Team Gay Rejoice!

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 2, 2003, 4:15 am

who gave xyun the authority to hit the nail on the head !

noel · Post by **noel** » July 2, 2003, 4:20 am

He pretty much always does. Except when he calls me a coward. At any rate, I have a great deal of respect for Xyun.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » July 2, 2003, 6:16 am

You assume that the sodomy law was unconstitutional.

I say it was constitutional

Wow. Someone needs to try taking off their rose colored glasses for a second. The whole court case isn’t even about the changing times anymore and the accompanied morality shift. You quite clearly can’t understand the line of demarcation in which “popular opinion” or “will of the majority” impinges upon the basic concepts of personal freedom. Bottom line being that you can't tell mutually consenting adults that it is wrong to pack each other's fudge and send them to jail for it. There are no victims, no undue risks unto others; simply something that you don't like. A law outlawing an action (one with no victims nor undue risks unto others and between consenting adults) that many simply find distasteful is unconstitutional.

Just about every law is based upon a moral judgement.

It is "wrong" to steal.
It is "wrong" to murder.
It is "wrong" to cheat someone of their money.

etc. etc.

The real debate begins when different people sit down and try to determine the good moral judgements from the bad ones.

You assume that the sodomy law was unconstitutional.

I say it was constitutional.

Congratulations on writing a whole lot of nothing. Of course doing "evil" things is morally wrong. The main issue now is that homosexuality no longer qualifies as "evil" because it is better understood these days and measures are being taken to repeal old laws targeting them.

If this were some other law totally unrelated to anything you had moral issues against, I seriously doubt you would be raising a stink about this. I believe Virginia recently got around to repealing an old law which outlawed interracial marriages. If Virginia had not repealed that law themselves and a specific case brought the matter to the SC and the SC ruled against the constitutionality of that law, would you still be sitting here on your high horse blathering about abuse of power? Of course you will say "yes", but it's readily apparent that the truth would be otherwise.

The reason why you are alone on this issue is because everyone sees right through you. It is quite apparent that there is more than just a state’s rights issue at stake to you. Your arguments bringing in your God, morality, morality, morality, and morality (did I say morality?) paints it all out very clearly for the rest of us.

Xyun and Aranuil moreorless already summed things up about you.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 2, 2003, 10:20 am

I posted this yesterday but it never made it through (or I am being censored by those fascists Xoakwao and Pyrella).

The argument ( I think) Adex is trying to make here is more about the Supreme Court rather than the rehash of gays, marriage, religion etc.

The thing that scares me about the Supreme Court even taking this case is that it is them dabbling in judging morality for the U.S. people. In the case of this particular law, you might not have a problem. Yes, it was a stupid law and should have been removed from the books. What is frightening is how other courts can and will use this judgement to make other laws and attack other cases with ammunition that is now available from a Supreme Court decision.

This, like any other decision could come back up at some point and be reversed. The mere fact that they took a case like this could open up things that we never could imagine at this point. For Christ's sake, they are about to go back to court to attemot to have Roe vs Wade reversed. It is not this particular law that I think Adex is looking at, it is the bigger picture of where could they take this from here....

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 2, 2003, 11:05 am

The Supreme Court's ruling basically says that morality has nothing to do with an individual's basic rights. So, they are not dabbeling in issues of morality, they are defining the simple difference between basic rights and moral rights.

A person's morals/beliefs, however sacred they are to them, are not to infringe upon the inheirent rights of others. It was a good decision and one that needed to be expressed.

Btw, Roe vs Wade II already got turned down.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 2, 2003, 11:36 am

Morning guys,

I'm ignorant now? Great a new label, I'll throw that one in the shopping cart with the rest.

Everyone has character flaws Xyun, hell we're all human. Rejecting someone because their not perfect would leave one with no friends.

I haven't avoided your questions, frankly I've repeated myself numerous times yet some of you either fail to read, or fail to understand my previous posts.

I've done what I could to answer questions as they're asked. Forgive me if I lose track of a couple here and there. It is 10 on 1 at the moment and its hard to keep every question in sequence.

Fairweather, our fundamental rights are based on well agreed moral standard. It's impossible to separate inheirent rights from the moral code that constructed them.

Drasta before I hit the sack last night you asked me if I'd like to have someone tell me how I'm allowed to have sex.

No, I'd prefer that my sex life not be dictated by the goverment. You and I are in agreement here.

You mention that the only way morals come into play is when someone brings the bible into it. You and I disagree here, there are many moral codes that are defined in history and today by the public, without reference to the bible.

Aranuil, you mention that its sad that I don't see your point of view. I DO see your point of view.

I understand your viewpoint, I just have differing viewpoint from you.

Xyun, you mention that you hate christains because they're always trying to impress their religious beliefs on others. In an open society this happens all the time and it is not relegated to christains. I feel secular and non christain pressures all the time from people. For example consider the environmentalist movments. They have a strong belief system and they actively try to persuade others to join their cause. That's a great part of America, the freedom to express what you believe.

I ask you consider that my strong opinion on this supreme court ruling might be from a collection of experiences in my life that give me a unique perspective. That unique perspective, while different from your isn't necessarily ignorance. Might I have seen some things that you haven't that cause me to differ in opinions with you? Might the same be said of you in reference to me?

I like you Xyun. You're one of the people I enjoyed playing with. I respect your opinions and welcome them. You have a viewpoint that is quite unlike anyone else I know.

Kelgar,

It is not that I don't understand the line of demarcation in which "popular opinion" or "will of the majority" impinges upon the basic concepts of personal freedom.

The issue is you and have different opinions as to where that line of demarcation exists.

You mention that I wouldn't be expressing my opinion about the SC if it didn't involve this particular law.

While I must confess that it was the impact of this particular ruling that caused me to notice the SC's poor judgement, my concern with the ruling is able to exist independant of the particular law and I'd have the same gripe against any SC ruling that served to create new legislation.

I'm trying to be concise heaven forbid I start typing as much verbage as Varia but in this case I wanted to address each point since my last post.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » July 2, 2003, 11:59 am

And people have explained over and over again that what occured is EXACTLY in line with the supreme court's duties.

Homosexuality is not a character flaw
Homosexuality is not a crime like theft or murder.

Based off of what you have said earlier, you feel that homosexuality falls into both categories. It bothers me that there are people in my generation still look at homosexuality this way. I was hoping that they would have all died off by the time my generation is of the age to take power in public office

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » July 2, 2003, 12:14 pm

Xyun wrote:This thread is precisely why I hate Christians.

I keep christian friends for the same reason. However, none of my friends are as ignorant as you. I'm not saying that because I'm blowing a gasket, I'm saying that because it is absolutely true. But truth is not very high on your list of moral priorities so wtf does it matter?

Previously stated by the champion of truth

Xyun wrote:
Christians being discriminated against? ROFL! I discriminate against Christians because it would take a class A moron to believe in 2000 year old mythology. I assume the reason your silly-puddy brain would correlate religion and sexual orientation is the same reason you correlate Iraq with Al-Queda, or cock with vagina... YOU JUST DON'T KNOW THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

Then this post when the great perveyer of hate gets called out.

Xyun wrote:ROFL
Those that call me a bigot, a hypocrite, or a racist (again lol) do not understand what I am saying. I never said I cannot tolerate Christians, nor did I say I hate all Christians.

So in a previous post you state that all christians are class A morons. You get your ass handed to you for discriminating in a broad manner against believers of this religion. So you back the truck up, beeping all the way to a more palatable opinion.

Move to another thread and make the blanket statement.

Xyun wrote:This thread is precisely why I hate Christians.

Bah you are a waste of bandwidth and time. Stand up for your hatred boy, embrace it, you know if it were legal you would shoot those friends of yours that you hate. Or have them persecuted.

Based upon your hypocracy, your waffling and inane prattle you are awarded zero points.

Back on Topic, Adex although I understand your point of view, the SC has done its job according to the mandate of that body. As to the ruling, well I think it is about time.

Cheers

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 2, 2003, 12:15 pm

My faith is the most important thing I have. When it comes down to doing what Architect of the Universe says, or doing what flavor of the month society pressures me to do, I choose God.

Don't worry Chidoro, given time, homosexuality will be celebrated in America.

I would say acts of homosexuality are tolerated today, and that which we tolerate today our children embrace tomorrow.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 2, 2003, 1:39 pm

I see how we can move along.

Adex is one person. Adex is the primary person arguing against the court's ruling in THIS case. If the people (being our own subculture here on VV) here were to vote as Adex seems to feel was necessary, he would have to live with what has already happened.

