You’re not in the best place to gloat about backwards laws:
Emphasis mine.
The U.S Supreme Court declared there is a right to sexual privacy (Lawrence vs Texas) between consenting adults and the floodgates haven’t opened up for pedophiles and goatlovers.
Don’t feel foolish for not being able to tell the difference between goatlovers and consenting adult humans though; neither can Justice Scalia. :wally
Any perceived gloating must have been the Californian in me… 
Good Vibrations in San Francisco is where I go for my more signifigant purchases, but I have also purchased and enjoyed quite a few items from stores right here in Atlanta. I’m not exactly sure of the specific differences between the wording of the Alabama and Georgia laws, but I know that at least some of my Georgia purchases were not labled as CrazyCatLady described, though I am well aquainted with those labels.
The Georgia Law pre-dates my moving here in 1999. To the best of my knowledge it has been on the books since the 1970’s(??). But rest assured that had I been here during the debate prior to the Georgia law going into effect…or had it been brought up on appeal to the 11th Circuit Court and decided in a similar fashion while I was here…I would have said the exact same thing. Earlier in the thread I believe I already mentioned my feelings that Georgia is (very, very) far from an enlightened entity.
I’m more than happy to further extend this pitting to Georgia (and that goes quadruple for Cobb County) and anywhere else where space in the law books is flat out wasted on such crap.
BLALRON, if that “putz” is directed at me, as opposed to Scalia, you can stick it up your ass sideways. The fact that a fundamental right to sexual privacy could be used by deviants to shield their unpermitted conduct does not mean that I personally do not understand the difference between goatlovers and consenting adults. The fact that a recognized right to sexual privacy could be misused in such a way actually has fuck-all to do with you and your boyfriend, m’kay? So go right ahead and feel foolish about your inability to grasp my point.
If you bothered to read the Eleventh Circuit opinion, which is Williams v. Alabama and which you can find here, you would see that the Court considered Lawrence, which is of course the obvious precedent, and decided that it did not recognize a right to sexual privacy – and it sure as hell didn’t “declare” that there was one. Rather, it considered whether the Texas anti-sodomy law offended the petitioners’ due process rights by sticking the government’s nose in matters that it had no business inquiring into. In analyzing the question, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the “rational basis” test, used for most due process questions, not the “strict scrutiny” test, which is used when reviewing a fundamental right. Now, the dissent argues that such a fundamental right is implicit in Lawrence, but IMO this argument is not very persuasive in the absence of any Supreme Court authority setting forth a right to “sexual privacy” as such. IMO the Eleventh Circuit rightly decided that if a new fundamental right was to be created, it should be created by the Supreme Court. If the ACLU chooses to appeal this decision, the Supremes will have the chance to review the question and decide whether “sexual privacy” should be added to the pantheon of recognized fundamental rights.
If you’d like to argue further about the precedential authority of Lawrence and its application to Williams, that’s fine, but do me a favor and read the freaking case first.
Well, you probably have to cut one head off, but if two grow back that isn’t a double header. Nope, that’s a hydra and isn’t covered by that law, so enjoy your animated multiple orifice french tickler to your heart’s content.
\
Go fuck yourself, Jodi.
Pedophiles and zoophiles are not having sex with fellow consenting adults. That you use it as a parallel is dishonest at best.
Laws like that ARE used to discriminate and to persecute sections of society and are not enforced generally on the entire public.
The parallel between you and Scalia is accurate.
MOCKINGBIRD –
You first, you pathetic uncomprehending piece of shit.
Thanks for the update. :rolleyes: I was soooo confused about that, seeing as how I thought 10 year old boys and goats were somehow consenting adults. Jesus Christ, does it hurt to be that stupid?
It’s not a parallel, you dumbshit. Recognizing a fundamental right to sexual privacy means recognizing that this right is possessed by everyone – gay, straight, consenting, un-, adult, underage – just as we all possess other fundamental rights (privacy, speech, religion, etc.) Therefore, if such a right were extended to everyone it could be misused by those who engage in criminal sexual conduct, because they could allege their conduct is not subject to governmental scrutiny because it falls within the rubric of this fundamental right. What does that have to do with what consenting adults may or may not do? Anyone? Anyone? That’s right: Nothing. No-thing.
Laws like what? That you can’t buy a dildo in Alabama? What the hell are you talking about?
Again, a parallel no one has drawn. Those parallel do give you some trouble, don’t they?
And just because this is so fucking stupid, let me remind you of what I said, and all I said:
This in the context of an argument about the right to buy dildoes. So where’s the parallel I was allegedly drawing? Comparing pedophilia and bestiality to . . . what exactly? I know you Angry Gay Boys think every single reference to deviant sex is a veiled assertion that you’re a bunch of deviants, but for Christ’s sake, not everything’s about you. And if you think the parallel’s an insulting one – and it is, profoundly so – don’t be so fucking quick to draw it.
