What of it? Their argument was that the law was unconstitutional as applied to the whole country. The fact that they personally volunteered to get arrested to demonstrate this fact means that that chose to give up their privavcy in order to gain a place to show that others also give up their privacy. Others arrested (or simply investigated) under the law were more interested in preserving their privacy, creating the dread problem in law that is “capable of repetition, yet evades review.”
What actual Democratic politicians or prominent left-wing figures have proposed a huge tax hike to support universal single-payor health care, housing, and education? (The Democrats aren’t nearly that liberal, which is part of the reason I dislike them.)
The whole thing comes down to a comment on the “lesser of two evils” thing I was trying to get a poster to justify. And **Evil One **still hasn’t come back to explain, I’ll note.
That’s sort of my point - there don’t seem to have been many others. Since they had to go to the length of staging it. If that is, in fact, how it went down.
Regards,
Shodan
Maybe you’ve forgottenm but Santiorum was not just trying to make an academic argument that the laws were Constitutional, but that he believed “homosexual acts” actually should be criminalized. Here are some of his exact words:
You wanted an example of a prominent conservative who supported the criminalization of homosexual sex. Here it is. Are you going to “concede the point,” or are going to try to parse some interpretation of these words in which Santorum wasn’t actively arguing in favor of criminalizing homosexual sex?
Santorum:
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol6No2/Sanotrum%20v.%20Sodomy.htm
They were only “volunteering to be arrested” in the opinion of your “judge/journalist”. SCOTUS and the lower courts who heard the case found no evidence of this.
No it doesn’t. It indicates that he was jealous and tried to get back at his philandering boyfriend by getting him in legal trouble.
Think for a moment - why would the police ignore a consensual sodomy allegation? Probably because an allegation of sodomy occurring behind closed doors would constitute questionable probable cause, whereas a guy allegedly running around with a loaded firearm is pretty cut-and-dried.
Well, from a trial lawyer’s point of view, most of the people in a position to be charged with sodomy are going to be poor test cases. In order for the police to apprehend a sodomite, they usually have to engage in some other crime - solicitation, prostitution, etc.
In the case of the Texas law, the criminal penalties were sufficiently light (small fine) that almost nobody would challenge them anyway. Why go to the considerable expense of defending oneself against a charge that was constitutional according to case law in effect at the time (under Bowers) rather than paying a $200 penalty?
Do you think the ACLU trolls gay clubs looking for people with a legal axe to grind or something?
They certainly seem to take music theft more seriously than sodomy was treated in Texas - the two defendants in Lawrence v. Texas were each fined $200 and court costs. Maybe you could extort me if I were facing 1.9 million, but two hundred dollars and change? That’s a bit different.
Regards,
Shodan
As you no doubt realize, SCOTUS and the lower courts do not consider questions of evidence. The two pleaded no contest, reserving their right to appeal.
Or because it was a trivial crime that carried a small fine and nobody bothered to enforce, and therefore a waste of police resources.
Read Michael Kinsley’s excellent work Curse of the Giant Muffins. There is an article in it called “On Manger Patrol with the ACLU” in which he describes them doing pretty much what you describe - going around the country looking for something at which to take offense (in this case, Christmas displays). In it he describes the difficulties they sometimes encounter trying to find someone with standing who objects to it, on which they can base some threat of action. They seem sometimes to take it as a personal affront when the residents shrug and say “we have always done that - we kind of like it”.
I disliked Kinsley’s politics, but he is an excellent and engaging writer with the rare ability to giggle even at his own side.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s not ok to make them pay 2 cents, much less arrest them and drag them out of their home.
What if it was only a $200 fine for interracial sex? Would you say there was no point in challenging it?
They’re not looking for things to “take offense at.” They’re looking for violations of the Establishment clause. No one is offended by manger displays. That has nothing to do with why they can’t be put up by the state.
If you want to see people taking offense, try putting up an Islamic, or Wiccan or atheist display on state property. Then you’ll see enough huffy indignation to power a city.
