|
Grex > Agora46 > #47: Supreme Court strikes down antisodomy laws in "Lawrence v. Texas | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 191 responses total. |
dcat
|
|
response 8 of 191:
| 
Jun 29 02:24 UTC 2003 |
resp:6 NAMBLA= North American Man/Boy Love Association.
[http://www.nambla1.de/] (It's unclear why [http://www.nambla.org/]
redirects to this German address, but it does.)
|
void
|
|
response 9 of 191:
|
Jun 29 03:20 UTC 2003 |
For a straight married guy, Bruce, you seem awfully interested in
NAMBLA. :)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 10 of 191:
|
Jun 29 04:44 UTC 2003 |
Re #5: So what? They're full of shit. This decision was about the privacy
rights of two people who are legally capable of consent. Children
are not legally capable of consent. This decision does *nothing*
for NAMBLA. *Nothing*.
The decision also doesn't help people who are into bestiality
(animals aren't capable of consent either).
If I were you, I wouldn't take legal analysis by NAMBLA members
seriously. If they think this decision helps them, they're morons.
|
senna
|
|
response 11 of 191:
|
Jun 29 05:14 UTC 2003 |
I can't believe that anybody is making a big deal out of this.
For all I know, NAMBLA people are deliriously happy about the Bush tax cuts,
because they get more money to promote their cause. It's a big step for them.
Do you want to reverse the Bush tax cuts if this is true, Bruce?
|
keesan
|
|
response 12 of 191:
|
Jun 29 05:46 UTC 2003 |
Bush is giving tax cuts to people who have children.
|
pvn
|
|
response 13 of 191:
|
Jun 29 06:25 UTC 2003 |
Does this mean I can own a firearm in the privacy of my own home?
|
other
|
|
response 14 of 191:
|
Jun 29 07:10 UTC 2003 |
As long as you only use it in the privacy of your own home, and no
passing person on the street can in any way experience any evidence of
your use of it.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 15 of 191:
|
Jun 29 08:36 UTC 2003 |
The decision is good, how it relates to same-sex marriage, that I
don't get
|
bru
|
|
response 16 of 191:
|
Jun 29 15:05 UTC 2003 |
what about prostitution and drug use? Are these now going to be legal in the
privacy of your own home?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 17 of 191:
|
Jun 29 15:10 UTC 2003 |
Drug use in the home requires drug production and dealing outside it,
which would not be protected under the privacy rationale. A similar
argument would be made about prostitution.
While I'd personally like to see both of those activities legalized and
regulated, this decision won't aid in that at all.
|
other
|
|
response 18 of 191:
|
Jun 29 16:24 UTC 2003 |
It does appear that the logic behind this decision should also apply to
prostitution activities carried out in private homes. They would also be
described as actions carried out by consenting adults (so long as both
parties are indeed adults and consenting).
|
slynne
|
|
response 19 of 191:
|
Jun 29 16:39 UTC 2003 |
I want to know why bruce is so interested in what folks do in their
bedrooms.
resp:17 - well, probably a person *could* grow pot in their home just
for their own use but I dont see anyone using this precedent in a drug
case.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 20 of 191:
|
Jun 29 18:38 UTC 2003 |
Prostitution is only a public problem when it involves coercion or crime.
In a sense, the current sexual mores involve a lot of private, pro-bono
prostitution (i.e, young (and old) people sleep with each other for fun).
This is certainly outside the pervue of law (or should be).
|
keesan
|
|
response 21 of 191:
|
Jun 29 22:44 UTC 2003 |
Prostitution also contributes to the spread of disease.
|
slynne
|
|
response 22 of 191:
|
Jun 29 23:11 UTC 2003 |
Well, unregulated prostitution does anyway.
|
russ
|
|
response 23 of 191:
|
Jun 29 23:52 UTC 2003 |
Prostitution is commerce, and some things which are legal to swap
via non-commercial exchanges are unlawful to ask money for (e.g.
children, human organs). None of that is going to change, so
prostitution's status isn't likely to either.
Prostitution also involves issues of public health, in the same way
that any kind of promiscuous sexuality does. For that reason, it
deserves to be regulated.
|
keesan
|
|
response 24 of 191:
|
Jun 30 00:08 UTC 2003 |
If you regulate it, does some inspector make sure that condoms are used every
time? For instance watching through a one-way mirror or a TV circuit?
|
slynne
|
|
response 25 of 191:
|
Jun 30 01:03 UTC 2003 |
I think Nevada has had success with regulated prostitution.
|
twenex
|
|
response 26 of 191:
|
Jun 30 03:41 UTC 2003 |
Re the SCOTUS decision, about time, imho as an interested observer (no, that
doesn't mean i'm gay).
|
lk
|
|
response 27 of 191:
|
Jun 30 04:23 UTC 2003 |
...Not that there's anything wrong with it....
I've heard that Scalia is one of the brightest minds on the bench.
(A powerful witch, but a bad witch.) Does he really not realize
that this has no more to do with the "homosexual agenda" than his
objections are part of the "'moral majority' agenda"?
Actually, here's what he said:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/scotus/lwrnctx62603opn.pdf
[The Court] has largely signed on to the SO-CALLED homosexual
agenda by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual
activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has
traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.
Well, by that standard, a majority of Americans support this "agenda".
But in the next paragraph, Scalia makes reference to the "culture war":
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.
Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual
conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their
children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders
in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their
families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and
destructive.
I see. That many of these same people similaraly "viewed" miscegnation laws
seems to be lost on Scalia. Not to mention that they are just "protecting
themselves" from falling property values should a mixed couple (let alone a
full-blown black couple) move into the neighborhood, even if as boarders....
The truth of the matter is that it was the Court, in the 1986 Bowers v.
Hardwick case, which took the wrong side in the culture war. It lost,
precisely because that was a bad decision based on an "agenda" rather
than one made as "neutral observer". (That was a 5-4 decision, and Justice
Lewis Powell later stated that it was his one vote he wished he could change.)
It's almost surprising that the most egregious of sodomy laws (which
prohibit sexual behavior unequally, prohibiting it only to homosexuals)
managed to stay on the books for so long following the ruling that
Colorado's Amendment 2 was unconstitutional.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 28 of 191:
|
Jun 30 05:04 UTC 2003 |
Most of these sodomy laws were never really strictly enforced
anyways. Probably better that they should go.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 29 of 191:
|
Jun 30 05:51 UTC 2003 |
Not just "probably" - absolutely.
|
pvn
|
|
response 30 of 191:
|
Jun 30 06:32 UTC 2003 |
So vote them out? So vote for legislators that repeal them. This is
the way it is supposed to work. The Texas legislature voted the law in
the first place, it ought to be up to them to repeal it.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 31 of 191:
|
Jun 30 13:10 UTC 2003 |
That doesn't work. Legislators don't want to spend time getting rid of old
laws, because they want to focus on passing new ones to protect their special
interests. They almost never go back and get rid of old ones that aren't
being enforced much anyway.
|
other
|
|
response 32 of 191:
|
Jun 30 13:28 UTC 2003 |
Besides, it IS THE JOB of the SCOTUS, under the balance of powers
principle, to invalidate legislation which violates the constitutional
priciples on which this country is founded, however the SCOTUS interprets
them.
Since citizens of the various states are citizens of the union, state
laws are subject to invalidation for the protection of the rights of all
citizens.
|