Ahhh....missed your dola....

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

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

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

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

Teenek--

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

SD--I agree completely.

Well, that's a whole different discussion. There are a bunch of laws on the books in many states that aren't enforced, but that no politician would have the guts to touch with a ten-foot pole. Not even the most liberal politician in Georgia wants to be labeled as the guy who is in favor of adultery. :p That one will be struck down by courts, f it is EVER enforced...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dang, you beat me to it. ;)

Well, I guess you knew this would be coming. Actually, it was SkyDog that first brought this up a couple of years ago but consider this (if you are willing):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because everyone knows gay jokes are always funny, right?

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

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

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

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

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

I have one more question SkyDog.

Since when have politicians needed justification to be gutless?

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

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

You are not supposed to mock anyone.

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

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

John Galt is going to be mad at you.

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

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

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

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

Dola....

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

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

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

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

Hmm...

Very succinctly put QS. :)

Nice to know this kind of crap is allowed in here. :rolleyes:

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

Why are you always generalizing about liberals and conservatives? I know many conservatives who celebrate personal freedoms, and thus this ruling...

And there are plenty of liberals who are homophobic.

And then there is Fritz.

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

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

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

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

No, they did not.

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

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

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

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

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

CR

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

:D

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

No, it means continual trolling and threadjacking won't be tolerated. He's been warned for threadjacking and trolling before.

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

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


here is the whole doc ruling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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