I don’t really have anything of substance to add, because anything I had to say Jodi has already said and about a zillion times better than I could’ve, to boot.
Except for, a lot of the really ridiculous laws people are talking about were put on the books a long time ago and have just never been taken off. Sauron pointed out in this thread that this particular law was added to the books fairly recently.
I believe that is the glaring difference.
This isn’t really comparable to a duck-marrying law here. I don’t know many people with much of a vested interest in marrying a duck, but I can think of ten off the top of my head who would love a new dildo.
I’m one of the ten 
The Supreme Court disagrees with your analysis. So therefore it doesn’t have to extend to minors like you claim. Minors can be more easily coerced, therefore there is a legitimate government interest in protecting them.
This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life. Lawrence vs Texas
With all due respect, when it comes to interpreting the Constitution the Supreme Court is a more authoritative source than Jodi.
:eek:
Really? That’ll be news to Jodi.
BLALRON –
It only appears to disagree with my analysis insofar as I was wrong to include minors in it. But – that’s it? Tthe sum total of your problem with my point is that I erroneously included minors? Because your correction of me is itself correct, but isn’t it still a bit of nitpick? How about the larger point I was making, which is that one argument against extending a fundamental right to sexual privacy is that people could use it to try to shield their deviant and/or obscene behavior from governmental scrutiny? You got any thoughts on that, assuming you now see it? I’m not asking you to agree with it, necessarily, but it would be nice if you would concede I didn’t deserve to be called a putz just for making it.
MOCKINGBIRD, weren’t you supposed to be studying up on what a parallel is?
Well, no, you were wrong to include goats, too.
Anyway, whoever it is you’re worried would use a “declaration” that the right to privacy includes sexual privacy (because y’know, nobody thought SCOTUS meant sexual privacy in the first place) and that they government has no business intruding on their goat-felching, or whatever… would still lose, because L v. T establishes a right to sexual privacy between consenting adults, and your assorted deviants don’t get the same treatment. Invasions into their privacy need not recieve the strictest scrutiny, although the government will still have to show that it has a legitimate public interest in protecting goats and little boys from creepy men in trenchcoats.
REALLY NOT ALL THAT BRIGHT –
I don’t see that I was. The goat doesn’t have any rights under the constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court was obviously talking about an implied right privacy, but it was NOT talking about an express right to privacy – which is what was being asked for in Williams, which is why Lawrence was deemed inapposite.
First, under the analysis put forth by the Eleventh Circuit in Williams, which I find reasonable, Lawrence does NOT establish a fundamental right to sexual privacy between consenting adults. A reading of Lawrence supports this: the Court did not consider a right to privacy per se, but rather privacy as a “liberty interest” subsumed in the Due Process clause. (This is in line with Griswold , in which the Court determined that a right to privacy can be found in the “penumbras” of the Constitution, sparking the continuing debate as to what the hell the “penumbras” rationale really means, other than “we’re going to find something in the Constitution that isn’t actually in the Constitution.”) Importantly, in Williams the petitioners were asking the Court to find a separate fundamental right to sexual privacy – in effect, a new stand-alone right, no merely one “subsumed” in something else, like the Due Process clause – and this the Court refused to do. And I think rightly so; if that step is going to be taken, it should be taken by the U.S. Supreme Court. Second, a fundamental right to privacy, if found, would not be held “between consenting adults” but would be held by every individual citizen, including deviants, and could be exercised by them as easily as by everyone else. Third, if we’re talking about a Lawrence-style right regarding conduct, it arguably does not apply to a statute prohibiting the sale of sex toys.
They don’t get the same treatment under Lawrence but we’re not talking about the analysis used in Lawrence when we talk about establishing a fundamental right to sexual privacy. That’s my point.
Again, you are looking at the question under a Lawrence analysis, which the court in Williams explicitly refused to do – because Lawrence doesn’t deal with a fundamental right to sexual privacy, which is what the ACLU was asking for in Williams. If a fundamental right to sexual privacy were held to exist, and penetrating (ha!) beyond it required a compelling state interest (the standard required for fundamental rights – well, the kids are probably okay (because preventing the sexual exploitation of children is unquestionably a CSI), but I’m not so sure about the goats. Moreover, it probably would open up a whole 'nother can of worms on the obscenity issue, since any governmental effort to deem materials obscene could be challenged not just on freedom of speech/expression grounds (as is currently the case) but on sexual privacy grounds as well.
I’m about damn tired of your ‘goatlover’ remarks. You know nothing of my relationship with Billy. We’re in love.
I hope I draw your name in the Christmas pool.