clownboy
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 26,087
- Reaction score
- 10,860
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Lawrence v. Texas did not find a right to sodomy. Your question was pointless. You are arguing the state can violate individual liberty to criminalize consensual and private sexual conduct for absolutely no reason aside from moral antipathy. You are free to have that opinion, but you can never call yourself a friend of liberty. I have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to DUE PROCESS. Do you know what that is? It means a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law. The state cannot deny my individual liberty just because some people find certain sexual acts between consenting adults to be yucky.
And I did not "move" anything. You are just ignorant of the rational that SCOTUS used to justify throwing out state sodomy bans and you have created an innane "right to sodomy" straw man because you are too lazy to educate yourself about the decision. But please continue to argue for more government intrusion into our personal lives so I can quote you in future threads.
I bolded the part that breaks your entire argument. Sodomy laws clearly are not unconstitutional and this is a prime example of the court abandoning it's oath.
You don't understand that the power of law, outside the grant given to the federal and the rights protected explicitly by the US Constitution resides in the states and the people BY CONSTITUTION. If the people of the state decide sodomy is unlawful, it is unlawful. The only question that remains is for the people of that state, "why would they wish to restrain themselves so?".
And just stop with the inane, "you are no friend of liberty". I don't support this law, nor would I vote for it. I would fight to overturn such a law in my state. However, that does not mean the law is unconstitutional.
Last edited: