North Carolina continues to enforce Unconstitutional Sodomy Law.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo


You're misreading the Amendment as per the founders interpretation. What it's saying (along with the 10th) is that the state's powers are bounded by the constitution, and that if there is no explicit legitimization of the usurpation of certain liberties of the people in the constitution, the state cannot usurp these liberties.



I call the entire Constitution of 1789 a sham and a fabrication. I don't see why so many people have such reverence to an over 200 year old anti-democratic document created by a bunch of mercantilistic industrialists and feudalistic slave owners, who had absolutely no regard for the liberties of the marginalized in society, created primarily because the powers that were were afraid of popular rebellion (see Shay's Rebellion). The Constitutional principles establishing individual liberties forged after the Civil War, while still having numberless problems, is something I have far more respect for. Not only do these principles shape a far more free society, these principles were shaped far more by the common person. I don't see why we should totally ignore the principles regarding individual liberty that we've been operating under for over a century just because some people have sticks up their asses.

1. That is not what it says.

2. It does not surprise me that you feel that way. You of course are a clueless kid.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Huh? Where'd you get this, an article by Hamilton or Madison or someone? I still can't find 'State' in the text.

Simply because 'state' isn't the text doesn't mean that it does not apply to them. What were the 'rights retained by the people' back then? The ones granted by the states.

The 'intent' argument comes from Madison's reasoning of the amendment. The reasons articulated for the 9th Amendment were concerns that Constitutional rights would render state granted rights obsolete. The Amendment was designed to make sure that Constitutionally granted rights were not the be all and end all of rights.

I wonder, could the penumbral region from which these rights emanate be the 9th Amendment?

No, in fact, I don't think Justice Douglas even mentioned the 9th Amendment. He states:

"guarentees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance".

Griswold is mainly based on the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments. Goldberg is the one who bases his argument on the 9th. Penumbras, while sounding new age, is something that arises from every amendment says Justice Douglas for the majority.

[The Templar]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Simply because 'state' isn't the text doesn't mean that it does not apply to them. What were the 'rights retained by the people' back then? The ones granted by the states.

I thought you were a textualist - now you're an originalist? I thought the original intent was to prevent the government from construing the bill of rights as exhaustive. Thus, the 9th amend would form the basis for a decent Natural Law argument. That is, political rights are coextensive with natural rights - and the 9th amend would short-circuit any attempts to render the two sets disjoint.

I wonder, could the penumbral region from which these rights emanate be the 9th Amendment?

No, in fact, I don't think Justice Douglas even mentioned the 9th Amendment. He states:

"guarentees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance".

Griswold is mainly based on the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments. Goldberg is the one who bases his argument on the 9th. Penumbras, while sounding new age, is something that arises from every amendment says Justice Douglas for the majority.

Forgot the smilie on that one. A regular person would have said something more like 'inferential' or 'entailed' from the explicit rights or combination of rights as opposed to the overly purple term 'penumbra'.

Seriously though, the 9th amend could have been used. Although I can see why nobody would want to open the can of worms the 9th could create (imagine a right to prayer in school ...)

[Imran Siddiqui]

I thought you were a textualist - now you're an originalist?

I can argue both. You were talking about original intent.

I thought the original intent was to prevent the government from construing the bill of rights as exhaustive. Thus, the 9th amend would form the basis for a decent Natural Law argument.

That's an argument, but not an original intent argument. And as you said, if you read it to mean that people can assert 'Natural Rights' then you get a can of worms no one wanted, even back then. In a textualist view, it would create something very silly, and you never interpret the text to create a silly result.

A regular person would have said something more like 'inferential' or 'entailed' from the explicit rights or combination of rights as opposed to the overly purple term 'penumbra'.

I'm not sure 'inferential' or 'entailed' rights would fly. Inferential 1st amendment right to privacy is really streaching it. A penumbra is vague and large enough to fly.

Although I can see why nobody would want to open the can of worms the 9th could create (imagine a right to prayer in school ...)

This is why I don't think that is the reason it is intended or textually interpreted that way.

[Ben Kenobi]

Dr. Strangelove.

If you're goping to quote the Bible please read the whole section you're quoting and make certain that you truly understand what is being said.

Fair enough.

It is evident in this case that Paul did not intend his letter to stand as a diatribe against homosexual behavior, but instead to mend a rift within the early Roman church.

First off, Paul wants to show people why they are sinful, both Jews and Gentiles, and in need of redemption. Chapter 1 specifically addresses the sins of the Gentiles, including homosexuality.

He also compels his readers to weigh mere technical compliance with written law against the true intentions of their hearts.

True. That's why Paul makes his argument in 1 Corinthians about sins against the body also being sins against God.

This certainly means that they, the men of Sodom, attempted to force their way upon Lot's guests.

