Team Gay Rejoice!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 26, 2003, 1:06 pm

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... _sodomy_dc

Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Sodomy Law

Now you Homos can join us Heteros in a sign of unity by ramming your partners up the poop shoot and not going to jail for it! Grats Rangers!..er guys!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 26, 2003, 1:12 pm

i like the add on the page:

"The South Beach Diet!"

"The next atkins? No excersie, no forbidden foods! Lose 8-13 lbs in 2 weeks!!"

since when did not sleeping and doing blow nonstop constitute a diet?

Post by **Sylvus** » June 26, 2003, 1:19 pm

Voronwë wrote:since when did not sleeping and doing blow nonstop constitute a diet?

the late 70s?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 26, 2003, 1:20 pm

Salis · Post by **Salis** » June 26, 2003, 2:14 pm

Cool a few more cases like this and maybe Texas will secede. I can only pray!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 26, 2003, 2:26 pm

Amazing how powerful the Supreme Court is.

9 people's political opinion just trumped the political opinion of 20 million.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 26, 2003, 2:45 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Amazing how powerful the Supreme Court is.

9 people's political opinion just trumped the political opinion of 20 million.

that is exactly why the Supreme Court exists, so that the constitution can not be circumvented just because of popular opinion on a subject.

But more to this case, it was actually the fact that the prevailing opinion of the majority of Americans that it is not the governments business what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

So to suggest that the majority of the population supports Texas in this case would be erroneous.

because to clarify: this decision is not just about gay sex. It is about sodomy which a lot of heterosexual couples participate in.

seriously who is against oral sex?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 26, 2003, 4:22 pm

Voronwë wrote:seriously who is against oral sex?

jesus

you're going to hell

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » June 26, 2003, 4:37 pm

No, sex is meant for reproduction, pleasure, and intimacy. As far as I know the bedroom is free of sin between husband and wife concerning sexual intimacy and pleasure.

As far as specifically mentioning oral sex, the bible does not. There are some interesting verses from the Apostle Paul from the new testament in First Corinthians in which he says husband and wife shoudl render affection due each other, man and wife should be married, and their bodies are no longer their own, but belong to each other etc.

My belief is that my God Yahweh gave us sex as a gift meant to be shared between husband and wife, to that I salute and say thank you!

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » June 26, 2003, 4:49 pm

Well, there won't be any rangers online tonight. They'll be too busy "celebrating".

Post by **Sylvus** » June 26, 2003, 4:50 pm

I am so happy that the Supreme Court finally ruled on this.

That means that the Dirty Sanchez and the Tony Danza are now legal moves in my repertoire!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 26, 2003, 5:14 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:No, sex is meant for reproduction, pleasure, and intimacy. As far as I know the bedroom is free of sin between husband and wife concerning sexual intimacy and pleasure.

Sex for pleasure, or for intimacy for that matter, has no reason to be between opposite sexes only. I'm not gay but I do know rangers so I speak from authority on this matter. There's no difference between two guys ass fucking and a man and woman ass fucking...they both are in the wrong hole if you're basing everything on basic survival of species and reproduction. The morality and religious aspect gets thrown out the window because basing anything on religious beliefs is as gay as this law was and the reason freedom of religion exists in the United States. As neato and logical as Christianity or any other religion sounds to you, it makes no sense at all to that goatfucking scientologist that lives around the corner from you. Did I say scientologist? I meant that religion Brand X worshipper around the corner from you. All religions are equal yet vary widely in moral values etc. Thank brand X god for separation of church and state.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 26, 2003, 5:18 pm

Winnow wrote:
Krimson Klaw wrote:No, sex is meant for reproduction, pleasure, and intimacy. As far as I know the bedroom is free of sin between husband and wife concerning sexual intimacy and pleasure.
Sex for pleasure, or for intimacy for that matter, has no reason to be between opposite sexes. I'm not gay but I do know rangers so I speak from authority on this matter. There's no difference between two guys ass fucking and a man and woman ass fucking...they both are in the wrong hole if you're basing everything on basic survival of species and reproduction. The morality and religious aspect gets thrown out the window because basing anything on religious beliefs is as gay as this law was and the reason freedom of religion exists in the United States. As neato and logical as Christianity or any other religion sounds to you, it makes no sense at all to that goatfucking scientologist that lives around the corner from you. Did I say scientologist? I meant that religion Brand X worshipper around the corner from you. All religions are equal yet vary widely in moral values etc. Thank brand X god for separation of church and state.

It's not just assfucking btw, it's also any kind of oral sex. Guess Adex has never had a BJ. Poor guy.

Burke · Post by **Burke** » June 26, 2003, 5:44 pm

That means that the Dirty Sanchez and the Tony Danza are now legal moves in my repertoire!

Don't forget the Rusty Trombone!

noel · Post by **noel** » June 26, 2003, 5:53 pm

The Rear Admiral is the win!

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » June 26, 2003, 6:51 pm

yay, now I can stick my cock up a guy's asshole in Texas! Oh wait, I can do that here...err hmm, wait a second, I can do where ever the fuck I want

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 26, 2003, 7:39 pm

Yea you're happy right now, but wait until the 9 man oligarchy strikes down a law that really matters.

It's not the law I'm shocked at. It's the unelected political power I saw displayed today.

BTW Voronwe, 16 other states had similar laws invalidated today, thus the justifcation for my 20 million number.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 26, 2003, 7:53 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Yea you're happy right now, but wait until the 9 man oligarchy strikes down a law that really matters.

It's not the law I'm shocked at. It's the unelected political power I saw displayed today.

BTW Voronwe, 16 other states had similar laws invalidated today, thus the justifcation for my 20 million number.

You understand that the reason these laws were struck down is because they're unconstitutional, right?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 26, 2003, 8:04 pm

screw the constitution, fuck the government, listen to your half-crazed, prostitute-addled money hungry religous leadership for all your answers!

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » June 26, 2003, 8:17 pm

Aranuil wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:Yea you're happy right now, but wait until the 9 man oligarchy strikes down a law that really matters.

It's not the law I'm shocked at. It's the unelected political power I saw displayed today.

BTW Voronwe, 16 other states had similar laws invalidated today, thus the justifcation for my 20 million number.
You understand that the reason these laws were struck down is because they're unconstitutional, right?

Of course. I said a long time ago that although I personally disagree with the gay lifestyle, they should have all the rights that I enjoy under my constitution, and eventually it would be so. I disagree with lots of things in America, but this is my home and I have a pact with the government to abide by its laws. If I disagree with a law, then I have a right to try and change it. Although I don't agree with the decision, it's a prime example of Democracy at work.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 26, 2003, 9:37 pm

On one hand Aranuil says:

I've heard that if you can't attack the argument you should attack the person. I guess it's true!

http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4732

Aranuil's first post on this thread:

Guess Adex has never had a BJ. Poor guy.

Aranuil, your hypocracy is an irritant. However I still haven't figured out "why" hypocracy invokes such a negative response.

Was your personal attack an oversite and you really see personal attacks as a sign of weakness?

Or was your original response labeling personal attacks as weak, just a off the cuff response that you really didn't mean?

That aside,

That law wasn't doing any good. It should of been voted by the state as invalid.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 26, 2003, 9:48 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:On one hand Aranuil says:
I've heard that if you can't attack the argument you should attack the person. I guess it's true!
http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4732

Aranuil's first post on this thread:
Guess Adex has never had a BJ. Poor guy.
Aranuil, your hypocracy is an irritant. However I still haven't figured out "why" hypocracy invokes such a negative response.

Was your personal attack an oversite and you really see personal attacks as a sign of weakness?

Or was your original response labeling personal attacks as weak, just a off the cuff response that you really didn't mean?

That aside,

That law wasn't doing any good. It should of been voted by the state as invalid.

Umm while what I said might be personal, it wasn't an attack. Frankly, I hope you have had a blowjob. Given that you seemed disappointed about the way this law was ruled on by the Supreme Court, I kind of assumed you weren't happy with it. I was attempting to point out that if you've gotten a blowjob, you've violated the law! Really, it wasn't an attack, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 26, 2003, 9:48 pm

Maybe it is all about humor.

It's ok to be hypocritcal if its funny.

When you made the post, did your mind pause for a moment? Did you say to yourself, well that's hypocritical of me but hell it's a good rub at ole Adex.

Or, did you not think about it at all and just typed away?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » June 26, 2003, 9:49 pm

So, all sodomy was against the law, right? A man doing a woman or a woman doing a man in the booty, ect. was grounds for legal action?

Just curious, at what point would ass-play become illegal? Would a finger in the butt be sodomy? How about the pinky up to the first knuckle? Is that enough, or does it have to be the middle finger to the 3rd knuckle before you're breaking the law? It's all rather confusing, so I'm glad it's all just done away with.

