Supremes Uphold Right to Gay Sex!

[mindseye]

Hell, I use terminology like that (Muslim agenda, Republican agenda, etc) without meaning it in a demeaning way.

Maybe you do, but in this case most people don't.

The term is particularly cherished by the paranoid fanatical fringe.

[mindseye]

So are gay day parades secretly sponsored by social conservatives to purposefully mislead the public as to the nature of homosexuals?

They hardly represent the nature of most homosexuals, no more than the annual New Orleans Mardis Gras Parade represents the nature of heterosexuals.

Show us your tits!

[Imran Siddiqui]

There is not a class -- in High School -- where I can learn about the history of the Khmers, or about Songhai

Yeah, and I didn't learn, in High School, about the Thirty Years War, one of the most important conflicts in World History (not just European History)! We can go on forever with what we didn't learn in High School.

Where is the government's right to outlaw it? I can't find it in the Constitution.

The federal government never has been able to, but this wasn't the federal government making the law. The states have ultimate soveriegnty. Unless forbidden to them, they can do anything. The 'right to privacy' was just decided forbidded the states from making these laws.

There is something there saying that the enumeration of some rights shouldn't imply the disparagement of other (unmentioned) rights.

Yes, but all that means is that the states can guarentee more rights than the Constitution. Simply because the Constitution has enumerated rights doesn't mean the rights that states grant, which are not in the Constitution, can be disparaged.

It has nothing to do with rights of people. Or else some wacko can claim he has a right to beastiality... and according to the 9th Amendment that right shouldn't be disparaged.

They hardly represent the nature of most homosexuals, no more than the annual New Orleans Mardis Gras Parade represents the nature of heterosexuals.

You have a lot to learn about heteros .

[Drake Tungsten]

If you had actually read carefully, you'd see I was referring to him being thankful for the new public perception of his leadership abilities, not the attacks themselves. Thank you, come again.

The new perception of Giuliani's leadership abilities was a direct result of the 9/11 attacks, as you said yourself. I sincerely doubt that Giuliani was thankful for his improved image, seeing as he gained it at the cost of 3,000 lives. A pretty tasteless and moronic comment on your part.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by mindseye
Show us your tits!

(o)(o)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by LoneWolf
I'm sure Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Adams would be very proud, to the point of shock, to find that they created the rights to sodomy and racial discrimination.

I'm sure they didn't create either. In one case, there isn't a "right" to sodomy - there's a limit to state power to regulate what happens in the privacy of someone's home between consenting adults. That doesn't mean there's a sudden right for gays to pork each other at the entrance to the Alamo.

I don't think you'd have much agreement from those four gents that the state has much say in what happens in a man's (or woman's) own house.

"Racial discrimination" - oh, please. It's "legal" to let gerrymandering and funding policies keep primarily minority area schools poorer and in worse condition than primarily white suburban schools, but it's illegal to try to remedy the situation by evaluating subjective criteria. SCOTUS threw out fixed quotas, they just didn't entirely reject the idea of taking "qualification" at some fixed point, while ignoring any historical or present inequality that affects that level of "qualification."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by obiwan18
MtG:

Why should minorities be protected? The argument goes that there is no difference between a white man and a black man with regards to fundamental rights. Rather than creating new rights out of whole cloth, all they had to do was extend the existing rights to the disenfranchised.

That would be acceptable for sodomy, if it can be shown that there is an existing right to privacy that can be extended.

I don't view this as a right to sodomize issue. I view it as a limit on the right of the state to intrude into areas where there is no legitimate state interest. The state has a protective interest over children, and certain other classes of people, who are not normally able to assert their own interests, and who may not have a parent or guardian physically present to look after their interests (or who may ignore their interests). They state has no such "protective" interest over competent adults, to "protect" them from activities to which they freely consent, when those activities do not affect a public interest. (Such as sodomy on the courthouse steps at high noon, or DUI)

A right to privacy is implicit in the notions of a government of limited powers, and a universal right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Remember that "we hold these truths to be self-evident" business a few years prior?

No. Suppose a man has a vasectomy done without his wife's permission? I would consider that to be grounds for divorce. A doctor should have to get the consent of both the husband and the wife before issuing birth control, in order to protect one party from exploitation.

Sure - and divorce is essentially a private civil action, carried out by the parties via the judicial system. It is not the state mandating that the parties divorce, or the man goes to prison for that vasectomy - which seems to be what you advocate for sodomy.

Do you honest to God think the state has the "right" to lock up a man in prison for months or years for having consenting sex with another man in his own home in a manner in which you and some other people disapprove? That in order to be able to prove such conduct, the state has the right to install listening or recording devices in people's homes to catch them in the act, for the purposes of throwing them in prison?

In order for birth control to be provided, requires the approval of the state, as the drugs have to be tested for medical approval.

Provision of the drug under the doctor-patient privilege is distinct from the general process of approving the drug as safe for marketing.

The state tries to protect people from harmful drugs and side-effects. Now, what medical condition does birth control cure? I see little therapeutic benefits from the drug, and potentially harmful side-effects from prolonged use.

Ask a woman with thirteen kids.

Smoking: The state does not have to pay for the consequences of smoking, so they should allow cigarettes to be distributed.

Ever heard of Medicare? You have some form of national public health system in Canada, right? Do you really think the state isn't involved in the medical costs related to smoking?

Church: Freedom of religion.

We're not telling you which one to go to - you can pick your own, you just have to go, because it will be good for public morals.

Food and coffee: Same as above.

Both have medical consequences which impact both the costs of public health care, and the economic productivity of the citizenry, which is a long recognized part of the state's interest in commerce.

No, there are specific limits on both sides. Government should not disregard the constitution, and the Judiciary should respect the elected assembly.

The judiciary is an independent and equal branch of government. "Respect" and "accomodation" are two different things.

These are old laws against sodomy, so why the delay? Why does the state have less compelling interest to uphold the laws now than before?

The answer is that the state never had compelling interest, but the prejudices of judges, jurors, legislators, et al asserted a spurious state interest to regulate private behavior of which they disapproved, while ignoring private and public behavior of which they did approve. In many of these states, at the same time these laws were passed in their original forms, it was fine to whip your house-****** for the fun of it, or just to make an example for your other chattel. The fact that a law has been made, and has been around for a while, does not make it just, and mere existence of the law on the books does not create a compelling state interest.

Now, if you or me or anyone else thinks they're in for a hot time come judgment day, that's fine - because it's between them and God, not between them and the state.

Why parry, and not thrust? Finish off my argument by showing that the law as written imposes Christian doctrine, and does not show any compelling interest.

You yourself pointed out that Christians authored these laws, and I think we both know the Christian position on homosexual acts. It is not up to opponents of state action to prove a negative, it is up to the state to demonstrate compelling interest. What would the state interest be in tying up judicial, law enforcement and corrections resources to lock up people who commit sodomy with consenting adults in their own homes? The lack of a compelling state interest should be self-evident.

That's the best you can come up with for a privacy law?

The only reason those "privacy laws" exist, is because they're related to a certain level of privacy within an otherwise public context.

There is no need for a general "privacy" law when the entire notion of a government of limited powers and the necessity of compelling state interest means that the government has a limited reach. "Privacy" begins where government power ends - that is, when there is no compelling state interest.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

The federal government never has been able to, but this wasn't the federal government making the law. The states have ultimate soveriegnty. Unless forbidden to them, they can do anything. The 'right to privacy' was just decided forbidded the states from making these laws.

The right to privacy emanates from the 4th Amendment and the rather obvious notion that freedom means being left alone unless the state simply must intrude. Btw, you're still ignoring the 14th Amenment which obliged the states to observe the Bill of Rights, albeit, in an inconsistent fashion thanks to the spineless courts and the power hungry politicians who give us the courts.

Yes, but all that means is that the states can guarentee more rights than the Constitution. Simply because the Constitution has enumerated rights doesn't mean the rights that states grant, which are not in the Constitution, can be disparaged.

Where in the 9th Amendment do you see states mentioned? Why would we find "rights" mentioned when states don't have rights? Compare it with the 10th Amendment and you'll see the word "powers" when referring to the states and the federal gov't. Finally, your interpretation means the 9th Amendment is made redundant by the 10th Amendment which guarantees the states the power to enact laws or "rights" unless that power is reserved for the federal gov't or prohibited to the states by the Constitution.

It has nothing to do with rights of people.

All I see is rights and people mentioned. How did you conclude "rights" and "people" in the 9th Amendment really mean "powers" and "states"?

Or else some wacko can claim he has a right to beastiality... and according to the 9th Amendment that right shouldn't be disparaged

You got it. I'd much rather some guy go off boinking a sheep than throw away the multitude of rights we've lost because people want to make the 9th Amendment irrelevant...

[Berzerker]

Mtg -

Sure - and divorce is essentially a private civil action, carried out by the parties via the judicial system. It is not the state mandating that the parties divorce, or the man goes to prison for that vasectomy - which seems to be what you advocate for sodomy.

Actually, with the help of no fault divorce that has relinquished spouses wanting a divorce of having to provide a legitimate reason, the state has gotten very involved with every step in divorce proceedings. If a woman wants a divorce, she isn't held accountable for violating the marriage contract. But rest assured, the man will be treated worse than a criminal. He will lose custody, visitation "rights" are at the state's discretion, and he will be pressured into attending "counselling" to make him a better father even under penalty of imprisonment - and plenty more - all without ever trying, much less convicting him of a crime. Now Bush wants the agencies that have been driving wedges between married people via welfare, etc., to "save" marriages?

