chromium
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2013
- Messages
- 16,968
- Reaction score
- 3,770
- Location
- A2
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
That should have been up to the majority of the residents of Texas. However silly I personally thought their sodomy law was, I would not have presumed to claim that law violated any constitutionally guaranteed right. Neither did the majority of the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick, its first "gay" decision in 1986. The Court got that case right, especially in finding that there is no fundamental constitutional right to homosexual sodomy.
But just seventeen years later, the majority in Lawrence v. Texas overruled Bowers, basing its decision on a novel and bizarre idea that Justice Stevens had proposed in his dissenting opinion in Bowers. And that is that the belief of a majority that an act is immoral and unacceptable is not reason enough to prohibit that act by law. The fact that belief had been the basis of morals legislation in every state in this country from the very first, as well as in the laws of every civilized society we know of, did not trouble either Stevens or the Lawrence majority.
But not wanting to look like fools, Justice Kennedy and the others in the Lawrence majority were very careful to leave untouched Bowers' holding that homosexual sodomy is not a fundamental right. At least one poster here, though--possibly feeling nothing he could say could make him look any more foolish--was less concerned about that. In post after post, he made various desperate, contrived arguments that homosexuality is a fundamental right. Apparently his Wikipedia legal research on fundamental rights had not been too thorough.
As soon as it was pointed out that the Supreme Court in substantive due process analysis considers a right fundamental only if it is both "deeply rooted in this nation's history and traditions" and "essential to a scheme of ordered liberty"--which as Justice Scalia has rightly noted it would be "quite absurd" to claim of homosexuality--the poster began to backpedal frantically. Now he denies he ever claimed what anyone can see he repeatedly did say, right there in black and white, in post after post, and claims same-sex marriage is not about due process at all. His new story is that it is about equal protection.
Both are about equal protection...various states had sodomy laws *only* against same sex couples. How in the world is that NOT a violation of equal protection? Another claim of yours i take exception to is this entire notion of "moral laws." If there is no VICTIM, there is no crime, period. Of course it is a fundamental right too. You can't stop it. It exists in nature and people are born into it. This is nothing but homophobic futility
Just don't come crying when the gestapo barges into your bedroom and puts on the cuffs in the middle of consensual sex. You'll get no pity from me
I think the most scurrilous spreaders of lies about all this are the proponents of the homosexual agenda. Their brazen intellectual dishonesty is right there on full display in a number of these threads, for anyone to see. But then many of them are leftists, and lying is part and parcel of being a leftist. Their fallen idol President Pinocchio is Exhibit A.
This belongs in partisan hackery or CT