Adex, why do you care what gays do in their homes? I mean really, there was actually a law that said it was illegal to butt fuck. That's fucking stupid. Who cares? Let the homos rejoice in their new found freedom. How does it effect you enough for you to oppose it anyway?

noel · Post by **noel** » June 26, 2003, 10:00 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Maybe it is all about humor.

It's ok to be hypocritcal if its funny.

When you made the post, did your mind pause for a moment? Did you say to yourself, well that's hypocritical of me but hell it's a good rub at ole Adex.

Or, did you not think about it at all and just typed away?

I really didn't think it was offensive Adex. The end.

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » June 26, 2003, 10:47 pm

Fairweather- The texas law was strictly gay anal was illegal, not hetero anal. It was struck down on the basis of invasion of privacy rather than on the basis of the more obvious and specificly applicable sexual discrimination laws (since the law only applied to homosexuals it was discrimination) so that the ruling would take out the sodomy laws of other states (some of which did ban all anal or oral sex, regardless of hetero or homo participants) in the process. That way the issue is over and done with and the supreme court doesnt have to come back and deal with those other laws individually in the future, wasting more time on a forgone conclusion.

*Hugs*
Varia

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » June 26, 2003, 10:51 pm

Speaking of BJs, how many of you guys have to deal with too much teeth?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 27, 2003, 12:02 am

Voronwe,

You mention that the Supreme Court exists to prevent the circumvention of the constitution due to popular opinion on a issue.

Isn't the constitution at its core a construct of popular opinion?

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness. Today we reject that these things are "endowed by our Creator" and so the only other basis to found these beliefs are due to the fact that we as a people can "concede" that they are worth protecting.

So heres the rub.

In 1960, all 50 states had anti-sodomy laws. As time changed, consensus changed and today only 13 states have anti-sodomy laws. Individual states voted to remove those laws using a method of voting reserved by the 10th amendment.

It is wrong for the Supreme Court to to jump in like this and violate the consensus process reserved by the states.

The Supreme Court has abused the balance of power assigned to it.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 27, 2003, 12:11 am

BTW we regulate all the time the things that people can and cannot do in the privacy of their homes.

The only thing that makes shooting heroin in the privacy of your own home illegal and funky sex legal is our concent to allow funky sex.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » June 27, 2003, 12:26 am

It boils down to whether or not big brother knows what's good for you and is rightfully stepping in cases when he sees complete idiocy in regards to state legislature (see segregation).

Spin doctor it with "popular opinion" all you want, but this is definately a case where the majority is trying to hold down the minority. Dumbasses that are too slow to keep up with the times sometimes need to be pushed and prodded with a stick before they'll inch along. The Supreme Court wouldn't be the Supreme Court if it didn't take measures such as this. Abuse of power? Hardly.

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness. Today we reject that these things are "endowed by our Creator" and so the only other basis to found these beliefs are due to the fact that we as a people can "concede" that they are worth protecting.

Maybe I'm just dumb, but WTF are you trying to protect? Your right to tell others that it's not ok to fuck another person up the poopshoot and that they should go to jail for doing otherwise? I somehow fail to see how states' rights has anything to do with LL&PoH.

Etasi · Post by **Etasi** » June 27, 2003, 12:28 am

The Supreme Court has one job, and one job only: to ensure that any and all laws passed in the United States adhere to the rules and principles set forth in the Constitution.

Declaring sodomy laws unconstitutional is in no way an "abuse" of the Supreme Court's powers, no matter how many states have anti-sodomy laws.

If you think the Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the majority opinion of the states or the population, even when that opinion is expressed through unconstitutional laws, then you obviously weren't paying attention in your high school government class.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » June 27, 2003, 12:30 am

Besides, it's not like it was even remotely possible to enforce those laws to begin with. May as well overturn other retarded laws.

http://www.dumblaws.com/states

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 27, 2003, 2:22 am

Kelgar you walked into my statement presupposing things I've not said.

I do not defend the sodomy law.

I dislike the Supreme Court legislating.

Etasi all laws if boil down to consent of the majority. Even our bill of rights.

We criminalize thevery because most all of us consent to the moral judgement that it is wrong.

Same with heavy drug use, and in the past, homosexual acts.

Today consensus has changed, and thus sodomy is no longer "wrong" as it was in the past.

