Supremes Uphold Right to Gay Sex!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
He likely makes a distinction between the act and the person, hence qualifying for the supposed protection of religious beliefs.

Any more straw-men Boris?

Apparently there are more, but they are yours.

I'll repeat myself:

My objection to Scalia's comments were in his use of the phrase "gay agenda," which denotes a non-existant demonization of gays into some sort monolithic PAC. Nothing to do with his stance on the ruling (which I still feel is wrong).

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by obiwan18




Good for you, Scalia.

Now defenders of democracies are swine Boris?

It was "democratic" practive to allow courts to enforce covenants on the sale of real property to prevent selling to non-whites and Jews. It was "democratic" practice to forbid doctors from prescribing birth control to unmarried women at all, and to married women without the husband's permission. It was "democratic" practice to keep "******s" on the back of the bus, out of our white children's schools, and in their own section in restaurants, public parks, restrooms, community pools and the like.

"Democracy" under the US Constitution does not give a majority of the electorate an unconditional fiat to impose it's world view on the entire populace in the absence of a legitimate state interest.

Christian morality does not create a legitimate state interest under the restrictions of the Establishment Clause. So if you can tell me, outside a Christian or religiously based "moral" context, why the state has a legitmate interest in what goes up the rectum of a consenting adult in that adult's own home or other location where privacy is reasonably expected, then let's have it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

My objection to Scalia's comments were in his use of the phrase "gay agenda," which denotes a non-existant demonization of gays into some sort monolithic PAC.

Good!

Now why demonise the Christians for their supposed Christian agenda?

Asher:

The supreme court has every power to strike down laws it sees as unconstitutional.

Now we're cooking. What's the constitutionality of the supposed 'right' to privacy? How far does this extend?

How do you deal with Scalia's objection that to unhinge the earlier decision, allows for incest?

If you're so against sodomy, helpful advice would be to not practice it.

And here I expected the obligatory, loosen up comment.

[Sava]

Only if you don't know what democracy is. Scalia is probably the biggest 'democract' (small D) on the bench.

Right... the man who voted to stopped the recounts.... please, smell what you're shoveling Imran.

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Asher:

Now we're cooking. What's the constitutionality of the supposed 'right' to privacy?

I'm not up to snuff on the details. Ask some of the poli-sci geeks here.

How do you deal with Scalia's objection that to unhinge the earlier decision, allows for incest?

Incest has biological implications that are harmful to offspring. It's similar to allowing pregnant women to drink excessive alcohol. I think both should not be allowed -- not for morality issues, but health.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Good!

Now why demonise the Christians for their supposed Christian agenda?

And a hat trick of strawmen, since I did no such thing.

[Asher]

That was me.

I also called Christians god-fearing cowards.

I was hoping Sloww would bite harder.

[Kramerman]

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sava, you are obviously unfamilar with law or Scalia. In many of his decisions he states that when the Constitution is not clear it should be up to the democratic process rather than substantive due process or unelected judges to decide.

You bring up one case (Bush v. Gore) where he believed the Constitution was clear, under the Equal Protection Clause. Even if it wasn't, and he was anti-democratic in his decision, that's ONE decision.... which is no way counters my statement that he is the biggest democrat (small d) on the bench.

So, basically your statement does nothing to counter mine.

I'd consider someone that would like the people in the states or the people in the US to decide on a majority of issues (but not all) to be a bigger democrat than those that don't.

[Ben Kenobi]

MtG:

Had to come sooner or later.

It was "democratic" practive to allow courts to enforce covenants on the sale of real property to prevent selling to non-whites and Jews.

It was "democratic" practice to keep "******s" on the back of the bus, out of our white children's schools, and in their own section in restaurants, public parks, restrooms, community pools and the like.

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?

It was "democratic" practice to forbid doctors from prescribing birth control to unmarried women at all, and to married women without the husband's permission.

I actually agree with both. Women and men in a marriage should abide to birth control by mutual consent. As for the latter, shouldn't actions have consequences? No one forces the woman to have sex.

"Democracy" under the US Constitution does not give a majority of the electorate an unconditional fiat to impose it's world view on the entire populace in the absence of a legitimate state interest.

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

Christian morality does not create a legitimate state interest under the restrictions of the Establishment Clause.

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?

So if you can tell me, outside a Christian or religiously based "moral" context, why the state has a legitmate interest in what goes up the rectum of a consenting adult in that adult's own home or other location where privacy is reasonably expected, then let's have it.

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

[Kramerman]

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

pro-choice is a general description of those who think adults are responsible enough to make educated decisions on their own without governemnt control... this is often applied to abortion, but is applied elsewhere, such as consenting adults should be allowed to do it up the back door, or buying a prostitute, or other 'victimless' crimes ('victimless' cause a victim can always be created or argued for if the issue is abstract).

[Ben Kenobi]

K-man:

Che answered my objection sufficiently, I forgot that you are a libertarian, and that libertarians use the terminology of 'pro-choice' differently than those who support abortion.

This confusion reinforces the necessity of terming those who support abortion as pro-abortion rather than pro-choice.

[Boris Godunov]

Except that people who are pro-choice on the abortion issue aren't pro-abortion. They don't like them either, but they believe the mother has a right to choose.

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

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by obiwan18
K-man:

Che answered my objection sufficiently, I forgot that you are a libertarian, and that libertarians use the terminology of 'pro-choice' differently than those who support abortion.

This confusion reinforces the necessity of terming those who support abortion as pro-abortion rather than pro-choice.

Im actually far from libertarian, I just think in many cases, such as going in the out-door, the gov't has no right to dictate what consenting adults can/cant do.

i didnt see che's clarification, sry to both of ya

[Sava]

that's ONE decision....

It was a big one.