Supremes Uphold Right to Gay Sex!

[Ben Kenobi]

They don't like them either, but they believe the mother has a right to choose.

To choose what?

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
To choose what?

Boxers or briefs, but as a good Christian nation we should ban the use of boxers.

[Guynemer]

Egads, Asher. You're mad.

[Asher]

God didn't make women to wear boxers!

It is unnatural.

[uh Clem]

How is this situation comparable? Are homosexuals beaten in the streets by the police and the civil authorities? Are they denied the same basic rights as the blacks?

If they're not secure from arrest in their homes for private, adult, consenual acts, then yes, they're being denied basic rights.

[Guynemer]

Ban women from wearing boxers? Okay, that I can get onboard with.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
To choose what?

Whether or not to eat cookies in bed.

Egads, I don't think this could get dumber.

Once again I spell it out, Socrates:

Whether or not they want to have an abortion. Being pro-choice entails supporting a woman's right to choose either way.

[Ben Kenobi]

Uh Clem:

private, adult, consentual acts

But is that a basic right guaranteed by the constitution?

Boris:

I think my new nickname for you is Scarecrow, given your strong preference for staw...

new nickname?

What was my old one?

[Ben Kenobi]

Being pro-choice entails supporting a woman's right to choose either way.

How often do you see them affirm children, rather than those who choose to have abortions?

Why don't they hold rallies celebrating motherhood?

[Asher]

Why don't you hold rallies celebrating manhood?

[Ben Kenobi]

Why don't you hold rallies celebrating manhood?

We don't claim that as part of our mandate.

Boris just has.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by obiwan18
MtG:

Had to come sooner or later.

But of course. Someone has to speak up for the notion that a legitimate state has fundamental limits in those matters it may regulate.

And neither justified, because minorities need to be protected. How is this situation comparable? Are homosexuals beaten in the streets by the police and the civil authorities? Are they denied the same basic rights as the blacks?

Why do minorities need to be protected if the democratic majority see otherwise? If the minorities don't like it, they can always change the laws or go somewhere else?

The issue is that the "tyranny of the majority" should only come into being when there is a legitimate state interest being served.

I actually agree with both. Women and men in a marriage should abide to birth control by mutual consent.

And that is a private matter for them to decide, not for the state to impose it's views. Or do you see communism and collective property ownership as legitimate, as long as an elective majority supports the notion?

As for the latter, shouldn't actions have consequences? No one forces the woman to have sex.

And again, where is the state's interest in intruding in not only private, but privileged matters (doctor-patient privilege). Or should the state also prohibit smoking, not going to the church of your choice once a week, eating foods with saturated fat and drinking coffee? It seems you view is that the state has the power to impose it's will on the entire populace for any matter, regardless of state interest, as long as a majority of the current legislature decides to do so.

No, nor does it give the judiciary free reign to override the legislature. There have to be very good reasons to override the legislature.

Judicial review is a created concept, but one which has been explicitly accepted in the US system for 200 years, and implicitly accepted for another 8. The only reason to override the legislature is when the legislature exceeds it's authority explicitly, or by failing to demonstrate the required level of state interest in issues involving a balancing of rights of different parties.

That would be a good argument against making a law to favour Christians, but not so against a law already in place. Should we uproot the entire constitution because Christians made the laws?

It does not matter. The only laws that can be judicially reviewed in the US are those already in place - the judiciary has no power to preempt legislation, only to limit or void it (or uphold it). If a legislature wants to pass a state law that somehow manages to expressly violate every operative clause in the Constitution, it may do so - the judiciary only comes into the process after the law is passed, and generally only after it is somehow given effect.

You wouldn't be uprooting the Constitution because some of the framers were Christian - they very carefully included that Establishment Clause. As for legislation, if you can somehow show that antitrust laws or hours of work laws are based on imposition of Christian doctrine, and are not based on compelling state interests, then by all means invalidate them.

Is there a basic right to privacy, on the same level as the right not to be discriminated against found within the constitution that renders this law unconstitutional?

There is a clearly implied limit (actually, a number of them) on the powers of government in general. One need not find a "right to privacy" to recognize a limit on the state's power to regulate matters in which the state has no compelling interest.

If not, then you have an excellent argument to take the case to the legislature and to make such a right available.

There are a number of privacy laws on the books - for example, relating to disemination of personal data and financial information. Those laws were created to address privacy concerns ancillary to public activities falling within the nexus of state interests, eg regulation of commerce.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Actually, Scalia regularly takes parting shots at targets of choice in his dissents.

I wish more judges wrote like him. He's my favorite justice.

PS How did we get to abortion from sodomy?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18

How often do you see them affirm children, rather than those who choose to have abortions?

Why don't they hold rallies celebrating motherhood?

The affirmation of children is a given, except of course to opponents seeking to demonize pro-choice people as being anti-child.

Why should they have to hold a rally for that to not be labelled as such? Just to appease people with black-and-white morality views?

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
We don't claim that as part of our mandate.

Boris just has.

Boris is right about your strawmen.