U.S. Supreme Court overturns Texas sodomy law that prohibited consensual sex by same-sex partners.

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

First, when is stealing considered "stealing"? Is charging 10X what an item is worth stealing?

Not if the buyer agrees to pay 10X what the item is worth. Ignorance on their part, failing to shop around for a better deal != being stolen from.

According to most people ripping people off like that is considered stealing and it is in some cases against the law

If there is deception involved on the part of the seller, I agree. Fraud is certainly not a victimless crime.

Or is it narrowly defined as taking something without permission?

Or decieving the rightfull owner to gain possesion, IMO yes.

A "victim" is only a victim because society and morality dictate it.

No, a victim is a victim (of an actual crime anyway) because their rights have been violated. People's rights don't change. Morals, society's views, they are too dynamic, too subjective to dictate law. What is OK one day, in one society, is not OK the next. But unfortunatley they do have much bearing on which rights are arbitrarily recognized and ignored.

Next, so by overturning sodomy laws in this fashion you aren't giving permission? Illegal->legal ...sounds like permission to me(and a lot of gay activists )

No, you aren't. Or do you have permission to cheat on your wife ? Lie to your parents? Do any number of morally reprehinsible things just because it's not deemed criminal behavior by the government?

Also, since there is no "victim" in the other 3 I mentioned - we should overturn those laws too? <-please answer

CkG

Yes, we should. Like I said, I'm not saying these people have a 'right' to commit sodomy, incest, whatever, I'm saying that without a victim the government has no right to label it a crime.


I'm a Christian, and find it downright blasphemous that people seem to think they have to rely on government, fellow sinful and imperfect man, to enforce His law. I have faith God will take care of that himself. His laws, His punishment for breaking them. Jesus had faith in that as well. There is not one instance of Jesus endorsing man enforcing His rule through law or threat of punishment by man. Quite the opposite actually. If this isn't a religious issue for you, ignore this rant. If it's strictly moral, I have guess we have to agree to disagree. I just don't feel government or society has any business equating laws (protection of rights) with morals (opinion of 'right' and 'wrong').

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

So stealing IS a law based on morality, no?

It is in the U.S. at least. Also, ethically, (noting ethics exist apart from morals [the former arrived at through thought and reason alone, the later through the divine]) we can conclude stealing is wrong. So choose your light sabre, my young padawon.

Anyway, sorry to interfere with your fencing match with Gonad and for helping steer this thread off the road and into the ditch of the weird!

yup. which is why some islamic countries have laws against lending with interest. its "immoral" for them. different from ethics.

Sidebar
----------------
Dictionary
Ethics:
1a. A set of principles of right conduct.
1b. A theory or a system of moral values
2. The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.

Morals:
Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong.
----------------

Ethics are based on morals Basically ethics are a set of morals.

CkG

 

[0roo0roo]

its not that simple. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blfaq_phileth_what.htm

The terms ethics and morality are often used interchangeably - indeed, they usually can mean the same thing, and in casual conversation there isn't a problem with switching between one and the other. However, there is a distinction between them in philosophy which will be maintained throughout this FAQ.

Strictly speaking, morality is used to refer to what we would call moral standards and moral conduct while ethics is used to refer to the formal study of those standards and conduct. For this reason, the study of ethics is also often called "moral philosophy." Here are some examples of statements which express moral judgments:

1. Dumping chemicals in the rivers is wrong and ought be banned.
2. It's wrong that our company is trying to avoid the regulations and it should stop.
3. He's a bad person - he never treats people well and doesn't seem to respect anyone.

As seen in the above examples, moral judgments tend to be characterized by words like ought, should, good and bad. However, the mere appearance of such words does not mean that we automatically have a statement about morals. For example:

4. Most Americans believe that racism is wrong.
5. Picasso was a bad painter.
6. If you want to get home quickly, you should take the bus.

None of the above are moral judgments, although example #4 does describe the moral judgments made by others. Example #5 is an aesthetic judgement while #6 is simply a prudential statement explaining how to achieve some goal.

Another important feature of morality is that it serves as a guide for people's actions. Because of this, it is necessary to point out that moral judgments are made about those actions which involve choice. It is only when people have possible alternatives to their actions that we conclude those actions are either morally good or morally bad.

