scratching his ass making moronic comments on the internet.
I agree with the majority decision, but, come on now.
Posted by: rexdart
MEEEOOOWWW T-boy!
You go!
It's fun to see you get riled up!
:D
Posted by: DonCo
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Lopez
Pehaps it's because they saw this
as opening the door to for every other type of sexual act (i.e. incest, beastiality etc).
While I don't care one way or the other about the sodomy thing, I have a feeling this is going to have bigger consequences down the road. Only time will tell.
I just have one question, since the law in Texas allowed heterosexual couples to engage oral and anal sex. How come the doors were not open for heterosexuals to engage in incest and beastiality? Or is it just the gays that we have to worry about in this regard.
Not a flame, the statement just doesn't make sense to me since I have not heard of an abundance of heterosexual couples engaging in beastiality under the old Texas law.
Don
Don
Posted by: skearney00
quote:
Originally posted by Animgif
I am rather amazed, but super happy! I think I shall go celebrate tonight on 4th street :D :D :D :D :D
I thought you meant sixth street....then I realized... you did mean 4th street :)
Posted by: bsnelson
quote:
Originally posted by jasonl99
What about sodomy with animals? Since, presumably, animals have no rights, there is one consenting adult in the privacy of his own home.
quote:
Originally posted by DonCo
I just have one question, since the law in Texas allowed heterosexual couples to engage oral and anal sex. How come the doors were not open for heterosexuals to engage in incest and beastiality?
I believe Jobeth has covered this in a very memorable quote here.
:)
Brad
Posted by: jasonl99
quote:
Originally posted by bsnelson
I believe Jobeth has covered this in a very memorable quote here.
:)
Brad
Her quote's pretty good, but I'm guessing the cattle, sheep, turkey, & chickens that make up an awfully large part of our food supply are pretty sure they don't have rights. Well, that's what they'd think if they were capable of thinking such things anyway.
Posted by: Smiles
quote:
Originally posted by DBCooper
That's the kind of reasoning that torks me.
Stick a torque in him, he's done.
(You know a thread's nearly dead when the last page is filled mostly with insubstantial comments. :))
Posted by: Mark Lopez
quote:
Originally posted by DonCo
I just have one question, since the law in Texas allowed heterosexual couples to engage oral and anal sex. How come the doors were not open for heterosexuals to engage in incest and beastiality? Or is it just the gays that we have to worry about in this regard.
Not a flame, the statement just doesn't make sense to me since I have not heard of an abundance of heterosexual couples engaging in beastiality under the old Texas law.
Don
Because (as I read it) this ruling is basically saying that whatever sexual acts (not limited to sodomy) you do can not be a crime as long as it's consensual. And even if that's not what it means, it will surely used as a basis for other changes down the road. And where does it stop? What sexual acts would still be considered unacceptable? There is a lot of weird sh** that goes on out there that now may be considered 'ok'.
I can aslo see this having an impact on other things such as divorce cases. For example, a quick Google found these for grounds for divorce in New Jersey .
quote:
General: (1) Adultery; (2) imprisonment for 18 months; (3) unnatural sexual behavior before or after marriage; (4) alcoholism and/or drug addiction; (5) confinement for incurable insanity; (6) willful desertion for 1 year; (7) cruel and inhuman treatment; (8) separation for 2 years caused by confinement for mental illness; and (9) extreme cruelty. [New Jersey Statutes Annotated; Title 2A, Chapter 34-2].
So it seems like adultry will need to be taken off the list as well as #3.
Posted by: bsnelson
quote:
Originally posted by jasonl99
Her quote's pretty good, but I'm guessing the cattle, sheep, turkey, & chickens that make up an awfully large part of our food supply are pretty sure they don't have rights. Well, that's what they'd think if they were capable of thinking such things anyway.
She was mainly angling toward the consent side rather than rights, which, to me, is the issue. If all participants can legally consent (i.e. this excludes underage children), they should be able to go at whatever orifice on whatever individual they want.
