Supremes Uphold Right to Gay Sex!

[SlowwHand]

Sava, you're this close from me driving to fuking Illinois.

[Asher]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Sava, you're this close from me driving to fuking Illinois.

He could also drive out to Texas now, as the sodomy law has been struck down there.

[SlowwHand]

Asher, Canada isn't that far past Sava.
Clean your clock while I'm at it.

[SpencerH]

Despite my (and Justice Thomas') disagreement with this and other laws of the same ilk, I agree with Scalia's argument.


My bold

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts—or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them—than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. ]

Clearly, there are going to be big implications to this ruling.

[Az]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Calling a spade a spade is more like it.

Racist.

[Asher]

And it's certainly for the better.

Which is why the poor sod is outnumbered.

[Thorn]

If you believe that we aren't ruled over by a governing caste... you live on a different planet! We pretend to be a Republic....

[Asher]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Clean your clock while I'm at it.

As long as you bring a rubber.

[SlowwHand]

The government has no business making laws regarding sexuality.
If there is a seperation of Church and State, there is a seperation.
Foot fetishes are odd, but they don't need to legislate that either.
Beastiality, well, I think I'd draw the line there.

[Thorn]

Does this now mean orgies are legal?

[Q Classic]

as long as it's behind closed doors in the privacy of one's own bedroom, i don't care, and i don't see why anybody else should, as long as all involved give consent.

kudos to the supremes on this one.

[Ben Kenobi]

But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.

Good for you, Scalia.

Now defenders of democracies are swine Boris?

[Sava]

Sloww

Asher

in other notes... Justice Scalia is evil, and a big fat hypocrit.

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Good for you, Scalia.

Now defenders of democracies are swine Boris?

Defending democracy equates to defending the Christian caste that does govern the US government?

Perhaps only if you're a Christian.

[SlowwHand]

I'm a Christian, Asher.
As a Christian I said it's not a legal matter.
Don't get me started.