Forums | MacLife

I just don't think that this law goes against the Constitution.  It is a stupid, ignorant law, yes.  It should have been repealed long ago, yes.  But unconstitutional?  No.  States, as I mention above, have every right, and often do, to pass laws limiting the freedom of their citizens.  This decision was based on the direction of the wind, not on the basis of Constitutional law.

However, it directly follows past rulings that states do NOT have the ability to arbitrary control the private actions of citizens if there is no other law being broken.  See any number of cases on abortion, on birth control, etc.  Like it or not, the court was given (or took) the power of judicial review very early in our country's history, and it's view on the penumbras of "privacy" that exist in the Constitutional text are nothing new.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  

Waves... I'm always suspicious of over-reaching rulings too, but I really think you are wrong. Sure the decision went against the "wishes of the people" (actually it's just that nobody cared enough to change it), but that is what the court is there for, partially. A protection against mob rule.

In some countries it is illegal to say something bad about blacks, homos, muslims, ect ect ect. It's because the sheepish people in those nations are so against a behavior they outlaw it. Luckily in our country, in this day and age, a future law made by a radical liberal populace against "hate speech" would probably be struck down... even though it goes against the wishes of the people. It's not constitutional.

By the way, I used the liberal example to show WavesLA an opposing example, so don't cry about it.

The Supreme Court rarely makes a 12-0 decision, and I feel that Scalia largely invalidated his opinion by speaking of the (completely fictitious) "homosexual agenda."

Probably never, since there's only nine of them.   

Amen!

I like the way it's said at my mother's Catholic church. "Ahhh men..."

Ain't it the truth, ain't it the truth?

Awomen!

That's what you hetero boys should say, you know. 

The Supreme Court rarely makes a 12-0 decision, and I feel that Scalia largely invalidated his opinion by speaking of the (completely fictitious) "homosexual agenda."

Probably never, since there's only nine of them.   

LOL true dat.

Have anything to say in defense of your claim that this is not indicative of a decision in favor of Constitutional rights?

I already addressed that issue, in one of my first posts on the topic (something about there not being a Constitutional right to sodomy, if memory serves... I've been doing a lot of posting lately).  I don't have enough time to find it right now (I've got a gig in about an hour, so I have to run!), but I'll check later.

I already addressed that issue, in one of my first posts on the topic (something about there not being a Constitutional right to sodomy, if memory serves... I've been doing a lot of posting lately).  I don't have enough time to find it right now (I've got a gig in about an hour, so I have to run!), but I'll check later.

Well that explanation doesn't work!

It's not the government's job to tell you what you can do, it's to create prohibitions on conduct, and those actions of the government are limited by the Constitution (or more correctly, by its amendments).

There is a "constitutional right to sodomy," and it falls under the idea of "right to privacy" that is not explicitly stated in the Constitution or its amendments but has been deduced from those amendments by the court.

If you're claiming to be a strict textualist, then I don't know what to tell you.  This country has never operated under an exact literal interpretation of the Constitution, from the day it was written.  Being a person who likes to see much less government control over the actions of it's citizens, I have no problem with the idea of the "right to privacy" (and I think that an amendment should have been added a long time ago to cover that).

Either way, the court was following past precedent.

Either way, the court was following past precedent.

In some ways, maybe, however back in 1992 the court had a chance to overturn Roe v. Wade and didn't, largely because of the concept of stare decisis.  At least that was the reason given in the decision. 

So they are going against past precedent, as well. 

I do consider myself more of a strict constructionist, I'd have to say.  I, too, think there should be a right to privacy, however that does not keep the governments of States or the country from passing laws that impinge upon our privacy every day!  I have no right to grow poppies and make opium from them, even if I do so in the privacy of my own home.  The inferred right to privacy is not absolute, and government limits our freedoms in that privacy in a vast number of ways. 

My whole contention about this case is that it was not something that should have fallen under the purview of the Court.  It was a legislative matter for the people of the State of Texas to decide.  It was a stupid, abhorant law, to be sure.  But it was not an unconstitutional one.

Seems like I've been beating this same horse for a while.  Does any of this look/sound familiar to you?

Actually, most states in these Unites States had some form of anti-sodomy laws.  None of them were really enforced in recent memory either.  Not enforced is akin to no longer illegal, so the court case is little more than a frivolous way to repeal a law that isn't enforced.

Within the past year, Missouri prosecuted two men under the biased anti-sodomy law.

In some ways, maybe, however back in 1992 the court had a chance to overturn Roe v. Wade and didn't, largely because of the concept of stare decisis.  At least that was the reason given in the decision. 

So they are going against past precedent, as well. 

I don't follow.  They didn't overturn Roe v. Wade...that continues along the same idea of the 'right' to privacy.

Your right XYZ, they shouldn't have been charged under a sodomy statute. They should have been charged under public indecency laws.

"...planning to secede?"

Only from immorality!

Camp David

Heterosexists don't own Christianity.