When discussing morality it is important to distinguish between morals and mores. Both are aspects of human conduct and human interaction, but they are very different types of conduct. Mores are usually treated as "harmless customs," where "harmless" means that failure to follow the custom may result in a negative reaction, but not a very serious one. Such mores would include the time of day when meals are eaten and the proper form of greeting particular individuals.

Morals, on the other hand, involve much more serious aspects of how we behave and how we treat others. What this means is that failure to follow the dominant morals will result in a much harsher reaction from others - examples of this would include discrimination, physical abuse and theft.

Another important distinction in morality is that between standards, conduct and character. When we form a moral judgment, we are employing moral standards - principles against which we compare what we see in order to form a conclusion. Such judgments might be about particular conduct, which includes a person's actions, or it might be about a person's character, which includes their attitudes and beliefs.

Ethics, on the other hand, involves the study of those standards and judgments which people create. Ethics assumes that the standards exist and seeks to describe them, evaluate them, or evaluate the premises upon which those standards exist. This is where the field of ethics is broken down into Descriptive Ethics, Normative Ethics and Analytic Ethics (also called Metaethics).



The basic questions asked in Ethics include:

What does it mean to be good?
How can I differentiate good from evil?
Are morals objective or subjective?




http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_vs._Morals

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

First, when is stealing considered "stealing"? Is charging 10X what an item is worth stealing?

Not if the buyer agrees to pay 10X what the item is worth. Ignorance on their part, failing to shop around for a better deal != being stolen from.

According to most people ripping people off like that is considered stealing and it is in some cases against the law

If there is deception involved on the part of the seller, I agree. Fraud is certainly not a victimless crime.

Or is it narrowly defined as taking something without permission?

Or decieving the rightfull owner to gain possesion, IMO yes.

A "victim" is only a victim because society and morality dictate it.

No, a victim is a victim (of an actual crime anyway) because their rights have been violated. People's rights don't change. Morals, society's views, they are too dynamic, too subjective to dictate law. What is OK one day, in one society, is not OK the next. But unfortunatley they do have much bearing on which rights are arbitrarily recognized and ignored.

Next, so by overturning sodomy laws in this fashion you aren't giving permission? Illegal->legal ...sounds like permission to me(and a lot of gay activists )

No, you aren't. Or do you have permission to cheat on your wife ? Lie to your parents? Do any number of morally reprehinsible things just because it's not deemed criminal behavior by the government?

Also, since there is no "victim" in the other 3 I mentioned - we should overturn those laws too? <-please answer

CkG

Yes, we should. Like I said, I'm not saying these people have a 'right' to commit sodomy, incest, whatever, I'm saying that without a victim the government has no right to label it a crime.


I'm a Christian, and find it downright blasphemous that people seem to think they have to rely on government, fellow sinful and imperfect man, to enforce His law. I have faith God will take care of that himself. His laws, His punishment for breaking them. Jesus had faith in that as well. There is not one instance of Jesus endorsing man enforcing His rule through law or threat of punishment by man. Quite the opposite actually. If this isn't a religious issue for you, ignore this rant. If it's strictly moral, I have guess we have to agree to disagree. I just don't feel government or society has any business equating laws (protection of rights) with morals (opinion of 'right' and 'wrong').

Like I said - it isn't neccesarily a biblical issue for me. I, like you, strive to live my life in a manner pleasing to God . But this issue is more than just about sodomy which I'm trying to point out. In our society if something isn't "illegal" it is then considered "legal" - it IS that black and white.
Now for you taking my first 3 things and splitting them - it takes the context of my question away but it shows the ambiguity of our laws just the same. It is legal to rip someone off by charging 10X it's worth, because the buyer is stupid? Yes and No - our Gov't has laws regulating this form of stealing in certain instances but allows it in others. So by placing laws in effect that "protect" stupid people we are legislating morality.
Now on your "victim" status argument Who is the victim of me speeding? who is the victim by me smoking a bowl in my house or in public? Who is the "victim" if I walk around town naked?:Q (ok - i'll conceed that one - everyone would be the victim ) See what I'm saying? Our laws are based on a set of morals society sets(ethics ) and there are plenty of laws where a "victim" isn't needed for there to be a crime.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Seeing as no one challenged your interpretation, I will (I've been on vacation and assume you've changed your name HDJ1)
The 14th amendment would be fine to invoke in this situation but if you allow it to be used here then it better extend to the other "deviant"(or non-main stream) sexual lifestyles. Bigamy, polygamy, incest are a few examples of things that should be given "protection" from criminal "persecution" if you believe that the 14th applies to sodomy. If you don't believe those 3 should be protected as sodomy is, then what is your rational except for blatant hypocrisy?

