That is disingenuous at best, just as your previous posts in this thread have been.
Your ‘euphemistic’ words are offensive to at least three people in this thread and instead of dealing with that honestly, you patronize us and attempt to call us politically correct censors.
We are human beings who have a different perspective than you and believe we are entitled to respect instead of back handed definitions of who we are and a smug defense positing that you are the aggrieved party.
Regarding the OP, I don’t really think it was a good ruling. I am of the same mindest as Clarence Thomas-we would be better off without sodomy laws, but the Constitution doesn’t prohibit states from making foolish laws.
Since the Texas law outlawed an act, specifically homosexual anal intercourse, but applied equally to all people*, many conservatives would argue that the federal gov’t, in this case SCOTUS, has no right to intervene, since they wouldn’t see the 14th amendment as being violated. So one can be against sodomy laws and against this ruling simulatiously, without a conflict.
*Yeah, I know, why would a heterosexual engage in homosexual acts? Beats me, but the distinction between outlawing homosexual acts and outlawing, say, blacks from entering a specific college is a very fine one.
Possibly not, but it certainly prohibits blatantly unconstitutional laws, such as the law in question!
Even a conservative/federalist such as yourself realizes that states certainly don’t have carte blanch to violate citizens rights just because that states’ legislators are still living in the stone age of the Bible belt, don’t you?
Regarding “aberrant,” I think the word is misused here. Homosexuality may not be common, but it is definitely normal.
*21.06. Homosexual Conduct
(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.*
I still think the main question raised casts doubt as to equality of the law - is deviate intercourse ok if the individuals are of different sexes? Apparently it is. So Texans are free to engage in anal and oral sex all they want, it’s the choice of partners that is the moral issue - no one is allowed to have sex with another of the same gender (seeing as how ‘normal’ intercourse as defined by the penal code isn’t possible.) That doesn’t affect me one bit, aside from not living in Texas. Other people find that to be a major problem. So certain people are clearly more affected by this than others…those would be the people who prefer same-sex partners.
I dunno, I thought this one was a no-brainer so I’m missing something…
Huh? His noneuphemistic words are what people are taking offense to. And he did deal with you honestly. Are you disputing that you are attempting to pressure him into avoiding a term thats you don’t like, and are thus are a censor?
Seeing as how you are the one attacking someone for having a perspective different from yours, and it is you that are positing that you are the aggrieved porty, you seem hypocritical to me. If he had used the word in a context that implied, or even left open the possibility, that he thought that homosexuality is morally wrong, I could see where you’re coming from. But since he used it in a sentence which quite clearly stated his support for homosexual rights, such statements as “The reader can’t tell that you didn’t intend the other meaning” are what I find disingenuous. Do you also take offense at the term “gay” because some people use it as an insult?
False characterization of the situation. He is attempting to use a word with a known negative connotation. People are disagreeing with that connotation. His defense is to claim that he only means unusual. But few here take this seriously: he very much seems to want to defend the usage of the word ONLY on the simpler “unusual” meaning and yet STILL retain the “bad” meaning. Put simply, he’s equivocating: oldest trick in the book.
Agreed. Not many people collect stamps, but that’s hardly grounds to call stamp collecting “aberrant.”
Well, think about it this way: Suppose the law read “A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of a different species.”* We would most likely agree that the law isn’t discrimnatory, even though those into bestiality would argue differently.
In other words, it is the act of homosexual intercourse that is being outlawed, not homosexuality per se. Like I said, I don’t like sodomy laws, so I don’t much care about the decision, except for the implications to federalism. But my beliefs about that are pre-Jacksonian, so I’m used to it.
*Disclaimer: I in no way intend to imply a moral corrolation between homosexuality and bestiality.
I am pleased that the Constitutional right to buttfucking has been protected, not at all sure I’m pleased with how they did it.
The major flaw in the bestiality analogy (which I’ve heard more times than I can account for in the last few days) is the issue of consent. Simply put, a human can consent to a sexual act while an animal has no way of doing so.
Right, but it is an issue pertaining to whether or not the law is proper, not whether it is Constitutional. Unless you can find the article and clause where states are prohibited from making laws of the sort.
Amendment X, U. S. Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
No part of the Constitution prohibits states from making laws where the victim can’t refuse prosecution. After all, a woman can “consent” to being beaten by refusing to press charges, but the prosecutor can make them on his own. So I am having a little trouble understanding where you are coming from with your “consent” argument.
How about this one: “may not engage in sex acts with a person of a different race.” Applies to everyone, equally. Somewhat the same reasoning, some people believe it is immoral. It doesn’t outlaw a loving relationship between people of different races, just certain acts. Is it discriminatory?
I agreed with Justice Thomas’s position: this was an uncommonly silly law, but the SC is not in business to overrule silliness. They are there to determine whether a law is constitutional. I believe this was a bad ruling that produced a good result in this instance, but that may be regrettable down the road (for other reasons, not because we’ll wish the dumb Texas law was still on the books).
Such a foolish and offensive law I would probably view as Constitutional, yes. Remember, we are talking about “equal protection” of the laws. This seems to meet that criterion.
Despite the OP’s self-characterization, I think it’s clear this IS a debate, as will be almost any discussion of gays and gay-rights issues.
To make my contribution…
It’s worth noting in advance that I am an openly gay man, am proud to be known as such, and thus cannot pretend to be emotionally unbiased.
I think the Court’s decision was wonderful–not just for legalizing “deviate sexual intercourse between members of the same sex,” but even more for the tone of the majority opinion, which expressed itself in terms of an obligation of government to respect the lives of gays and lesbians. Beautiful.