Brad
Posted by: WinBear
quote:
Originally posted by JPriller
I find asparagus disgusting, but I'm not trying to get laws against it passed or upheld. If people want to eat asparagus, they should be allowed to do so in the privacy of their own homes, and I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me if I said just the IDEA of someone, somewhere, legally eating asparagus negatively effected my quality of life.
Ok, let's inject a little levity and mix up a bunch of the discussion here. :D
Anyone engaging in oral sex with a man should definitely want the man to refrain from eating asparagus. It negatively impacts the experience as the ingestion of asparagus is associated with the production of malodorous (described as "rotten or boiling cabbage") body fluids, particularly urine and semen.
Posted by: Marco
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Lopez
Because (as I read it) this ruling is basically saying that whatever sexual acts (not limited to sodomy) you do can not be a crime as long as it's consensual. And even if that's not what it means, it will surely used as a basis for other changes down the road. And where does it stop? What sexual acts would still be considered unacceptable? There is a lot of weird sh** that goes on out there that now may be considered 'ok'.
[...]
So it seems like adultry will need to be taken off the list ...
The SC just said Texas couldn't have a law prohibiting homosexual sodomy. How would that lead to adultery no longer being grounds for divorce?
What you seem to be saying is that adultery could no longer be illegal as a result of this decision. Taking that as true, just because something is not illegal does not mean it can't be grounds for divorce. Just from the list of grounds already on the books, I see alcoholism, willful desertion, and extreme cruelty. These are not illegal acts (basically), but your spouse can divorce you as a result of them ...
Posted by: jasonl99
quote:
Originally posted by bsnelson
She was mainly angling toward the consent side rather than rights, which, to me, is the issue. If all participants can legally consent (i.e. this excludes underage children), they should be able to go at whatever orifice on whatever individual they want.
Brad
Ok, but if a sheep can't give his consent to being slaughtered, I doubt he has to consent to being violated.
Posted by: Robin
quote:
Originally posted by Bryanmc
Everyone is missing the point.
Legal or not, anal sex is disgusting.
No no no, *you*'re missing the point!
Sodomy includes oral sex.
Posted by: sean67854
quote:
Originally posted by zaknafein
Selling is legal, ****ing is legal, so why isn't selling ****ing legal? Why is it illegal to sell something that is perfectly legal to give away for free?
:)
maybe it's opensource ****ing?
Posted by: Dafaso
One should always be careful and watchful of open source.
Oh..never mind.
;)
Posted by: whoknows55
quote:
Originally posted by Dafaso
One should always be careful and watchful of open source.
Oh..never mind.
;)
You should be fine as long as you virus scan and watch out for worms.
Posted by: HTH
quote:
Originally posted by ybrew
You knew I had to chime in here soonor or later.
No. Texas' law did not specifically target homosexuals.
Homosexuals in Texas were still free to sodomize persons of the opposite sex. That they choose not to is their choice.
Would you feel the same way if the law only illegalized sodomy between persons of opposite sex?
By your argument, such a law does not specifically target heterosexuals: heterosexuals would still be free to sodomize persons of the same sex.
When you put the shoe on the other foot, it isn't so comfortable.
Posted by: ybrew
quote:
Originally posted by HTH
Would you feel the same way if the law only illegalized sodomy between persons of opposite sex?
By your argument, such a law does not specifically target heterosexuals: heterosexuals would still be free to sodomize persons of the same sex.
When you put the shoe on the other foot, it isn't so comfortable.
I responded to this earlier.
I wouldn't like such a law but I would not fight it on grounds of equal protection. I'd find other reasons to fight it.
Posted by: HTH
Sorry, I must have skipped over some messages. Humor me though?
So in your mind, not everyone must be bisexual; only the homosexuals?
Posted by: whitson77
I am with Bryan. Bottom Sex doesn't interest me or my wife. Poo comes out of there!
Posted by: ybrew
quote:
Originally posted by HTH
Sorry, I must have skipped over some messages. Humor me though?
So in your mind, not everyone must be bisexual; only the homosexuals?
