Sodomy Laws

[Possessed Freak]

The people who want to be able to own all the guns they desire, but then in the same breath say that certain sexual acts between consenting adults shouldn't be allowed.. for example. That's hypocritical. I think adults should be able to own whatever guns they want *and* engage in whatever consensual activity they want with other adults.

Huh? Because I want guns I have to be pro sodomy? (I do want and have guns and per my previous statement, I am against anti-sodomy laws)

 

[Nemesis 1]

Are you talking about human or animal sodomy. If its Animal sodomy. Do you believe its Ok to have sex with an unconstenting partner. So unless the animal is a consenting adult its rape or malesting.

 

[zsdersw]

Huh? Because I want guns I have to be pro sodomy? (I do want and have guns and per my previous statement, I am against anti-sodomy laws)

Don't set up a strawman.

It's hypocritical to think that the government has no right to tell you that you cannot have guns, but that the government has the right to say what you, as an adult, cannot do sexually with other consenting adults.

 

[werepossum]

Don't set up a strawman.

It's hypocritical to think that the government has no right to tell you that you cannot have guns, but that the government has the right to say what you, as an adult, cannot do sexually with other consenting adults.

That's arguable. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution, #2 in the Bill of Rights; sodomy is a gray area. Personally I believe that government should demonstrate a very compelling societal reason that cannot practically be addressed through other means before it is allowed to discriminate or to infringe on anyone's freedom and G-d given right to the pursuit of happiness, but that is less strong than an actual Constitutional right spelled out.

Speaking of sodomy, by what insanity have we legislatively linked two (or more) hot lesbians with some dude screwing a goat? Nemesis is right, there cannot be any reasonable link between the two. (Queue "Sex with ducks" video.)

 

[Possessed Freak]

Don't set up a strawman.

It's hypocritical to think that the government has no right to tell you that you cannot have guns, but that the government has the right to say what you, as an adult, cannot do sexually with other consenting adults.

Why draw the line at "sexually"?

I imagine the interactions of 2 people are vastly different to which items I believe I should be allowed to possess.

 

[Darwin333]

The closer a behavior comes to affecting the viability or survival of a society, ie marriage, the more interest a society should have in regulating it.

Do you really want the liberals "regulating" one of your religious sacraments? What you just said can easily be used as an argument to require genetic testing before a marriage license is issued. Oooops, sorry, you and your girl both have a gene that might produce undesirable offspring.

Always remember, when you give control of something to the .gov eventually the side you disagree with will be in power and have that control.

 

[zsdersw]

That's arguable. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution, #2 in the Bill of Rights; sodomy is a gray area. Personally I believe that government should demonstrate a very compelling societal reason that cannot practically be addressed through other means before it is allowed to discriminate or to infringe on anyone's freedom and G-d given right to the pursuit of happiness, but that is less strong than an actual Constitutional right spelled out.

4th Amendment. I'd say sexual acts between consenting adults falls under the right to privacy (assuming, of course, these acts are done privately).

 

[zsdersw]

Why draw the line at "sexually"?

I don't.

I imagine the interactions of 2 people are vastly different to which items I believe I should be allowed to possess.

Just like gun ownership is explicit in the 2nd Amendment, the right to privacy is in the 4th.

 

[werepossum]

4th Amendment. I'd say sexual acts between consenting adults falls under the right to privacy (assuming, of course, these acts are done privately).

Partially, but those gays who march in parades and file lawsuits cannot in good conscience claim an invasion of privacy if punished for gay behavior. The 4th Amendment does prevent the federal government from unreasonable searches to obtain evidence of sodomy, but obviously this wouldn't apply to acts trumpeted for all to hear or those admitted in court proceedings. And as Boomer pointed out, those actions are a non-issue since sodomy (as opposed to bestiality) is protected behavior now anyway.

 

[zsdersw]

Partially, but those gays who march in parades and file lawsuits cannot in good conscience claim an invasion of privacy if punished for gay behavior.

Note where I said privately.