The argument that the people didn't get to vote is pointless. The people voted in laws that the Supreme Court felt was unconstitutional. Now, do you think they did that out of popularity? Do you think they did it for political gain? Do you think they just said off of the top of their heads that this was wrong?

Read up on the Judicial Branch of our government and MAYBE, just MAYBE you will understand WHY the Supreme Court had the POWER to make that ruling. You can spout off about knowing all of this and going over it before, but all you are doing is adding yourself to a list of the blind. You refuse to look at anything around you in any other way than you were taught.

I respect your dedication to your religion Adex, but I have no respect for people like you that will read one book and declare that as the world is supposed to be. If you ever actually READ my previous post, I was pointing out how many discrepencies (sp) there have been in the difference versions produced. Some are very drastic. THAT is why I say to Think Again when you say whether something is right or wrong, morally or not.

And because I am flipping back and forth at work...to the person that said it's only because Adex is from Texas...erm, I am too, and nobody that I associate with feels the way Adex does. Then again, I am in Austin and I believe he's still in Bryan/College Station area (or was)...VERY big difference.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 2, 2003, 1:52 pm

It's impossible to separate inheirent rights from the moral code that constructed them.

Well, I would tell you that I am right and you are wrong in that assumption, but the SUPREME COURT beat me to it

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 2, 2003, 2:34 pm

I didn't read your posts about the bible and sodom in detail because it was way off topic. For me to try and go back and forth with you about your topic in this thread all the while talking with the rest of the people here is a little more than I care to do right now.

In the past we talked about you questions and I suggested a few threads for you to read.

If you want to start your own biblical discrepencies thread to go for it man. Just don't append it here where things are so bloated.

I find it facinating that you many of you cannot accept that somone might have a differing opinion from you. That does not make me blind or ignorant. It just means I see the world through a different viewpoint.

I give tolerance and understand your views. I challege you to accept that sometimes people have different opinions and move on.

It's not like the world's going to end if I don't agree with you on something.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 2, 2003, 2:47 pm

And while we're at it...

our fundamental rights are based on well agreed moral standard.

Standards change.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030 ... -9509r.htm

I realize I'm just saying what everyone else is telling you. You have no grounds for a legal argument against the SC's decision. Furthermore, the SC made certian that your moral arguments now hold no judicial power what-so-ever in regards to someone else's inherent rights.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 2, 2003, 4:07 pm

How do you define an inherient right?

Let's say you're a founding father and you're sitting around with those guys trying to come up with some inalienable rights. How would you proceed? Where would you pull from?

I venture that the Founding Father types determined base personal rights from their personal moral codes, which were influenced christain theology. (This explains the God references in early documents)

Even if you don't buy into the God concept, where do you pull from in this senario other than your personal sense of right and wrong, your "moral" code.

Morality and the Constitution are interwoven from what I see.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 2, 2003, 4:12 pm

I agree with you that standards change.

Public morality is born of public consensus and moral compromise in this country.

Right and wrong on a legislative scale is the act of codifying moral judgements that the majority of us can agree.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 2, 2003, 4:29 pm

BTW if any of you actually want to read the Supreme Court decision:

Grab It

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 2, 2003, 4:43 pm

How do you define an inherient right?

Well, let's start with the obvious...

Inherent: A natural part of, or a permanent feature of

Rights: an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature

So, we're talking about something abstract, therefore many people will have differeing definitions. So let's look at the Consitution and see what it says in relation to our argument.

"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

To some consensual adult men, buttfucking is something they want to do. A law forbidding that act is in direct violation of their pursuit of happiness. Therefore, it is unconstitutional.

where do you pull from in this senario other than your personal sense of right and wrong, your "moral" code.

Believe it or not, common sense does not come directly from the mouth of god. In that vein, dictating that sexual relationships between two adult gay men is illegal, is not only obviously wrong, it is also blanantly discriminatory and a shining example of bigotry.

I have a "live and let live" attitude. I do not push my morals onto others and do not wish other's pushed onto me. The law in Texas and other states is doing exactely that.

Many conservatives are asking "where does it end"? I have the same concern towards laws that infringe on an individual's basic rights.

Also, why is it that just homosexual men are being singled out? What are your views towards homosexual women? I mean, generally lesbians do not engage in sodomy, so what sort of stupid fucking law would you want to enact to make sex between 2 consenting women illegal?