What am I trying to protect? What I said was the SC's job of protecting the constitution from the consensus of the majority is interesting considering all of the consitution was born from consensus, thus consensus (aka. people voting on stuff) is the prime expression of our laws. The SC's ruling today interfered with that prime expression.

You post as if you're arguing with someone you've constructed in your mind not based on what I've written.

BTW labeling everyone who disagrees with you a dumbass betrays an ugly arrogance.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 27, 2003, 2:31 am

Do you propose abandoning laws just because they are hard to enforce?

Using that measure, child molesters will be off the hook.

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » June 27, 2003, 3:16 am

I haven't seen Adex this hung up on a topic in a while. Maybe he should come right out, say what's on his mind, and put the matter behind him.

Seriously, the Supreme Court didn't make law here. It invalidated a lesser law because it conflicted with the ultimate law of the land - the Constitution.

Of course, if yer a states-rights buff, then aside from being 150 years behind the curve, you may think that Texas law should supersede the Constitution. If so, I'd be happy to point out a few state laws circa 1960 which were struck down just to hear you argue that states had a right to maintain separate bathrooms for colored folk.

Mippy

noel · Post by **noel** » June 27, 2003, 3:59 am

Adex, state your agenda on this thread or stop your inane pontificating.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » June 27, 2003, 4:00 am

Do you propose abandoning laws just because they are hard to enforce?

Using that measure, child molesters will be off the hook.

Lol. Where the hell did I ever imply that? I only proposed that stupid laws need to be repealed. Stupid laws which are impossible to enforce for the most part.

Isn't the constitution at its core a construct of popular opinion?

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness. Today we reject that these things are "endowed by our Creator" and so the only other basis to found these beliefs are due to the fact that we as a people can "concede" that they are worth protecting.

Why didn't you simply say that you dislike idea of the federal government interfering with regards to how a state government handles its own legislating? I ask you what the hell does life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have to do with this discussion? Why did you feel the need to sugarcoat it with bullshit rhetoric? All you had to say was "stupid law, but it should have been up to the state to right it, not the feds" and no one would have knocked you for your opinion.

Last note. The laws which protect the minority from the majority are equally, if not more important than your ones based on "popular opinion". Look what kind of stupid shit is being repealed because it was based on "popular opinion".

noel · Post by **noel** » June 27, 2003, 4:11 am

I really don't want to put words in your mouth Adex, but I get the strong sense that your major opposition to this is because of how it affects the homosexual community (nevermind the fact that it equally affects the heterosexual community), and your judgmental Christian mindset just can't seem to tolerate it.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » June 27, 2003, 5:37 am

Adex's point seems perfectly clear to me. Brand X God knows I rarely if ever agree with him but I see where he's coming from here.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » June 27, 2003, 9:05 am

Etasi wrote:The Supreme Court has one job, and one job only: to ensure that any and all laws passed in the United States adhere to the rules and principles set forth in the Constitution.

Bingo

Seriously, this whole 20 million thing is irrelevant. It's a case that was brought before the Supreme Court and they made a ruling. It's as simple as that.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » June 27, 2003, 9:12 am

Aranuil wrote:Adex, state your agenda on this thread or stop your inane pontificating.

It could be that because I like poopshoots, I apparently touch children too!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 27, 2003, 12:05 pm

Dammit guys do you know hard it is to post on VV AND play Medal of Honor on my day off at the same time!!??!

No disrespect to you guys but I'd much rather be storming Normandy.

The constitution was constructed from consensus. The concept of privacy is linked to the concept of liberty which is linked to a bunch of guys sitting around and agreeing that liberty was important enough to create laws to protect it.

Our liberty is limited however. By consensus we agree that privately murdering someone is bad, privately molesting children is bad, privately abusing you spouse is bad.

We limit liberty (or privacy) all the time by voting on laws that curb evil excesses.

Society defines right and wrong by voting on it. Minus God, morality has no set definition other than public agreement on what is right and wrong.

There is a process for redefining morality. Its called voting. From 1960 to today voting has changed the acceptance of sodomy. That process was wrongfully interrupted by the Supreme Court's ruling.

The argument that the SC was protecting the consitution from a conflicting law has little foundation due to the fact that the consitution itself was born from you guessed it, people's agreeing on those laws!

Burke · Post by **Burke** » June 27, 2003, 12:21 pm

We limit liberty (or privacy) all the time by voting on laws that curb evil excesses.