This ruling was a ruling on societal "rules" and I feel that the supreme court should stay out of dictating societal acceptance of things. Laws are supposed to regulate morality, so where do you draw the line? Why shouldn't the states have the power to dictate their own "laws on morality"? Wouldn't you rather have states making laws instead of the Feds?

CkG

OK, I'll bite. I believe that the government -- federal, state, county, or municipal -- should make no laws regulating private sexual conduct between consenting adults including bigamy, polygamy, and incest. While you and I may both disapprove of such conduct, it is simply none of our business. The government has no place in the bedroom.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Like I said - it isn't neccesarily a biblical issue for me. I, like you, strive to live my life in a manner pleasing to God . But this issue is more than just about sodomy which I'm trying to point out. In our society if something isn't "illegal" it is then considered "legal" - it IS that black and white.

That is a societal shortcoming, a horrible one in fact. That society equates right and wrong with legal and illegal shows it is quite lacking in its own moral fortitude. And it's another argument as to why we shouldn't be basing laws on society's morals.

Now for you taking my first 3 things and splitting them - it takes the context of my question away but it shows the ambiguity of our laws just the same. It is legal to rip someone off by charging 10X it's worth, because the buyer is stupid? Yes and No - our Gov't has laws regulating this form of stealing in certain instances but allows it in others. So by placing laws in effect that "protect" stupid people we are legislating morality.

Yes, we are, and we shouldn't be. By protecting past a society's rights into their stupidity, you are doing it quite a disservice. Without motivation to smarten up, the problem will become worse, hence more laws will be needed. Enter the vicious circle of the nanny state.

Now on your "victim" status argument Who is the victim of me speeding? who is the victim by me smoking a bowl in my house or in public? Who is the "victim" if I walk around town naked?:Q (ok - i'll conceed that one - everyone would be the victim ) See what I'm saying? Our laws are based on a set of morals society sets(ethics ) and there are plenty of laws where a "victim" isn't needed for there to be a crime.

CkG

Speeding is really a seperate issue since it's not deemed criminal behavior, it's a civil offense. The laws against it (assuming they are fair and aren't engineered for generating revenue) are justified in that there are potential victims of the action. People/property that are placed in danger as a direct result of your actions. As for smoking pot, who is the victim indeed? Answer that, then ask yourself why should it be deemed a 'crime'? Then based on that answer, keep a straight face while trying to convince me that having society's morals dictating the law is a good thing.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
[ ... ]
Speeding is really a seperate issue since it's not deemed criminal behavior, it's a civil offense. The laws against it (assuming they are fair and aren't engineered for generating revenue) are justified in that there are potential victims of the action. People/property that are placed in danger as a direct result of your actions. As for smoking pot, who is the victim indeed? Answer that, then ask yourself why should it be deemed a 'crime'? Then based on that answer, keep a straight face while trying to convince me that having society's morals dictating the law is a good thing.

Be sure to explain how alcohol and tobacco are different, too.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
[ ... ]
Speeding is really a seperate issue since it's not deemed criminal behavior, it's a civil offense. The laws against it (assuming they are fair and aren't engineered for generating revenue) are justified in that there are potential victims of the action. People/property that are placed in danger as a direct result of your actions. As for smoking pot, who is the victim indeed? Answer that, then ask yourself why should it be deemed a 'crime'? Then based on that answer, keep a straight face while trying to convince me that having society's morals dictating the law is a good thing.

Be sure to explain how alcohol and tobacco are different, too.

I wish someone would explain that to me.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
[ ... ]
Speeding is really a seperate issue since it's not deemed criminal behavior, it's a civil offense. The laws against it (assuming they are fair and aren't engineered for generating revenue) are justified in that there are potential victims of the action. People/property that are placed in danger as a direct result of your actions. As for smoking pot, who is the victim indeed? Answer that, then ask yourself why should it be deemed a 'crime'? Then based on that answer, keep a straight face while trying to convince me that having society's morals dictating the law is a good thing.

Be sure to explain how alcohol and tobacco are different, too.