And as Boomer pointed out, those actions are a non-issue since sodomy (as opposed to bestiality) is protected behavior now anyway.

Now, yes. What still concerns me are the people who don't think it should be.. and that's what this is about.

 

[woolfe9999]

That's arguable. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution, #2 in the Bill of Rights; sodomy is a gray area. Personally I believe that government should demonstrate a very compelling societal reason that cannot practically be addressed through other means before it is allowed to discriminate or to infringe on anyone's freedom and G-d given right to the pursuit of happiness, but that is less strong than an actual Constitutional right spelled out.

I agree. In fact, I probably go further than you in terms of textualism in the Constitution. I am strongly opposed to anti-sodomy laws and anti-abortion laws, but IMO in spite of the SCOTUS's prior rulings, neither is actually protected by the U.S. Constitution, with one caveat: an anti-sodomy law which criminalizes only homosexual sodomy should be struck down under equal protection. IMO there ought to be an explicit right of privacy in the U.S. Constitution like there is in the California Constitution, but there isn't. Accordingly, these issues should be decided state by state.

- wolf

 

[PJABBER]

Do you really want the liberals "regulating" one of your religious sacraments?

Last I read, the US Constitution protects my religious rights. Any updates there?

What you just said can easily be used as an argument to require genetic testing before a marriage license is issued.

Hellooo? So far as I know, every State already has laws that you take a blood test before you get a marriage license. I guess you haven't found the right one yet, huh?

Oooops, sorry, you and your girl both have a gene that might produce undesirable offspring.

Sorry that you are a eunuch, but my girl (I actually call her my wife, but then I am not 12 either) and I fully agree that we desired our kids. If we had you, well, we would have had to offer a different comment altogether! :whiste:

Always remember, when you give control of something to the .gov eventually the side you disagree with will be in power and have that control.

Thank you for that reminder. I very much look forward to whomever takes over from the Dems in February, 2011 to fully exercise all of the powers that were usurped by the Dems to turn back their agenda in turn. With more to come two years after that!

 

[Craig234]

I agree. In fact, I probably go further than you in terms of textualism in the Constitution. I am strongly opposed to anti-sodomy laws and anti-abortion laws, but IMO in spite of the SCOTUS's prior rulings, neither is actually protected by the U.S. Constitution, with one caveat: an anti-sodomy law which criminalizes only homosexual sodomy should be struck down under equal protection. IMO there ought to be an explicit right of privacy in the U.S. Constitution like there is in the California Constitution, but there isn't. Accordingly, these issues should be decided state by state.

- wolf

Given your logic here, do you even support Griswold v. Connecticut?

Where in your constitutional opinion is there room for any correction in the application of the constitution for such progress as the understanding of homosexuality?

Plessy v. Ferguson was just fine for the country's culture on race around 1900 - not later, and it was overturned. You don't seem to agree with any such progress.

You would allow states to continue to criminalize gay sex, apparently, not recognizing the changed appreciation in the nature of homosexuality and its violation of rights.

That's just the sort of wrong approach to the constitution we don't need IMO.

I'm sure you won't reply with a straw man about how this is just ignoring what it says.

Plessy could easily be defended by your narrow, literal approach, as could sodomy laws and many other injustices.

It's not easy to write a constitution that will work 200 years later when technology and understanding of things like homosexuality are different.

It takes better than the narrow literal approach for it to do so. And the amendment process was not meant to be used for every specific issue like those.

Griswold used another approach to protect the right for citizens to not have the government say they can't use birth control pills because the government doesn't approve of the citizens having sex with the chance of creating children reduced, as it only approves of unprotected sex in marriage. It based this on a 'penumbra' of protection for privacy - one which does not exist in your approach and did in theirs. Who has the better approach? I'd say they are more faithful to the constitution here.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Yeah, but the 'penumbra' is kind of a joke in legal circles. The Supreme Court does not follow the 'penumbra' of rights. It finds the right elsewhere.

 

[woolfe9999]

Given your logic here, do you even support Griswold v. Connecticut?

