Supremes Uphold Right to Gay Sex!

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why wouldn't that get slapped down for the same reasons Lefty stated?

It probably would get slapped down in the current environment, but it would still be interesting to see what would happen... especially in certain jurisdictions, such as your personal favorite, the 9th Circuit...

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet

Defending that law, Texas officials said that it promoted the institutions of marriage and family, and argued that communities have the right to choose their own standards.

How about a law to make it illegal to be from Texas?

How about we make a law were you get your ass kicked every day by a Texan, whether you need it or not ?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Guynemer
It probably would get slapped down in the current environment, but it would still be interesting to see what would happen... especially in certain jurisdictions, such as your personal favorite, the 9th Circuit...

I think it would depend on the treaty between Canada and the US which allows the two countries to recognize each other's marriages.

Hmm, other areas to which this ruling could be applied: gay parent's can no longer have their children taken from them solely on account of being gay.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmm, other areas to which this ruling could be applied: gay parent's can no longer have their children taken from them solely on account of being gay.

Like Lefty said, that's a WHOLE different animal than having the right to gay sex.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Here is the opinions in PDF

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/scotus/lwrnctx62603opn.pdf

The majority ruled on substansive due process/privacy grounds. O'Conners's opinion is on equal protection. The dissenters not only talk about the issues, but the hazards of overturning precents, Noting that many opinions on abortion after Roe v Wade relied more or prcedent that upon reasoning on the issues previously decided.

The Scalia dissent is fairly shrill for Scalia. And what is, pray tell, the rational basis for sodomy laws? Upholding community morality - which is Scalia's position? That begs the question of whether the community morality is in fact rational. This is the typical mistake in reasoning whereby the background conditions (here: community morality) are taken as fixed and "rationality" follows from an application of those background principles. A parallel case is the existence of so called "creation science" where the background condition is a literalist reading of the Bible from which follows creation of the universe in 7 days about 5000 yrs ago. What is ignored is the rationality of the background position - the literalist reading of the Bible - which contradicts everything else we know about the universe.

Likewise, Scalia is not questioning the background here. What is the rational basis for animus against homosexuals - the background morality that Texas supposedly enforces via criminal statute?

Scalia has certainly demonstrated that he is no libertarian. If he truly believes states may legislate morality without regard to actual demonstrable harms, then he is not reading the 14th Amendment as a good libertarian would.

[Shi Huangdi]

This is not something the government should be regulating.

[JCG]

Good for them.

[Boris Godunov]

Scalia also showed his hypocrisy, at one point lamenting that the court was siding with the "gay agenda" and then saying "I have nothing against homosexuals."

Swine.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Hmm, other areas to which this ruling could be applied: gay parent's can no longer have their children taken from them solely on account of being gay.

Like Lefty said, that's a WHOLE different animal than having the right to gay sex.

If gay sex is legal, on what basis can the state continue to take away the children of gay couples?

[The Templar]

Boris:

I forgot to mention Scalia's "I've got nothing against homosexuals, but ..." moment. I'm sure some of his best friends are gay.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you cannot be punished for having gay sex, on what basis can the state continue to take away the children of gay couples?

Because taking away children of gay couples doesn't really fall under the right to privacy in the bedroom. It's totally different.

Scalia also showed his hypocrisy, at one point lamenting that the court was siding with the "gay agenda" and then saying "I have nothing against homosexuals."

He doesn't. He actually has nothing against bans on sodomy for heterosexual couples as well (he feels the federal government has no role in overruling the states in those cases). And truth be told the court IS siding with the 'gay agenda', ie, the shifting of public opinion fostered by homosexual groups.

[mindseye]

[Boris Godunov]

Imran, you miss the point: the phrase "gay agenda" is a loaded one denoting some sort of monolithic group out to do no good. Scalia's claim not to have anything against gays is contradicted just by using such a fallacious term.

What's the straight agenda?

[Guynemer]

Keeping you limp-wristed poofs barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, of course!

Er...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, you miss the point: the phrase "gay agenda" is a loaded one denoting some sort of monolithic group out to do no good. Scalia's claim not to have anything against gays is contradicted just by using such a fallacious term.

I don't think that was his goal (to say they are out there to do no good). The 'gay agenda' meaning bowing to the pressures of society rather than just looking at it without societal pressures. Hell, I use terminology like that (Muslim agenda, Republican agenda, etc) without meaning it in a demeaning way.

Not a surprise that Scalia would be in the dissent, he's always been against expanding substantive due process rights (I guess, like me, he considers the whole idea to be unconstitutional :shrug: ).