I don't doubt that. However, the sin makes no distinction between rape and consentual sex within the text.

How does your wife take to being locked up during her menestrual cycle?

Why don't you start another thread on that topic? The quote in Leviticus specifically addresses the sin of homosexual conduct, and not homosexual rape. I quoted Romans to show that the NT also considers homosexuality to be sinful.

This causes the man to gather his tribesmen, and they annhilate the offending village.

The whole story shocks the Jews, including the demand for homosexual sex.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I thought you were a textualist - now you're an originalist?

I can argue both. You were talking about original intent.

No, I was talking about the text itself.

A regular person would have said something more like 'inferential' or 'entailed' from the explicit rights or combination of rights as opposed to the overly purple term 'penumbra'.

I'm not sure 'inferential' or 'entailed' rights would fly. Inferential 1st amendment right to privacy is really streaching it. A penumbra is vague and large enough to fly.

I'm pretty sure inferential is what he has in mind. The right to privacy could be inferred from the 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments in terms of groups of amendments entailing a conclusion. Even freedom of press or right to bear arms on their own imply other rights (the right to actually have access to weapons or to the means of disseminating information). I don't think a federal ban on all gun sales, purchases, and leases (?) would be in the spirit of the 2nd Amend (as such would render the second a nullity with no arms to keep or bear).

Although I can see why nobody would want to open the can of worms the 9th could create (imagine a right to prayer in school ...)

This is why I don't think that is the reason it is intended or textually interpreted that way.

Nonetheless, I think this is where the text takes us. Which just goes to show the text isn't always convenient - but it is the text.

[TCO]

The text of the 9th is interesting. It says that the document does not proscribe rights not enumerated. Are you are arguing that this means all conceiveable rights ARE protected?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm pretty sure inferential is what he has in mind.

He may have it in mind, but I'm not sure he can say it and carry a majority for his opinion. Basically writing that there are inferential rights arising from the amendments leads to the idea that each amendment has rights arising that are not stated within it. A 'penumbra' on the other hand, seems to say that all rights taken together lead to other rights.

The difference is between how many amendments does it take to assert another right. A penumbra seems to indicate more than one, while inferential seems to say that only one amendment can come up with rights not in the text. That is why I don't think it would fly.

Nonetheless, I think this is where the text takes us. Which just goes to show the text isn't always convenient - but it is the text.

There are TWO ways the text could be read.

1) Simply because the Constitution asserts rights doesn't mean that other rights are also not protected. The question arises then what are these 'reserved rights'. No one really seems to know.

2) Simply because the Consitution asserts rights, that doesn't mean that the people don't have other rights. HOWEVER, these 'reserved rights' are not Constitutional rights, so they must be enforced at the state or local level. The judiciary only enforces the Constitution and merely saying the people have reserved rights doesn't mean the federal government is the entity that must guarentee them. This way you don't have to specify which are the 'reserved rights'.

#2 is where I think the text takes us. It is the more rational reading, IMO.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Oi Doc! Over here!

How many gay men have you known?

[Dr Strangelove]

I've treated quite a few gay men in my career if that's what you mean. Professional ethics requires that I give them the same service I would give a hetero. It's my sworn duty.

[Whaleboy]

Sodomy..... mmm sounds like fun!!

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Dr. Strangelove.



First off, Paul wants to show people why they are sinful, both Jews and Gentiles, and in need of redemption. Chapter 1 specifically addresses the sins of the Gentiles, including homosexuality.

He is essentially equating the pridefulness of the law-abiding Jews with homosexual acts by the virtue of prescribing the same punishment for both. Hence, being gay is no bigger sin than displaying a sticker with your school team's logo on your car.

True. That's why Paul makes his argument in 1 Corinthians about sins against the body also being sins against God.

But in Romans 1 he states that the obsession with fulfilling lustful needs is wrong because it distracts people from the love of God and righteousnes. This could apply to any "worldly" concern.

I don't doubt that. However, the sin makes no distinction between rape and consentual sex within the text.

Well, there's no mention of any offer of consensual sex so this passage has no relevance as to whether or not consensual gay sex is sinful or not.

Why don't you start another thread on that topic? The quote in Leviticus specifically addresses the sin of homosexual conduct, and not homosexual rape. I quoted Romans to show that the NT also considers homosexuality to be sinful.

But Romans is really addresing an attempt to mend a rift in a Christian community. [/QUOTE]
The whole story shocks the Jews, including the demand for homosexual sex. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, murdering a man's daughter would hardly have called for retribution in that place and time. A mere fine would have redressed that transgression, right?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Damn. You'll never make it as a straight man, and I'm talking in the comedian sense.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Damn. You'll never make it as a straight man, and I'm talking in the comedian sense.

I've already go two beautiful kids, so I've already made it as a "straight" man!