Where in your constitutional opinion is there room for any correction in the application of the constitution for such progress as the understanding of homosexuality?

Plessy v. Ferguson was just fine for the country's culture on race around 1900 - not later, and it was overturned. You don't seem to agree with any such progress.

You would allow states to continue to criminalize gay sex, apparently, not recognizing the changed appreciation in the nature of homosexuality and its violation of rights.

That's just the sort of wrong approach to the constitution we don't need IMO.

I'm sure you won't reply with a straw man about how this is just ignoring what it says.

Plessy could easily be defended by your narrow, literal approach, as could sodomy laws and many other injustices.

It's not easy to write a constitution that will work 200 years later when technology and understanding of things like homosexuality are different.

It takes better than the narrow literal approach for it to do so. And the amendment process was not meant to be used for every specific issue like those.

Griswold used another approach to protect the right for citizens to not have the government say they can't use birth control pills because the government doesn't approve of the citizens having sex with the chance of creating children reduced, as it only approves of unprotected sex in marriage. It based this on a 'penumbra' of protection for privacy - one which does not exist in your approach and did in theirs. Who has the better approach? I'd say they are more faithful to the constitution here.

Craig, while I don't support hyper-literalism in the Constitution, unfortunately there is nothing in there to protect private sexual behavior without reaching WAY outside the text. I wish there was. The only exception, as I said, is equal protection, if the law discriminates against gays. However, a law that bans all sodomy wouldn't implicate equal protection. In California, we have an explicit right of privacy in our Constitution. We should definitely have one added to the federal Constitution. If we had an amendment to guarentee privacy rights, that would implicate sexual behavior without having to specifically mention it. That's the difference between ordinary respecting of the text as written and hyper strict textualism. The hyper-literalist would say, sodomy isn't protected unless the Constitution specifically says sodomy is protected. I don't go that far. I just think the Constitution needs to mention privacy as a protected right.

Plessy v. Ferguson was a wrongly decided case IMO. The 14th Amendment guarentees equal protection. Separate but equal in inherently unequal. This was true as much in the 1890's as it was in the 1950's as it is now. That is a perfect example of decisions being made based on then current cultural factors and not respecting the text.

To be clear, I *strongly* oppose the government, at any level, interfering with sexual behavior among consenting adults.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

Craig, while I don't support hyper-literalism in the Constitution, unfortunately there is nothing in there to protect private sexual behavior without reaching WAY outside the text. I wish there was. The only exception, as I said, is equal protection, if the law discriminates against gays. However, a law that bans all sodomy wouldn't implicate equal protection. In California, we have an explicit right of privacy in our Constitution. We should definitely have one added to the federal Constitution. If we had an amendment to guarentee privacy rights, that would implicate sexual behavior without having to specifically mention it. That's the difference between ordinary respecting of the text as written and hyper strict textualism. The hyper-literalist would say, sodomy isn't protected unless the Constitution specifically says sodomy is protected. I don't go that far. I just think the Constitution needs to mention privacy as a protected right.

Plessy v. Ferguson was a wrongly decided case IMO. The 14th Amendment guarentees equal protection. Separate but equal in inherently unequal. This was true as much in the 1890's as it was in the 1950's as it is now. That is a perfect example of decisions being made based on then current cultural factors and not respecting the text.

To be clear, I *strongly* oppose the government, at any level, interfering with sexual behavior among consenting adults.

- wolf

Very well said. Enforce the actual text of the Constitution, and if it no longer applies, change the damned text. I would say there should be an Amendment guaranteeing that government cannot infringe on the personal freedom of any individual without demonstrating a compelling social need that cannot be otherwise addressed, but in today's legal climate that would mean little to nothing. Hell, they'd probably rule that since you could be selling that ass in Nevada, the federal government can regulate it under the commerce clause since by NOT selling your ass in Nevada you have affected the market for interstate prostitution.