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 2, 2003, 5:20 pm

No offense intended Adex, but I do not know how you can call homosexuality evil and profess to have faith.
Allow me.
Homosexuality is not evil. Murder is evil. Rape is evil. Theft is evil.
The difference between them all? Homosexuality is consensual. They do it because they prefer it that way, and they do not force it down other peoples throats, like many bible thumpers (that’s right) try to force heterosexuality down theirs.
You know what profound evil I have seen come out of homosexuality?
Nothing.
Yet you assume homosexuality is evil because.... god told you? No, you assume it because man told you, via the Bible likely.
To say it is wrong, I can deal with that. To associate it with evil, Adex... that is not a very valid statement.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 2, 2003, 5:55 pm

Acies,

What you're talking about is another topic. If you want to discuss it, start a new thread and I'll be happy to post there.

You'll find that my reasoning is rather down to earth in that matter.

Fairweather,

When I was reading your posts, I got the feeling that you belived morality was disconnected from lawmaking.

My last post presented why I belived morality and lawmaking are inseperable.

The base civil rights that are protected by the Constitution were born of our Founding Father's desire to reflect their own sense of morality. (endowed by our Creator etc. etc.)

What I'm trying to understand is why you belive there is a disconnect between morality and lawmaking.

The relevance of this is linked to the idea of laws defining moral standards.

This of course is unrelated to my gripe about the SC's ruling.

If I'm missing your point about morality/laws please correct me. I don't want to misunderstand your statements.

On a side, any mention I make of homosexuality applies to both genders.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 2, 2003, 5:59 pm

I'm not sure why I continue to participate in this thread, but...

I don't think the 'founding father's' intent is relevant in this discussion. What is relevant is the framework for government that they provided. Within that framework is the means to protect an individuals rights from an unconstitutional or unfair law.

I say again... working as intended.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 2, 2003, 6:05 pm

99% of the time I'd say its working as intended as well Aranuil.

The founding fathers relate to a question raised by Fairweather.

I'm simply responding to his question.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » July 2, 2003, 6:26 pm

Well Adex, if the majority of your society feels that this law should be in place, you could always elect representatives who will ammend your constitution...

noel · Post by **noel** » July 2, 2003, 6:28 pm

If we go with the assumption that the process works 99% of the time:

1. What is wrong with the process, and how should it be improved?

2. Furthermore, why should it be permissable for the legislative branch to pass laws that allow society to determine an individual's morality if the judiciary branch cannot also examine the validity of said laws, and determine their constitutionality?

3. I realize that repealing said laws might look like a moral judgement, but surely they are no more of a moral judgement than when the legislative branch originally passes them. Wouldn't you say?

To clarify, I'm not talking about rape, murder, theft, etc. so, don't even bring them into the discussion. That's not the type of morality I'm talking about it so don't please don't attempt to muddle the issue.

4. Additionally, and as an example, suppose the majority of voters in the country were muslims, and they dictated that all citizens in the US should have to pray 7 times per day, read from the Quran several times daily after washing themselves, and avoid certain types of food on certain days. Clearly, no one would be 'hurt' in this example, but would it be fair for the majority to force their morality on the individual?

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Legal definition of 'Liberty' in the above passage:

The ''liberty'' guaranteed by the due process clause has been variously defined by the Court, as will be seen hereinafter. In general, in the early years, it meant almost exclusively ''liberty of contract,'' but with the demise of liberty of contract came a general broadening of ''liberty'' to include personal, political and social rights and privileges. 74 Nonetheless, the Court is generally chary of expanding the concept absent statutorily recognized rights.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 2, 2003, 6:36 pm

I'd rather push for a constitutional amendment that allows a majority vote by 40 state legislatures to overturn unpopular Supreme Court decisions.

This would curb the influence of any activist judges who misuse their position to further a political agenda.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 2, 2003, 6:44 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I'd rather push for a constitutional amendment that allows a majority vote by 40 state legislatures to overturn unpopular Supreme Court decisions.

This would curb the influence of any activist judges who misuse their position to further a political agenda.

Don't dare answer my questions. That would imply you'd actually have to confront the logical fallacy you've been perpetuating.

If you're not going to answer my previous questions, don't answer this one.

Do you honestly believe that the 40 state legislatures would overturn this decision in the first place?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 2, 2003, 6:49 pm

Aranuil,

to your point 1.

I belive the SC has the ability to abuse it's power.

point 2.

I legislative branch has more right to pass laws that allow society to determine an individual's morality than a judiciary branch because a legislative body is more accountable and representative of the people's will, than an small unelected and unaccountable group of judges.

point 3.