I wish someone would explain that to me.

They have lobbies with deep pockets.

 

[jhbball]

'bout time this crap was turned over.


bible schmible.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Bow and Gonad - While it seems we agree on the premise of less Gov't dictation of personal affairs, the reality of the matter is that we do need guidelines for a society to function, society without moral/ethical governance borders on anarchy.

I'm not sure exactly what you are fishing for Gonad with your speeding paragraph so I'll take the bait and wait for the trap to spring

Speeding- doesn't matter if it's civil or criminal. It is a law, a law that says other peoples safety is important. Why is someone else more important than me? because our society's(and most of the world's) morals dictate it to be so.
Pot- no victim. It should not be a crime(civil or criminal)
Never said society should dictate morality on others, I said that the USSC shouldn't dictate morality. The USSC is supposed to deal with constitutional Law but by overstepping their bounds by taking up a societal issue it is dictating social policy.

Right or wrong, the sodomy case should have never gone to the USSC. I don't dispute that bedrooms don't have a place in legislation but that wasn't really the case here. This case was an attempt to "legalize" and make homosexuality accepted as normal and "protected." The repercussions though are far more reaching than just the gay issues - now any laws against sexual deviation should be void...if they want to be "fair". If not then Texas, et al should be able to have anti-sodomy laws as long as they didn't discriminate and applied the law to all people whether straight or gay. I don't care(well I do but it isn't my business unless it affects me directly) what people do in their bedroom(house) but if you are going to allow the "don't legislate sexuality" argument to succeed in this case then what kind of door does it open and what laws are affected by this sort of thinking? I could argue that almost any law could be a morality issue and therefore unlawful if you want to play the don't dictate morality game.


Oroo - Morals are a belief or judgments on whether a specific issue is right or wrong no matter how one come to that conclusion. Ethics are a set of morals and/or principles that in it's final package guide a persons judgments and actions throughout life. The fact that there are things that morality doesn't cover doesn't mean that ethics isn't a set of morals. Have you looked up the real definitions of Ethics and Morals? I posted parts of their meaning but feel free to look them up yourself instead of letting an website tell their interpretation

CkG

Edit - I forgot the tobacco and alcohol stuff but I'm not sure what your point was.

 

[Brie]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


Right or wrong, the sodomy case should have never gone to the USSC. I don't dispute that bedrooms don't have a place in legislation but that wasn't really the case here. This case was an attempt to "legalize" and make homosexuality accepted as normal and "protected." The repercussions though are far more reaching than just the gay issues - now any laws against sexual deviation should be void...if they want to be "fair". If not then Texas, et al should be able to have anti-sodomy laws as long as they didn't discriminate and applied the law to all people whether straight or gay. I don't care(well I do but it isn't my business unless it affects me directly) what people do in their bedroom(house) but if you are going to allow the "don't legislate sexuality" argument to succeed in this case then what kind of door does it open and what laws are affected by this sort of thinking? I could argue that almost any law could be a morality issue and therefore unlawful if you want to play the don't dictate morality game.

This case should of absolutely gone to the supreme court and by the way it did go through state and federal courts on the way. The case is in no way an attempt to

"legalize" and make homosexuality accepted as normal and "protected."

From: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/scotus/lwrnctx62603opn.pdf

The court considered three questions:
1. If the law violates "equal protection" 14 amend. (Law targets same sex couples instead of all couples)
2. If the law violates "due process" 14 amend. (law violates the couples vital intrest in liberty and privacy)
3. Should the old supreme court case be overturned.

Ignoring #1 for a sec. The problem with the Texas Sodomy LAW is that it (the LAW) specifically targets Gay Men. In other SCOTUS decisions it was determined that in our long history sodomy laws were targeted towards the deviant acts themselves!! In addition these laws were primarly used to convict the Sodomizer in predatory not consentual acts. Since this LAW was used to target homosexuals specifically for acts they perform in private, this (the LAW) violates the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment.

as for number 1. To say that sodomy, in the classical sence, is a form of expression that a same sex couple does in not something that the court wanted to rest their decision on. To say that sex between a man and woman and sex between a man and a man is not what the basis of the courts decision. Although Justice O'Conner did state that since sodomy between a man and woman is legal and between a man and a man it is not that this is sufficent scrutiny to invoke the "equal protection" clause.

