North Carolina continues to enforce Unconstitutional Sodomy Law.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MrFun
So you disagree with Imran's explanation on where the traditional value for right to privacy comes from?

there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. If you want one, pass an amendment. I would also recommend being more precise in terminology. Privacy means not having people watch you. It is not the same as having freedom to do something.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Your definition is as wrong as your spelling.

"Sodomy" is, as discussed in this thread, a legal definition, and it is defined as oral or anal sex. It has nothing to do with coercion or force.

As far as I can recall, didn't Georgia also apply sodomy to refer to lesbian sex? Having spoken to several lesbian friends this isn't something that regularly appears in the sexual lexicon of lesbians. Sorry to disappoint all you red-blooded heterosexual males out there, fantasizing about strap-ons, etc....

I very much doubt that the translators or compilers of the various Bibles had lesbian sex in mind.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by TCO
If there is a desire for a new Constitutional right, an amendment must be passed.

Naw. We can just get liberal judges to pretend that it's there simply because the lima deltas wish it was there.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Your definition is as wrong as your spelling.

"Sodomy" is, as discussed in this thread, a legal definition, and it is defined as oral or anal sex. It has nothing to do with coercion or force.

Now, many people charged under sodomy laws are charged in conjunction with sexual assualt and rape charges, but that is done to add to sentences. If sodomy were the same as rape, charging a rapist with both would be redundant, wouldn't it?

Regardless, the case which spurred the SCOTUS ruling on sodomy laws involved fully consensual sex between the two men who were arrested.

Hey, my keyboard is sticky. Yours would be too if you had an eight-year old child.
Oh wait.......that's a biological impossibility. Sorry, my bad.

Sodomy is what they did in Sodom. right? The Bible is pretty clear on the point that the men of Sodom were demanding, not requesting, the pleasure of the company of Lot's visitors. It stands to reason then that Sodomy was originally meant to refer to a non-consensual relationship.

Besides, who uses the word "sodomy" when refering to gay sex? A few southern states? You're not going to let a bunch of crackers write the dictionary are you?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Naw. We can just get liberal judges to pretend that it's there simply because the lima deltas wish it was there.

conservative ad hominem arguments sometime get REALLY old

[The Templar]

Originally posted by TCO


there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. If you want one, pass an amendment. I would also recommend being more precise in terminology. Privacy means not having people watch you. It is not the same as having freedom to do something.

A right to privacy is a reasonable inference from the text of the Constitution - like the 3rd and 4th amendments. The constitution does not say that '1+1=2' but I think even Scalia will concede that he is bound by the laws of mathematics.

More importantly, whatever consenting adults do on the privacy of their own bedroom is none of your (or NC's) goddamned business (unless the broadcast via webcam).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Hey, my keyboard is sticky. Yours would be too if you had an eight-year old child.
Oh wait.......that's a biological impossibility. Sorry, my bad.

Sodomy is what they did in Sodom. right? The Bible is pretty clear on the point that the men of Sodom were demanding, not requesting, the pleasure of the company of Lot's visitors. It stands to reason then that Sodomy was originally meant to refer to a non-consensual relationship.

Besides, who uses the word "sodomy" when refering to gay sex? A few southern states? You're not going to let a bunch of crackers write the dictionary are you?

Apparently, I need to repeat myself:

"Sodomy" is, as discussed in this thread, a legal definition, and it is defined as oral or anal sex. It has nothing to do with coercion or force.

What the Bible has to say on the subject doesn't concern me, or the courts.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Um... no. The statement said that the only 'rights' you have from the Constitution are those specifically specifed, and other rights must come from the states (9th Amendment), or be added by amendment.

What exactly were you reading?

Let's see, the 9th Amendment reads:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny of disparage others retained by the people."

I.e. there may exist other rights not mentioned. There is no mention of States in the text - these rights may just exist on their own without the States granting them.

(And before you go citing any cases to argue with me - look again at the text. The fact that states aren't explicitly mentioned mitigates against thus confining the 9th.)

[Boris Godunov]

Moreover:

''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.''

That's from the majoirty opinion written by Justice Goldberg, Griswold et al. v. Connecticut, 1965.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny of disparage others retained by the people."

I.e. there may exist other rights not mentioned. There is no mention of States in the text - these rights may just exist on their own without the States granting them.

The text of the 9th Amendment does NOT allow people to claim rights for anything and everything. That would simply be silly. There is not a right to take drugs, for instance. The text seems to say that simply because a right isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean that other rights which were retained by the people (and what other rights did the people have before the Constitution... that's right, those given by the states) are invalid, simply because the 'federal' Consitution does not bestow them.

And Boris, as Templar has anticipated, I can cite cases to show the 9th is meant not to disparage the rights that the states had bestowed upon its populace, by saying the Constitution doesn't mention them. And yes, I think the court is wrong in Griswold. The 'penumbra' argument just increases the sillyness.

edit:

That's from the majoirty opinion written by Justice Goldberg, Griswold et al. v. Connecticut, 1965.

I said this in my next post, but Goldberg is a concurring opinion. Douglas has the majority opinion that case and speaks of a 'penumbra' of rights arising from the Bill of Rights.

[TCO]

Originally posted by The Templar


A right to privacy is a reasonable inference from the text of the Constitution - like the 3rd and 4th amendments. The constitution does not say that '1+1=2' but I think even Scalia will concede that he is bound by the laws of mathematics.

More importantly, whatever consenting adults do on the privacy of their own bedroom is none of your (or NC's) goddamned business (unless the broadcast via webcam).

No it's not a reasonable inference. That's why it wasn't there until it was invented out of the air a hundred years later.

It may be reasonable to HAVE. But it is not granted by the Constitution.

[TCO]

And again privacy means not having people watch or be near you. It does not mean "right to take an action". That is just English.

[TCO]

Templar,

You are right on the text of the 9th. The tenth is probably also relevant here.

[Ramo]

The right to privacy has been institutionalized so it exists, like so many other aspects of our government (i.e. judicial review). There isn't any explicit reference to it in the 14th as the writers of the Amendment interpreted it, but if you want to go back to their interpretation of the 14th, I think you'll start a few revolutions.

[Ramo]

And if you really want to take things back to their original meanings, there is a little matter of the 9th you'd have to deal with.