Usually these liberties are limited when they impinge on someone elses liberties. Two dudes consentually poling each other = no impinged liberties.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 27, 2003, 12:35 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:

The constitution was constructed from consensus. The concept of privacy is linked to the concept of liberty which is linked to a bunch of guys sitting around and agreeing that liberty was important enough to create laws to protect it.

it was constructed from a consensus of a few individuals. not the consensus of the population at large.

Our liberty is limited however. By consensus we agree that privately murdering someone is bad, privately molesting children is bad, privately abusing you spouse is bad.

laws exist to preserve the rights of individuals within society, as well as to fostor the long term health of society. murder, child molestation, and domestic abuse are irrelevant to this thread.

We limit liberty (or privacy) all the time by voting on laws that curb evil excesses.

Society defines right and wrong by voting on it. Minus God, morality has no set definition other than public agreement on what is right and wrong.

I'd say less than 0.01% of all laws are voted on by referendum. They are voted on by representatives of the people, not by the people themselves.

There is a process for redefining morality. Its called voting. From 1960 to today voting has changed the acceptance of sodomy. That process was wrongfully interrupted by the Supreme Court's ruling. The argument that the SC was protecting the consitution from a conflicting law has little foundation due to the fact that the consitution itself was born from you guessed it, people's agreeing on those laws!

the premise of your arguments are flawed, if i understand correctly. \

You are basically saying that law arises from the approval of the populous at large, and as such has a certain imprimatur - or sacredness to go a step further - that should not be undermined for any reason if it is the will of the people at large.

THe population at large chooses (from a VERY limited pool) the people who will create and vote on legislation, but they do not do it themselves.

How many laws in this country exist because of special interest groups or corporate interests essentially paying for the legislation through campaign contributions, that would never be approved if it were submitted to public referendum? Popular support of legislation is totally irrelevant to its constitutionality.

BUT there is some mention in the majority opinion in this ruling of public opinion on sodomy having changed. So it is not irrelevant to the conversation when addressing one particular aspect of the legislation in question, and that is the definition of a "devient" act.

There are not objective definitions of "obscene" or "lewd" behavior. Those are subjective and vary from society to society. For example in some societies seeing a woman's face is not permitted in public, while in others women are more often than not topless on the beach.

If the basis of a legislative action is that an act is 'devient ' sexual behavior. Devient means something that strays significantly from the norm. If you are going to outlaw behaviors because they are "devient" then the societal views of the behavior do become relevant. And oral and anal sex are simply not that uncommon. Monica Lewinsky may be a slut for giving Bill a blow job, but shes not a criminal. And that is what the case is about.

And it is critical that we are talking about consentual sex between adults. You cant go down a slippery slope talking about rape or pedophelia. Those are irrelevant as they are not consentual acts between adults.

The opinion is fundamentally about privacy rights though and not about a population defining acceptable behavior. This is not public behavior.

The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's majority. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime"

and another quote that i think is helpful and better summarizes the situation that what i have written:

Legal analyst Kendall Coffey wrote:
"This means that for morality to be used as a basis to discriminate against a group that the legislature disfavors for some reason, there needs to be more than invoking the name of morality. You have to show some legitimate purpose, some societal harm that is implicated by the conduct that the state is seeking to outlaw"

Everybody in Texas is still free to think guys banging other guys is disgusting. They just arent free to use the police power of government to threaten their private, consentual, sexual behavior. Being immoral is not the same thing as being a criminal.

I say "goddamit" all the time, which is immoral to some people. I am not a criminal. Many people pray to 'graven idols', which would be immoral to some people, but it is not a criminal act. Those are critical distinctions - moral/immoral acts vs. legal/criminal acts.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 27, 2003, 12:47 pm

Great post Voro.

I think the bottom line here is that we have three branches of government for a reason. That reason is checks and balances. Just because a law is passed, does not make it just. The supreme court is the ultimate example of the 'buck stopping here'. If a case is tried, and elevated to their level, they have the power to examine the nature of the laws and determine it's true legality and justice.

Furthermore, our forefathers had the foresight to allow our laws, even our constitution to change over time. There are many ways this can occur, legislation is only one of them. Things that seemed like a good idea 200 years ago do not necessarily apply today.

Last I checked, people still believe in god, but they are no longer dressing like pilgrims, and wearing long sleeved wool clothing and hats when outside working on the farm (Amish and other fringe groups excluded).

Times... they are a changing.