I don't recall saying anything like that at all.
Tell ya what....
I'll give you a chance to catch up. Go back through the whole thread. If you still have questions, let me know.
But to continue humoring you....
I am only referring to the equal protection discuss that we had on this topic.
The law did not violate equal protection.
Posted by: esperantisto
Happy Pride Weekend to everyone!
Posted by: randym431
Its soooo dumb they always jump to these totally off the wall conclusions, that allowing same sex-acts "whats next, legal incest, bestiality". Sex with lamps, chairs, heavy machinery? Just shows the stupidity. And we're talking about members of the US Supreme Court (God help us).
What shocks me is that these "moral" hetro people even imagine men having sex together. I can honestly say, I have NEVER imagined two hetro's having sex together. They need serious professional help!
And a note to Gay folk...you know the national terrorist alert system, well consider the GAY-bashers alert system to be elevated as of this. There will be lots of toothless, inbred homophobes out for revenge. If you go out in the coming days/weeks, just be extra alert. Not all inbred, brainless homophobes are on the Supreme Court...Some may be in your neighborhood!
And here's the way the homophobes operate in my town (link below is only good for 24 hours)
I think I actually know the teacher mentioned. He's been a teacher there for 10 years or more. He taught my 13 yr old Niece back in the early 90's.
Even though these men were wrong and risked breaking the law, these law officers in this named area are EXTREMELY/TOTALLY homophobic! The article statement, that hetro public sex acts would also be equally treated, is total BS...!
http://www.dmregister.com/news/stor...3/21621574.html
Posted by: sWampy
Let me see if I've got these brilliant liberals that seem to always like to call anyone who doesn't agree with them names, or call them dumb straight.
You have a large group of them that can't see that having 10 kids by 9 different dads by the age of 25, never holding the same job more than 2 weeks, isn't the way to get economically better off than the family that works 80 hours a week, has held the same job for 10 years and has only one kid.
You have another group that can't even figure out the recruitment isn't the proper method of reproduction.
And finally you have the last group that stays in power by making sure the other groups stay down, all the while convincing them that they are on their side.
Posted by: Pablo
quote:
Originally posted by randym431
Its soooo dumb they always jump to these totally off the wall conclusions ....
Not all inbred, brainless homophobes are on the Supreme Court ...
Even though these men were wrong and risked breaking the law, these law officers in this named area are EXTREMELY/TOTALLY homophobic! The article statement, that hetro public sex acts would also be equally treated, is total BS...!
Based on the information in your post and the information in the article, it appears that you have jumped to some "totally off the wall conclusions" of your own. First, you conclude that some SCOTUS members are "inbred, brainless homophobes", because they voted against the decision. Second, you conclude that the police officers' actions were the result of homophobia, because the they arrested a group of men for commiting the crime of having sex in public.
I do not believe that your post is helping your cause, unless your cause is to re-enforce negative homosexual stereotypes the some people might hold.
Could we please drop the name calling and return this thread to a civil discussion/debate.
Posted by: ybrew
quote:
Originally posted by randym431
And here's the way the homophobes operate in my town (link below is only good for 24 hours)
I think I actually know the teacher mentioned. He's been a teacher there for 10 years or more. He taught my 13 yr old Niece back in the early 90's.
Even though these men were wrong and risked breaking the law, these law officers in this named area are EXTREMELY/TOTALLY homophobic! The article statement, that hetro public sex acts would also be equally treated, is total BS...!
http://www.dmregister.com/news/stor...3/21621574.html
I read the article.
I have to assume anyone in your town that thinks public sex during daylight with kids riding bikes in the background is a homophobe.
Is that correct?
Posted by: ursine1
Jumping in a little late here; I was away all weekend committing sodomy.
I applaud the decision.
I'm astounded that people who usually champion "less government" are upset by it.
The future of the SCOTUS will likely be quite dark for those who respect personal freedom, but this decision is a welcome beacon of logic, intelligence and hope.
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2010,
Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2010
- Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser
Modified by Adam J. de Jaray