This goes back to point 2.

point 4.

A law such as you describe would be unconstitutional based on constitutional protections other than the 14th amendment which this sodomy ruling is based. Because of this, its hard to attach my specific gripe to this example.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 2, 2003, 6:52 pm

My suggestion for a constitutional amendment was in response to Wulfran.

Give me time to type Aranuil, I'll not dodge your questions.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 2, 2003, 7:02 pm

This may or may not relate but

Aristotle wrote:The Law is reason free from passion

I believe that your arguement resides on you passionately believing that homosexuals should not be allow to make love.
That being said, why should we enforce a law based on passion instead of reason, as the case presently is.
Also, the legislative branch is probably the most corrupt (at least potentially), and also our HoR members, senators, etc. are not all trained to interpret the Consititution, as they are politicians and not judges.

Anyway... continue.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 2, 2003, 7:38 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Aranuil,

to your point 1.

I belive the SC has the ability to abuse it's power.

Well, the Supreme court is not just one person, they are not elected, they don't have to concern themselves with reelection, and even if a President appoints them, they still are scrutinized by the Senate (it's been a while forgive me if there is a discrepancy in the manner they're appointed). The point I'm making? The founding fathers have done everything possible to take away the incentive/motive for the Supreme Court to abuse their power. Making statements like the above would imply some grand conspiracy. I really don't think such a trivial case in the grand scheme of things merits such a conspiracy.

I believe far more strongly in the ability of Special Interest groups to abuse the power of the Legislative branch of our government.

point 2.

I legislative branch has more right to pass laws that allow society to determine an individual's morality than a judiciary branch because a legislative body is more accountable and representative of the people's will, than an small unelected and unaccountable group of judges.

I strongly disagree. Just because the majority thinks something should be a certain way does not mean that it should. We are not trying to protect the majority here. We're trying to protect the individual. We're trying to protect the minority. What is good for you is not necessarily good for everyone. Think about that.

point 4.

A law such as you describe would be unconstitutional based on constitutional protections other than the 14th amendment which this sodomy ruling is based. Because of this, its hard to attach my specific gripe to this example.

And thus, you illustrate the fallacy most clearly.

There is nothing in the legislative process to keep an unconstitutional law from being passed if the majority votes for it. If we wanted to, we could make laws that would impinge on all manner of liberties and personal freedoms. Fortunately as a citizen of the United States we as individuals have a means to protect ourselves from such laws. That means is the Judiciary branch of our goverment.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 2, 2003, 10:08 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I didn't read your posts about the bible and sodom in detail because it was way off topic. For me to try and go back and forth with you about your topic in this thread all the while talking with the rest of the people here is a little more than I care to do right now.

In the past we talked about you questions and I suggested a few threads for you to read.

If you want to start your own biblical discrepencies thread to go for it man. Just don't append it here where things are so bloated.

I find it facinating that you many of you cannot accept that somone might have a differing opinion from you. That does not make me blind or ignorant. It just means I see the world through a different viewpoint.

I give tolerance and understand your views. I challege you to accept that sometimes people have different opinions and move on.

It's not like the world's going to end if I don't agree with you on something.

Adex, your whole reply is WHY I asked you to read it. The post is stating facts about the interpretations of the bible. You are the one who seems to think that morality has nothing to do with religion. I disagree with this. The fact that you never read my post also shows how the use of sodomy in all of your posts could mean that people are being mean to each other. Read it. It shouldn't take more than 5 minutes for someone that has an education which I know/assume you do.

Like I said before, I respect people who believe in their religions, but it is when the same people refuse to "take their nose out of The Book" and look at how the one they are reading differs from other interpretations of the exact same book which I personally find odd, and has led me down different paths through life.

You seem to also think that I am ignoring your posts regarding the other threads. I do believe I read and/or posted on those threads as well. People throw around shit and don't expect the walls to be stained afterwards. You throw the same fecal matter here as you did there, and you have stained the walls. It is for this reason that I brought those items regarding religion up.

Now, I know that you have"left" the topic of religion (yet again), and I realize that you are going back to the Supreme Court and it's function in American government. It was one of the three original branches. Remember learning about "checks and balances"...no I am not referring to the thing you balance before you pay your rent. The Supreme court is one of the Three original branches set up by the "Founding Fathers" as some call them, I shall just refer to them as the people since they in some way MUST have represented the people for anyone to pay attention to ANYthing they had to say.