Divorce is big business, from the lawyers to the polticians and judges seeking another excuse to spend money on their cronies to the "child protection" industry. Lot's of people with a stake in increasing divorce for their own profit... And just as the drug war pushers have grown the "rehab" industry with the help of courts and "alternative" sentencing, divorce has it's own ever growing industry. Does anyone really believe all these people living off the taxpayers want to "solve" the problem we're told they exist for? I'd love to see how many bureaucracies announced, "problem solved", and requested disolvement.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The right to privacy emanates from the 4th Amendment and the rather obvious notion that freedom means being left alone unless the state simply must intrude. Btw, you're still ignoring the 14th Amenment which obliged the states to observe the Bill of Rights, albeit, in an inconsistent fashion thanks to the spineless courts and the power hungry politicians who give us the courts.

I want to see there is a 'right to privacy' in the text. The 4th is simply about searches and seizures. There is a reason it is called an implied right.

Finally, your interpretation means the 9th Amendment is made redundant by the 10th Amendment which guarantees the states the power to enact laws or "rights" unless that power is reserved for the federal gov't or prohibited to the states by the Constitution.

Actually no it doesn't. State powers aren't the same as state guarenteed rights. The 10th only describes powers (means the states still have ultimate soverienty unles federal law blocks it). It doesn't say much about state granted 'rights'. The 9th prevents the federal government from saying that since a state given right isn't granted by the federal Constitution then it must be stricken (by saying the Bill of Rights is fully encompassing). Amendment 10 is basically a 'catch-all' provision.

Basically it means that the Bill of Rights isn't an all encompasing list of rights in the union, and states may keep their additional rights. This has little to do with their 'powers'. Without the 9th, you could see someone say the Bill of Rights is a fully encompasing list, which means any rights granted beyond it are contrary to the Constitution and thus under the Supremacy Clause must be struck down.

Since you have said you believe in original intent, you should see the discussion on this amendment. It basically was added because people feared that a Bill of Rights in the federal constitution would make state granted rights obsolete. No one said anything about people being able to assert any right and it being granted.

All I see is rights and people mentioned. How did you conclude "rights" and "people" in the 9th Amendment really mean "powers" and "states"?

Rights 'retained' by the people. Rights that the people already have. How did they get these rights? Perhaps from the state governments. If you are going to try to say there was a 'right to privacy' retained by the people themselves, you'll have to show me who granted this right of privacy before the Constitution was signed.

You got it. I'd much rather some guy go off boinking a sheep than throw away the multitude of rights we've lost because people want to make the 9th Amendment irrelevant...

Sorry, but I'd rather make an amendment relatively irrelevant (because no one is challenging state granted rights) than to have nonsense such as this.

Or would you not mind individuals saying they have a right, according to the 9th Amendment, to have sex with his very underage daughter? What about someone claiming they have a 'right' to murder someone, because he violated his honor? After all, at one time, it was allowable to kill someone if he insulted your honor. Is that not a right retained by the people?

How do you decide which rights 'claimed' are valid and which are not. Taking a broad reading of the 9th Amendment leads to nonsense and ruin.

[Kramerman]

I'm sure they didn't create either. In one case, there isn't a "right" to sodomy - there's a limit to state power to regulate what happens in the privacy of someone's home between consenting adults. That doesn't mean there's a sudden right for gays to pork each other at the entrance to the Alamo.

definately not! Most Locals are fanatically protective of the Alamo. Hell, Ozzy Osbourne was BANNED from the city after he *merely* () took a piss on the Alamo grounds...

A couple gay guys 'porking' (as you so eloquently put it) each other would probably be strung up on the nearest tree... half for the act... and half for just being gay. A lot of Texas is a pretty sad and backward place

[chequita guevara]

It's okay to kill and eat a sheep but not boink one? Not that I'm advocating sheep boinking, but you have to admit, this isn't really logical.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The new perception of Giuliani's leadership abilities was a direct result of the 9/11 attacks, as you said yourself. I sincerely doubt that Giuliani was thankful for his improved image, seeing as he gained it at the cost of 3,000 lives. A pretty tasteless and moronic comment on your part.

No, the perception was a result of his behavior after the attacks, not the attacks themselves.

Had Giuliani presented himself as a bumbling moron following the attacks, I doubt perceptions about his abilities as mayor would improve.

While normally I would trust your ability to judge tasteless and moronic comments, given your expertise with them, in this instance you're just fishing for something to harp on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's okay to kill and eat a sheep but not boink one?

That's a different argument. I'm saying the Constitution does not forbid states from making laws against sheep boinking... because someone thinking it is their right to boink sheep doesn't matter.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It's okay to kill and eat a sheep but not boink one?

That's a different argument. I'm saying the Constitution does not forbid states from making laws against sheep boinking... because someone thinking it is their right to boink sheep doesn't matter.

You know, all these OLD, over-used red herrings of bestiality, pedophilia, incest and other issues NOT related to homosexuality REALLY get tiresome everytime they're brought up when discussing -- or attempting to discuss -- issues involving homosexuality.

How many times these red herrings are brought up, I don't know, since I lost count.