 

[MotF Bane]

Very well said. Enforce the actual text of the Constitution, and if it no longer applies, change the damned text. I would say there should be an Amendment guaranteeing that government cannot infringe on the personal freedom of any individual without demonstrating a compelling social need that cannot be otherwise addressed, but in today's legal climate that would mean little to nothing. Hell, they'd probably rule that since you could be selling that ass in Nevada, the federal government can regulate it under the commerce clause since by NOT selling your ass in Nevada you have affected the market for interstate prostitution.

The document may not be perfect, but at this point, the more severe problem is the government that interprets it however it damn well pleases.

 

[Howard]

You and Narmer seem to have the same problem; you think you speak for everyone.

So, who cares?

 

[Craig234]

Craig, while I don't support hyper-literalism in the Constitution, unfortunately there is nothing in there to protect private sexual behavior without reaching WAY outside the text. I wish there was. The only exception, as I said, is equal protection, if the law discriminates against gays. However, a law that bans all sodomy wouldn't implicate equal protection. In California, we have an explicit right of privacy in our Constitution. We should definitely have one added to the federal Constitution. If we had an amendment to guarentee privacy rights, that would implicate sexual behavior without having to specifically mention it. That's the difference between ordinary respecting of the text as written and hyper strict textualism. The hyper-literalist would say, sodomy isn't protected unless the Constitution specifically says sodomy is protected. I don't go that far. I just think the Constitution needs to mention privacy as a protected right.

Plessy v. Ferguson was a wrongly decided case IMO. The 14th Amendment guarentees equal protection. Separate but equal in inherently unequal. This was true as much in the 1890's as it was in the 1950's as it is now. That is a perfect example of decisions being made based on then current cultural factors and not respecting the text.

To be clear, I *strongly* oppose the government, at any level, interfering with sexual behavior among consenting adults.

- wolf

It's very lawyerly of you to 'spin' the sides away from you being too literal, to creating the 'hyper literal' side you disagree with, of whom there are no known members.

You did not answer my question whether you support Griswold v. Connecticut.

I don't buy your sample issue to define the disagreement. I don't think you meant to make a straw man but you did.

If the constitution said Congress shall make no laws prohibiting consensual sexual acts between lawful parties, that would satisfy the 'literalists' on sodomy, without needing to say 'sodomy'. But that's not what we're discussing - we're discussing something else entirely you did not seem to answer, the 'penumbra', the spirit, of the constitution used for a decision like Griswold, in opposition to the more literal approach you take.

No offense, but you are reminding me of Rand Paul in answer to Rachel Maddow, when she asked him about his opposition to the part of the civil rights bill that prohibits private business from discriminating based on race, and his answer only wanted to talk about how much he believes in the rest of the bill - much as you are not discussing Griswold, but instead offering up 'hyper literalists' that you oppose, if they even exist.

If you don't want to discuss the issue, please just say so, and don't change the topic. Please re-read my earlier post and address the Griswold type issues.

We agree on the right to privacy being a good thing, but not on your apparent literal approach to the constitution that contradicts what it actually says and its intent.

 

[zsdersw]

So, who cares?

Caring about it isn't required for it to be true.

 

[cumhail]

Hellooo? So far as I know, every State already has laws that you take a blood test before you get a marriage license. I guess you haven't found the right one yet, huh?

Only two states require a blood test for a marriage license: Mississippi and Montana.

 

[PJABBER]

Only two states require a blood test for a marriage license: Mississippi and Montana.

Thanks for the correction! In checking this out with a cursory search I found so many contradictory lists that I am not sure which would be authoritative. FWIW, DC and NY are two jurisdictions that are usually included beyond Mississippi and Montana and blood testing may be required by counties.

It USED to be almost a universal requirement but for some reason it no longer is mandated in the U.S. This is kind of a shocker to me and reflects a real change.

I thought it was a good thing to do as a female who has negative blood type and conceives with a father who has a positive type will likely have Rh incompatibility with any positive blood type baby after the first one. Maybe they now give gamma globulin shots universally to mothers with negative blood types?

The tests were also used to discover STDs and sickle cell.

Even if the law may no longer be on the books I would still think it a very good idea for future partners to get a comprehensive blood test and a check for STDs.