Or try telling Bill O’Reilly “happy holidays.” That will work too.
I love how this thread has shifted around so much that I forget what it was about. It has now morphed into a debate about bum sex. HA!
I certainly understand your choice to place the words concede the point in quotes; designating as unusual anything so unfamiliar to you as concession must be is wise.
His point is more nuanced than that – he was arguing that “…if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.” He was, in other words, arguing that a deciosn recognizing a Constitutional right to any consensual sexual activity would logivally compel a ‘parade of horribles’ result.
I don’t see a quote from him saying that LGBT people should be imprisoned. I see a quote saying that the Supreme Court should not recognize a Constitutional right to consensual sodomy. If he’s so much in favor of locking up LGBT folks, why not find me a quote that says this without the context of Lawrence v. Texas to confuse the issue? He eneterd national politics in 1990. Lawrence hit the national scene in – what? 2001? 2002? If he’s so ready to lock up queer folks, surely he must have said so without Lawrence in play, confusing the Constitutional issue with the policy issue.
And as an aside, I give you props for giant brass balls. This thread was created to castigate you for failing to recognize that absolute, never-give-an-inch uncompromising statements can bite you in the ass. And you’ve come in here and continued your trend of absolute, never-give-an-inch uncompromising statements, and done just fine. That’s talent.
This would be much more clever if it weren’t in direct response to **you **having said, “Your inability to **concede even the slightest point **during a discussion makes discussing things with you very unpleasant.” (Emphasis added, of course.)
Yes. See “Shot, cheap.” Yeah, I take 'em. What of it?
That’s pretty ironic since you just refused to conced to an airtight cite.
Santorum says that sodomy laws are “there for a purpose,” because “they [acts of sodomy] undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family.” He says there is no right to consensual sex in the home because it “undermines the fabric of our society.”
earlier in the interview he says “I have a problem with homosexual acts.”
Are you actually going to try to contend that Santorum was not actively and unambiguously arguing in favor of the crininilaization of homosexual sex? Whetehr he’s arguing for “inprisonment” is a different issue (though I would point out that he at least tacitly approves of the arrest and jailing of the defendants in Lawrence), but that he’s arguing for criminalization is undeniable.
And you think I’M brazen?
Mr. Santorum suggests that simply being homosexual is not criminal, and we should all be grateful for his liberality and munificence. He simply posits that one so afflicted should recognize that his/her sexual desires are depraved, vile and disgusting, and have the decency not to act upon them.
The analogy to child molestors is perfectly apt. There is nothing inherently illegal about having such wretched desires, so long as they are not acted upon.
I am continually struck by the parallels between friend Bricker and Lincoln. Both were lawyers, for one. Lincoln split rails, Bricker splits hairs.
Sure. He is making the rational basis argument for the law (“It’s there for a purpose,”) and saying that there is no RIGHT to consensual sodomy. He’s a lawyer. He knows exactly what he’s saying. He’s making a defense of the constitutionality of the law.
Again I ask: where’s his commentary on this issue in his ten years of public life before the issue of Lawrence came up?
I don’t know, I didn’t follow his fucking life. What difference does it make? You wanted an example of a prominent Republican advocating for the criminalization of homosexual sex. Now you’re saying it doesn’t count unless he did it more than once?
No. Read what I asked:
You’ve given me Santorum’s answer to a case in front of the Supreme Court. You haven’t shown where he advocated imprisoning LGBT people.
Whack! An a hair less than one tenth of a millimeter wide is cleaved neatly!
OK, the Constitution does not expressly extend a right to sodomy. (I think you are pretty solid ground there, counselor…)
But where does it expressly condone regular old missionary style fucking? Is that one of those penumbras? What is the Constitutional stance on spanking the monkey? For that matter, I’m not sure that the Constitution explicitly condones celibacy!
So?
He’s not a constitutional lawyer. Santorum, that is.
There’s a right to fuckin’ at common law, but only between married heterosexual couples.