Actus · Post by **Actus** » June 27, 2003, 12:52 pm

It is wrong for the Supreme Court to to jump in like this and violate the consensus process reserved by the states.

This is an inane argument, obviously. I don't think he really knows what he himself means by "consensus process." But, even though I agree with Voronwe et al, let me state the thrust of his argument in a different way:

Why do you think the Supreme Court read a right of sexual privacy into the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment? As the Court was hearing arguments from both sides in this case, I was fairly confident that the Court would issue a ruling that would strongly denounce the Texas law, but also decline to overturn the law on the grounds that the regulation of personal behavior on moral grounds should be best left to the states. Each state may prefer a different moral standard, which can more easily be changed by election of local officials, who can better express that standard. I think his "consensus process" argument can be better expressed by a strong preference for states rights in the arena of personal sexual privacy.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » June 27, 2003, 1:09 pm

So we shouldn't have a Judicial branch to protect the people from unjust laws? We should still have slavery in some states because the Federal Government forced to southern states to comply with something they didn't want. We should have no unity as a nation, and instead should be a collection of, basically, City-States? In other words, whatever the elected officials of each state decide is ok for their state should be fine, and no one should have any right or power to stop them. That way all the racists can all flood into one state, elect their own representatives and change all the state laws to mesh with their idea of how the world should be. That's what the Supreme Court protects against. They make sure the people, whether in the minority or the majority are protected from unjust laws that trample their rights as americans.

You seem to view one of the best parts of our form of government (Checks and Balances) as a draw back. A government in which the leaders lay down the rules, and no one can check their power leads fascism. The Constitution isn't about majority consent, it is about the right of everyone to be free to live their lives the way they want. The majority shall be oppressed by the minority, nor shall the minority be oppressed by the majority. Equal rights and equal protection for all, regardless of skin color, gender, religion, or even sexual orientation. The framers thought it was so important, that they tried make sure that no one should be able to step on anothers rights, at any level of the government. Granted, we have a history of intolerance, and discrimination, but we have steadily progressed towards the ideals that Constitution holds forth. We aren't there yet, but atleast we are on our way.

Furthermore, we don't agree by consensus that privately murdering someone is wrong, ect... We agree what murder is wrong, whether in private, or standing of the street in front of a thousand witnesses. We agree what murder is wrong because everyone agrees that doing something to someone without their consent is wrong. Children are too young to be able to give consent, hence molesting a child, even with their consent is wrong. However, most people think that what two consenting adults do to each other in the privacy of their homes is their business, and no one elses. If they were in public where non-consenting people could be exposed to what they were doing, it would still be illegal. That's true for straigt couples and gay couples alike.

In my personal opinion it should not be the right of the government to legislate morality. What people do to theirselves, as long as they do not hurt anyone else, should not be the governments, or anyone elses business. If you want to sit at home and shoot heroin all day long, then have at it. But, I think that level of freedom should come with a high degree of personal responsibility. I've gotten pretty far afield of where I started, so in closing I'll simply say this: You are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are wrong.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 27, 2003, 2:22 pm

I belive that the Supreme Court plays an important part in our government.

I also belive that they overstepped their authority in this ruling.

If I argue from a purely secular viewpoint, the SC has no authority to overwrite laws of consensus because the laws they are protecting are a product of consensus.

Voronwe, representative goverment expression of consensus. If our elected representatives got it wrong too many times, they'd be overthrown. I'm not talking about how consensus is expressed, rather I define how consensus builds morality.

I think we all can generally agree with the idea that consentual act that doesn't harm others should be legal.

Keep in mind however that in the past and somewhat today there is a segment of US population that sees the act of homosexuality as harmful to society in general. Anti-sodomy laws originally sought to criminalize sodomy because it was seen as harmful.

The same standard applies to heavy drug use.

What is changed is the public moral judgement that sodomy is a societal harm.

If you throw out God. How do you determine which of two conflicting laws are more important. How do you determine which of the two conflicting laws should be changed?

How do you determine morality for a society using purely secular methods? (Other than majority consensus)

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 27, 2003, 2:27 pm

How do you justify that a minority supported constitutional premise is "more special" than a majority supported law?

BTW if anti-sodomy laws are rejected by the majority then they'd be voted out by the state. (A process that was happening before being rudely interrupted by the SC)

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 27, 2003, 2:28 pm

Heh, oh yea I HIGHLY suggest the Medal of Honor series to any of you Halflife fans.

Its a kind of Macguyver does WWII type of game.