Yes, self-avowed conservatives come in all flavors. Some are even very counter-intuitive. A libertarian might decry the decision on grounds that the legislative process is ultimately more in harmony with a libertarian society than is judicial intervention by the “court of no appeal.” An economic conservative could bemoan the possible consequence of more explicit anti-discriminaton laws leading to lawsuits against business. In theory, a religious conservative might FAVOR the decision out of a “leave the punishment to God” sentiment.
But if there is indeed something of an anti-gay consensus among self-described conservatives, it probably has to do with a conviction that fundamental social change should arise from the slow and natural evolutions of society, as one generation replaces another–not from either passing laws, or from nullifying existing laws. There is also the issue of insisting on a uniform national standard, rather than allowing each state (and indeed, each locality) to express its cultural particularities.
I don’t think the preceding argument is ignoble, bigoted, or stupid. I just think it’s too weak to be applied universally, and especially weak when it leads to (or at least gives aid and comfort to) violence, repression, and the public and political disparagement of whole groups of Americans.
Having only read the pitiful snippets the daily papers choose to print, I can’t tell whether the reasoning of the opinion was worthy. I gather the basic notion was the same as Romer v. Evans: it is an inherent violation of the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause to single-out a class of persons and prohibit or criminalize certain conduct favored by that group, merely because a political majority finds such conduct distasteful.
The “merely” is the key. Every law in some sense “singles out a class of persons.” But most laws presumably do so in service to legitimate state purposes, which are most often protective in nature–protecting people from being murdered, robbed, defrauded, cheated, etc. These are things that even those who perpetrate them acknowledge are “bad” in the abstract. There is no “thief community” that regards anti-robbery laws as oppressive and discriminatory. The court is not nullifying all silly or trivial laws, nor even all laws that express matters of taste (such as laws against public nudity). But the court is asserting that so-called “sodomy laws” are not only unnecessary and capricious, but also do harm, in that they seek to prohibit one class of persons from enjoying the basic fulfilments of life available to everyone else.
It seems to me, at least, that these laws are a virtual invitation to violate the “unreasonable search and seizure” provision. What public evidence makes reasonable a suspicion that someone is engaging in “deviate” sex acts in their own bed behind closed doors? Would police have ample justification to make random bedchecks of any household that subscribes to The Advocate? Or Opera World?
And when a class of persons has become politically active, new issues come to the fore. Sodomy laws unequitably repress one side of an ongoing political debate, in the sense that they threaten to systematically exclude from that debate (by arresting and imprisoning them) persons whose general views are strongly correlated with a propensity to engage in the prohibitted conduct. Where such laws are on the books, there is, in principle, the likelihood of a “chilling effect” on freedom of political speech and organization–if I stand up for gay-rights law reform, do the police have probable cause to invade my bedroom?
(8) And now a word to those who cite the 10th amendment in defense of states’ rights to regulate what they please. Have you considered the final words, “…or to the people.”? There are evidently certain rights reserved TO THE PEOPLE; and as they are indeed RIGHTS, neiither the federal governments NOR the state government is Constitutionally empowered to violate them. Those rights are not spelled-out; but isn’t the right of two consenting adults to have, in private, such forms of sexual contact as pleases them a pretty sound candidate? In fact, isn’t it almost certainly one of those rights “retained by the people” per the 9th Amendment?
Are you trying to say that this law was constitutional?
How is it constitutional for a legislative body to decide that a segment of the population is not allowed to engage in sex acts that others are allowed to do without question?
Chalk me up as another conservative who thinks this is an extraordinarily stupid and hateful law, but not necessarily an unconstitutional one. I would heartily encourage the repeal of the sodomy law by the state legislature, but do not think it appropriate for the federal courts to intervene.
I would be less troubled by this decision had the majority adopted O’Conner’s equal protection argument; that would at least have the virtue of relying on a textual basis within the constitution for the opinion.
But that isn’t the rationale the majority adopted. The majority elected to use a potentially far-reaching substantive due process argument that, quite bluntly, usurps power properly held by the state legislatures. Rather than finding a basis concretely tied to the constitution, the court adopted a theory which essentially allows them (and has in the past allowed them) veto power over legislation for no better reason than their dislike of the policy choices embodied therein.
Because it is not the same act. Without being too graphic, anal homosexual intercourse does not equal anal heterosexual intercourse (otherwise, the words homosexual and heterosexual would lack meaning).
Indeed, and one of dozens of good reasons why the law sucked. But couldn’t one apply the same logic to many other laws? Tough to enforce legally does not equal unconstitutional (Hell, look at drug laws, underage drinking laws, etc.).
I think this is a valid argument; however, in cases where jurisdiction between state and national government is ambiguous, SCOTUS should defer to the former. Many disagree.
Okay…
Let’s put this in the simplest possible terms. If Bob is a teacher and he fondles a little girl in his class, he goes to jail. If Bob is a teacher and he fondles a little boy, he still goes to jail. So if a male has anal sex with a female, and is not guilty of a crime, why should he be if he commits the same act (and it IS the same act… the relevant parts of a female have exactly the same function as those of the male in this case, although arguably that function does not include sexual activity…)
Also, even though everyone and their mother has thrown their two cents at Milum, I’m going to do it too…
Originally posted by Milum
I don’t get it. Are you two, (Avalonian and Mockingbird), mad at me because I put two “b”'s in “aberrant”?
Are you not aware that the norm in all human societies is to sexually couple with the opposite sex in order to reproduce?
Do you two not think that homosexuality is a biological condition that is disadvantageous to the continuity of the kind?
There is no requirement in nature that every member of a species should procreate. In fact, given the exponential increase in world population over the last 20 years, is homosexuality really that bad a thing for the human race? We’re not exactly endangered… and there’s no evidence that are larger percentage exists now than ever before…