Basically everything that you have said Adex, is that the people who founded the country did not have the interest of the public in mind. Well, if that were the case, how is the government still in force? That is what I cannot understand throughout this entire thread. People post that they should have done this or that or nothing or eaten juicy pineapples. Hell, they did their job. They looked at the matter and decided. Now THEIR reasoning is being questioned....checks and balances. Everything they have done can be undone as well...but will that happen? I honestly don't think so. I think that there is enough proof that they have made the "right" decision in this. There are many OTHER laws out there that affect GLBTG couples that this may help/hurt. We'll see about that, but for now the decision they made stands. Once again, they wouldn't exist if the public at the time that the people who created the branch did not believe in it either. So...Everyone before you was wrong.

That's where I personally have a difference of opinion with you Adex. You seem to think that the "people" should have the right to choose. They do.

Do you want a man or woman in your life?

There's your answer. You have that right to choose, just as you did before. Nobody took anything from you, but they gave some other people the right to feel more comfortable with their lives not being "illegal" in a way.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 2, 2003, 10:21 pm

Let's refocus.

Here's the root:

This ruling declared that the texas law was unconstitutional due to the due process law of the 14th amendment.

For the record let's look at it:

Amendment XIV
(1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The last two lines are the important ones.

There has been a trend in the past few decades for activist Supreme Court judges to use the 14th amendment to further their political views by claiming great latitude by using the Due Process clause. Did you know that the same trick was used to justify the abortion agenda in Roe v Wade? There's a trend here.

It's not just me that sees this, Scalia, Chief Justice Reinquest, and Thomas in their disenting opinion wrote:

"Today ’s opinion is the product of a Court,which is the
product of a law-profession culture,that has largely signed
on to the so-called homosexual agenda,by which I mean
the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists di-
rected at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has
traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."....

..."It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the
culture war,departing from its role of assuring, as
neutral observer,that the democratic rules of engagement
are observed."

A few activists in the Supreme Court are wrongly using their position to push political goals that should be properly expressed through the legislative process. Hell, it is a successful (and legitiment) tactic that's repealed many a sodomy law since 1960. The SC shouldn't be messing with it!

"Social perceptions of sexual
and other morality change over time,and every group has
the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of
such matters is the best.That homosexuals have achieved
some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact
that Texas is one of the few remaining States that crimi-
nalize private,consensual homosexual acts.But per-
suading one ’s fellow citizens is one thing,and imposing
one ’s views in absence of democratic majority will is some-
thing else."........

....."What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of
traditional democratic action,and its hand should not be
stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitu-
tional right ” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change.
It is indeed true that “later generations can see
that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve
only to oppress,” and when that happens,later
generations can repeal those laws."

The Supreme Court has gone liberal activist. It's not their mandate.

I don't like it, and you shouldn't either.

As far as the law? It's a dud, I'm glad it gone. I disapprove of the way it was removed.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 2, 2003, 10:24 pm

Start a new thread Booghaz and Acries, we can talk there.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » July 2, 2003, 10:25 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:The Supreme Court has gone liberal activist. It's not their mandate.

I don't like it, and you shouldn't either.

Strange, the Supreme Court went conservative constructionist in deciding that Mr. Bush was to be the next president of the United States - yet for some reason I doubt you were concerned with that heh

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 2, 2003, 10:26 pm

taking bets on what page adex just snaps and starst screaming PRAISE JESUS ALL FAGS BURN IN HELL

I say page 6

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 2, 2003, 10:26 pm

I agree Adex...that's why I said it could either hurt or help other laws that are already in place especially in Texas that involve "sodomy" in one way or another. If I remember correctly though, wording in the constitution was deliberately left vague. While that can cause problems/disagreements down the road, it also leaves more room for future "standards" to figure into the equation.

For Kyou...I don't see that happenning and I wasn't referring to him referring to religion etc in that way...sorry if that was misunderstood

noel · Post by **noel** » July 2, 2003, 10:27 pm

I disagree with what you said. I do this largely because of the drastically different way in which you and I view homosexuality.

Additionally, while the dissenting opinions were compelling, the opinions expressed by the majority of the justices were, in my opinion, more compelling.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » July 2, 2003, 10:30 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

Also - THIS is the important line in the 14th amendment that is the basis for decisions such as this one and Roe V. Wade....this justifies those decisions

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 2, 2003, 10:30 pm

I wuv you too Kyo!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 2, 2003, 10:33 pm

Fesuni, if conservative SC judges use the Due Process clause as a wide swinging crowbar that plows in a new conservative law. I will be equally angry at their overstepping their authority.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 2, 2003, 10:38 pm

I am waiting for that new thread Adex.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 2, 2003, 10:42 pm

Adex wrote:Fesuni, if conservative SC judges use the Due Process clause as a wide swinging crowbar that plows in a new conservative law. I will be equally angry at their overstepping their authority.

This statement is particularly humourous when you consider 7 of the 9 current justices were appointed by Republican Presidents, compared to only two by a Democratic President (Clinton).

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 2, 2003, 10:53 pm

The real stretch Fesuni is the trying to construct this idea of perfect privacy based on the 14th amendment.

Lets whoop out Scalia again, he explains things nicely

Texas Penal Code Ann.§21.06(a)(2003)undoubtedly
imposes constraints on liberty.So do laws prohibiting
prostitution,recreational use of heroin,and,for that mat-
ter,working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery.
But there is no right to “liberty ”under the Due Process
Clause,though today ’s opinion repeatedly makes that
claim.

The Fourteenth Amendment expressly allows States to deprive their citi-
zens of “liberty,”so long as “due process of law ” is provided:
“No state shall ...deprive any person of life,liberty,
or property, without due process of law .”

Even here his examples are not on par with homosexual acts.

A 60 hour work week can negatively affect society.
Recreational use of heroin, and prostitution as well have clear negative side effects.
Whereas acts of homosexuality are hard to sell as societally harmful.

Again the sodomy law rests on a weak premise of societal harm and as a result is easily defeated in a state legislature.

What bugs me again is this privacy construct. Read that 14th amendment again and try to work out the path to a right to privacy. It's kinda there but it's so vague you can use it to justify all types of crazy things.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 2, 2003, 10:55 pm

Aranuil,

Some of those judges appointed by republican presidents have a very liberal track record. It just goes to show you how limited the screening process can be for a position not accountable to the voters.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 2, 2003, 10:56 pm

Acies wrote:I am waiting for that new thread Adex.

Thread started. Knock yourself out.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 2, 2003, 10:59 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Aranuil,

Some of those judges appointed by republican presidents have a very liberal track record. It just goes to show you how limited the screening process can be for a position not accountable to the voters.

The appointments are just as accountable to voters as a bill that passes through the senate given that:

Power to nominate the Justices is vested in the President of the United States, and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 2, 2003, 11:05 pm

Sure, but the weakness of the procedure is that it assumes the person successfully screened will never change their views.

The accountablity system is static, whereas the appointee changes over time.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see any other way around it. You need to provide an environment for those guys that's free of the typical Washington pressures.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 2, 2003, 11:17 pm

Aranuil wrote:
Acies wrote:I am waiting for that new thread Adex.
Thread started. Knock yourself out.

Thanks

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 2, 2003, 11:21 pm

Adex tell me why you think that law the law was constitutional .... and the supreme court is appointed people for life or until they feel like retiring so that no one can put pressure on them to vote a certian way on a law.

Bible humpers are the reasons that there are laws like this .... my mom is against gay marriage she told me that ... im gay .. she doesn't know ... but i can bet you that she would go with gay marriages because she loves me ...

and as for the gov't telling you to have sex ... its ok as long as it doesn't effect you? just turn and look the other way ... but one day you might be the one that is in trouble and everyone is just turning and looking the other way when you are asking for help.

and i think it will be on Page 6 halfway down when he cracks

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 2, 2003, 11:41 pm

I've answered your questions as best I could allready man.

As far as constitutionality read above closely.

To you other question I think laws that criminalize sexual acts are legal but out of touch with today's morality.

I don't think they should be on the books. The proper way to remove them is to vote them out.

For more detail read the previous pages.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 2, 2003, 11:46 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I've answered your questions as best I could allready man.

As far as constitutionality read above closely.

To you other question I think laws that criminalize sexual acts are legal but out of touch with today's morality.

I don't think they should be on the books. The proper way to remove them is to vote them out.

For more detail read the previous pages.

It get it now.
However, it was Texas state legislature that said it was illegal for gays to procreate. Not Federal. Therefore, it was under the juristiction of the Judical branch, not the Legislative.
At least that is what I believe to be the case.