The fact of the matter here is that we have freedoms and the court decided that this law specifically targeted a group (gays) thus violated their rights and thus they overturned #3. Everyone has to remember that a signifant if not large portion of the population performs acts of sodomy (in the classical sence) but to only arrest Homosexuals is Illegal. Basucally the Court decided that the Law was poorly written and it is illegal. To state that the court decided any other thing is you perogative. (Even some of the justices did IIRC)

Edit: In fact as i was reading further the court stated that they upheld the original Sodomy ban because they did NOT want to make a moral decision on homosexual acts themselves.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Bow and Gonad - While it seems we agree on the premise of less Gov't dictation of personal affairs, the reality of the matter is that we do need guidelines for a society to function, society without moral/ethical governance borders on anarchy.

Speak for your weak minded self ! No my friend YOU need guidelines not me. I can behave and act just find without a goverment official or law telling me how to think or act ! I and the majority of people don't need goverment in our personal lives whatsoever ! You sound like a freaking socialist who thinks goverment was made to solve your personal relationship problems.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

I'm not sure exactly what you are fishing for Gonad with your speeding paragraph so I'll take the bait and wait for the trap to spring

Speeding- doesn't matter if it's civil or criminal. It is a law, a law that says other peoples safety is important. Why is someone else more important than me? because our society's(and most of the world's) morals dictate it to be so.

I wasn't fishing for anything. Are you saying that someone's safety outweighing vs. someone's wrecklessness is a moral issue? I guess it could be. But you seem to think that something being a moral issue precludes it from also being anything else. Justice, fairness, common sense, logic, protection of an individual's rights can all co-exist with morality.

Right or wrong, the sodomy case should have never gone to the USSC. I don't dispute that bedrooms don't have a place in legislation but that wasn't really the case here.

I don't understand how you can say this. The SC essentially nullified legislation that you say yourself should not have been there in the first place. 'Legalized' only means not illegal, it doesn't mean moral, or right, or OK, or government endorsed, or even socially acceptable. The very reason that society cannot seem to make that distinction is reason why we shouldn't be letting societal morals dictate law OR vice versa.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Bow and Gonad - While it seems we agree on the premise of less Gov't dictation of personal affairs, the reality of the matter is that we do need guidelines for a society to function, society without moral/ethical governance borders on anarchy.

Speak for your weak minded self ! No my friend YOU need guidelines not me. I can behave and act just find without a goverment official or law telling me how to think or act ! I and the majority of people don't need goverment in our personal lives whatsoever ! You sound like a freaking socialist who thinks goverment was made to solve your personal relationship problems.

WTF are you smoking? Me a weak minded socialist? Buahahaha!!!! You can't argue that society doesn't need rules. You and I might feel like we don't need laws and guidelines but do you realize what would transpire without the rules? Anarchy Would you like to live in a place that people could just do as they please? You sound like a freaking anarchist who thinks government(the man) was made to "keep you down".

Brie - I realize that the Texas law only included "gay" sodomy and I agree that it should have been changed...to include ALL sodomy. The fact that the USSC didn't just rule on the basis of that one little detail means that they were overstepping their bounds. They could have ruled that the law was unconstitutional based on the fact that it didn't include ALL sodomy but they didn't, and that is what I have the biggest problem with.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

I'm not sure exactly what you are fishing for Gonad with your speeding paragraph so I'll take the bait and wait for the trap to spring

Speeding- doesn't matter if it's civil or criminal. It is a law, a law that says other peoples safety is important. Why is someone else more important than me? because our society's(and most of the world's) morals dictate it to be so.

I wasn't fishing for anything. Are you saying that someone's safety outweighing vs. someone's wrecklessness is a moral issue? I guess it could be. But you seem to think that something being a moral issue precludes it from also being anything else. Justice, fairness, common sense, logic, protection of an individual's rights can all co-exist with morality.

Right or wrong, the sodomy case should have never gone to the USSC. I don't dispute that bedrooms don't have a place in legislation but that wasn't really the case here.

I don't understand how you can say this. The SC essentially nullified legislation that you say yourself should not have been there in the first place. 'Legalized' only means not illegal, it doesn't mean moral, or right, or OK, or government endorsed, or even socially acceptable. The very reason that society cannot seem to make that distinction is reason why we shouldn't be letting societal morals dictate law OR vice versa.

