Supremes Uphold Right to Gay Sex!

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What's the straight agenda?

It would appear that it is to be against the "gay agenda"

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by 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.

You're gonna have to lead me by hand down the rose-garden path, cuz I just can't follow this.

If gay sex is legal, how can it be used as a basis to find a parent unfit? I just don't get it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You're gonna have to lead me by hand down the rose-garden path, cuz I just can't follow this.

If gay sex is legal, how can it be used as a basis to find a parent unfit? I just don't get it.

Ok, look. This ruling was done on the basis of right to privacy. It said that every person of majority age has a privacy right in their bedrooms (ie, sexual relations) where the government cannot intervene.

This has NOTHING to do with finding parents unfit. Parents raising a kid doesn't have much to do with sex (and if it does, people are hauled away ). There is a seperate 'right' that says parents have the right to care for their kids in the best way they desire, but that's different as well, because an exception is the state can take away children from parents who they feel are not performing their parental duties.

Sex does not equal non-sex motives. This ruling didn't say that gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals. That's an Equal Protection Argument (the one made in O'Conner's concurrance). This was a Due Process Argument saying people have right to sex.

Different. See?

[Az]

If gay sex is legal, how can it be used as a basis to find a parent unfit? I just don't get it.

Being a bum out of a job isn't illegal either. Yet often, this is used as a basis to find a parent unfit.

I don't agree with that, but you see the logic.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You're gonna have to lead me by hand down the rose-garden path, cuz I just can't follow this.

If gay sex is legal, how can it be used as a basis to find a parent unfit? I just don't get it.

Because some narrow-minded jacka** will see it as making the gay person as being an unfit parent.

AS an aside, you don't have to do something illegal to be legitimately judged unfit . An alcoholic that gets tanked every night and fails to stumulate their child may break no laws but be unfit. In many jurisdictions conduct may not rise to the level where charges can be brought but the child apprehension teeth are usually stronger and more proactive.

IN. my early years as a lawyer we apprehended 5 children from a couple who were just intellectually incapable of handling themselves and their children. The IQs of the parents were really low ( below 80 IIRC). They committed no crime but there was a legitimate way to seize their children.

So seizure is possible absent a crime. Relating back to gay people , I would like to see a reasoned rationale why anyone would seize a child solely due to sexual orientation of the the parent. The bigotry needed to reach that conclusion would be amusing if it were not so sad.

[Flubber]

Oh and while the title is somewhat accurate, it appears that the rationale would mean that heterosexuals can frolic through the backdoor as well, without committing a crime

[Kramerman]

Its kinda dissapointing to me that here we are in the 21st century, and only now are the state governemnts forced outa the bedroom.

Im not gay, but this is a victory for us pro-choicers

[mrmitchell]

title of thread:
content of thread:
not reading the thread: priceless

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Can't resist a parting shot at Scalia et al, rubbing their noses?

I too await the dissent, to see their arguments.

Im not gay, but this is a victory for us pro-choicers

Last I checked abortions aren't performed in the bedrooms of the nation.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Can't resist a parting shot at Scalia et al, rubbing their noses?

Calling a spade a spade is more like it.

[Sava]

w00t! glad to see the forces of good prevailing agains the great Satan (TEXAS).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Last I checked abortions aren't performed in the bedrooms of the nation.

Libertarians are pro-choice in everything.

[Elok]

Originally posted by 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?

A harem of foreign women for every American male by 2020. And pretzels for all.
On the ruling itself...I need a shrugging smiley. The law isn't practically enforceable anyway.
I can't find the poster who said it, but what does privacy have to do with marijuana possession? It might be a search and seizure issue if they do it without a warrant-actually, that's an interesting question for a threadjack. If a cop violates procedure on a drug bust and therefore can't prosecute, is he still allowed to confiscate the dope?

[Thorn]

This is SOOOOOO GREAT! I no longer have to worry about numerous felony charges being brought up against me in my stupid backwards baptist run state.

But now I'm not a criminal, I am a law-abiding citizen... so I guess I'll have to rob Banks to keep up with my bad rep...lol.

The United States is starting to become a better place to live, I might stay here now... keep up this social reform I may even reconsider destroying the world.

NOW ITS TIME TO PARTY!!!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Meldor
Try reading the federalist papers and there oppositions treatise. Exactly what the framers were thinking was put down in great detail.

The Federalist papers are not considered even significant secondary authority on original intent. They're in effect op-ed pieces by some of the authors.

The controlling authority on original intent comes from the records of the debates in the convention itself, and in the internal notes to the state delegations and the state's ratification debates.

The Constitution is in effect a treaty ratified by sovereign states, so the legal intent for the seven original articles and the bill of rights is that of each of the ratifying state delegations with their appointed delegates as a whole, not that of any specific individual contributor.

For amendments after the bill of rights, the legislative intent is derived the same way as with any other legislation - from any declarations of intent or from the debates of the legislative body that first votes approval of the amendment.

If you want to see what I've described in action, read (or reread, I assume you'd be familiar) the analysis by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the intent of the Second Amendment in US v. Emerson, 207 F.3d 203