I didn't say it couldn't be something along with morality - but the fact is that morality plays a part in our laws(if not the main reason). So the question becomes, when is morality - morality and not just common sense? How much of a law needs to be a moral issue for it to be "bad"? These questions can't really be answered because we all have a different set of morals.

Sorry, let me try to clarify something - When I say that legislation doesn't have a place in the bedroom I'm talking about privacy in the home, not just sex. It is illegal to hold a weed pipe full of the good stuff(but not to smoke it ) but if I'm doing it in my own home can the cops still get me? hell yes. There are many other instances where you don't have rights within your own home. So my argument is that if you "protect" one home privacy issue then you better do the same for the rest of the issues. My issue with the USSC is what i just said to Brie - they could have easily ruled on the constitutional infraction but they chose to go further....to dictate(or rather destroy) laws based on their views - not the constitution. The only part it needed to rule on was who the law is for and that it should be discriminitory- it should have been illegal for ANYBODY to engage in sodomy.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

it should have been illegal for ANYBODY to engage in sodomy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, who are you to say that? The idea doesn't appeal to me in the least but don't you think people should be able to decide this for themselves. Some people might like to play and goof around. Hum? I wonder what's benind door number 2.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
it should have been illegal for ANYBODY to engage in sodomy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, who are you to say that? The idea doesn't appeal to me in the least but don't you think people should be able to decide this for themselves. Some people might like to play and goof around. Hum? I wonder what's benind door number 2.

While MY opinion may be that it should be that way, I didn't say it should I was saying that the Texas law should read that way to take any possible "discrimination" out of it. That is all the USSC should have and could have done with this case, but they descided to take this case up on different grounds - which is wrong.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
it should have been illegal for ANYBODY to engage in sodomy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, who are you to say that? The idea doesn't appeal to me in the least but don't you think people should be able to decide this for themselves. Some people might like to play and goof around. Hum? I wonder what's benind door number 2.

While MY opinion may be that it should be that way, I didn't say it should I was saying that the Texas law should read that way to take any possible "discrimination" out of it. That is all the USSC should have and could have done with this case, but they descided to take this case up on different grounds - which is wrong.

CkG

It seems the Supreme Thwart is an Equal Wrong entity... sometimes they be wrong for the left and other times they be wrong for the right.... Are the never wrong for someone?... We need nine androids on the court with independent and sentient thought.
Bush won and now Bush lost what's next..

 

[Vernor]

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights-older than our political parties, older than our school system. "- Justice W.O. Douglas.

 

[LunarRay]

Lets Amend the Constitution to read... all rights not explicitly denied the people are guaranteed to the people. All rights herein denied to the people are by this amendment restored to the people. No state may deny any right not denied by this Constitution. No government, state or authority may deny a right in the future by any means other than explicit authorization by the individual citizen and a cooling off period of 99 years shall occur before any right given up shall take effect.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
it should have been illegal for ANYBODY to engage in sodomy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, who are you to say that? The idea doesn't appeal to me in the least but don't you think people should be able to decide this for themselves. Some people might like to play and goof around. Hum? I wonder what's benind door number 2.

While MY opinion may be that it should be that way, I didn't say it should I was saying that the Texas law should read that way to take any possible "discrimination" out of it. That is all the USSC should have and could have done with this case, but they descided to take this case up on different grounds - which is wrong.

CkG

It seems the Supreme Thwart is an Equal Wrong entity... sometimes they be wrong for the left and other times they be wrong for the right.... Are the never wrong for someone?... We need nine androids on the court with independent and sentient thought.
Bush won and now Bush lost what's next..

I completely disagree. With Gore the Supreme Coup st@bbed the american people in the back but on the Texas law they st@bbed the conservatives in the ass. It's just not fair.

 

[LunarRay]

MB,
I completely disagree. With Gore the Supreme Coup st@bbed the american people in the back but on the Texas law they st@bbed the conservatives in the ass. It's just not fair.
******

I agree .... you do and I do too... The Thwartette have done unto the entire world a deed that will forever live in infamy... Some day a long time from now people will talk about the day the earth stood still while the US appointed by unanimous decision the invasion of Iraq and by so doing the Anti-Chr!$t may have been killed and this screwed up the Pre-Trib notion of Exodus for the christian and set the time table of events back centuries... the next time the planets will be correctly aligned for accurate transit is in the year 3789.