Thanks, JR8 for the agenda. It seems a little short (except for number 4). I wonder how long the meetings are. Will there be coffee and cake?
Bob
Can straights come to this meeting, or do we have to pass some sort of test to prove our worthiness to attend?
It sounds a lot more interesting than our Heterosexual Agenda meetings.
It’s inconceivable that it took until now for this to happen. This is truely a seminal event in American jurisprudence. Tonight, god willing, I will get a blow job to celebrate.
Haj
urban1z, you don’t think we’re that classless, do you? We’re breaking out the Chardonnay (or Diet Coke for the Chelsea boys) and the finest Parisian truffles.
A question. In his dissent, one justice included masturbation among the things this decision would not allow states to outlaw.
Is there really any government entity which currently has laws against masturbation? And if so, just how many of us are offenders?
Or did he mean that the decision would make it impossible to outlaw masturbation in the future?
Also, bigamy and polygamy same-sex marriage are already regulated under different laws and this decision has nothing to do with it.
Bob
I’d be willing to bet that there’s some state and local laws prohibiting such actions. As for how many of us are violators, I’d have to say probably 99% of us (the other 1% are liars 
).
**
Well, if it throws out existing laws, than odds are any future laws (other than those prohibiting public exposure) will be null and void too.
**
Which is a shame, because most of those laws should be thrown out as well, IMHO.
I’d think toaster pastries would be involved somehow but they would first have to come to a consensus as to whose toaster to use. 
I’m just waiting to see what ol’ Phred is gonna say about this.
I skimmed Scalia’s dissent only. Basically, abortion and homosexual sodomy fall under the same heading of sexual and reproductive privacy… so the two are related.
Scalia seems to be saying that the court is too quick to throw legal precedent out the window (i.e., Bowers) and is improperly applying constitutional priciples (e.g., stare decisis, definitions of fundamental rights, and the rational relation scrutiny test) to achieve a poitical end that should be left to the various state legislatures to decide. The result undermines established constitutional principles, and undermining constitutional principles is bad for society.
I agree with the result of the majority, but Scalia seems to make some good points about how the wheels of justice ought to turn.
This made me laugh. I hope I’m not being whooshed.
I’m so happy! Not homosexual, but this was at the top of my agenda!
Mr. Justice Powell, who cast the deciding vote in the Hardwick case, and who later admitted that he had erred, can now rest easy.
Sodomy for all!
Yay 14th Ammendment!
Terrific too, that three of the worst, right-wing wacko’s (Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist) to ever occupy the bench were the dissenters. Clarence Thomas even wrote his own dissent.
Here’s some of the wisdom of “Justice” Scalia (the man who would be Chief) who likes “quoting” “rights”:
Haj said, “Tonight, god willing, I will get a blow job to celebrate.”
If he’s not willing, what do you do to get him in the mood? 
(If there’s a hell, I’m in the first car on the first train going there.)
This is a very very good thing.
Good news.
Bartender! Sodomy for everyone!
Just got done reading the dissents.
The majority opinion and O’Connor’s concurring opinion literally brought tears of joy to my eyes (and how I wish O’Connor’s opinion were the majority). Scalia’s brought waves of revulsion. Does this man ever do anything from the bench but succor the majority when he’s in it and hector the majority when he dissents? The central point of the decision is simple. Bowers was decided on faulty premises. The Court today recognized those premises as faulty, and being faulty, overturned the ruling. Scalia’s desperate thirst to overturn Roe v Wade is even more starkly revealed as blatant social engineering, since he only seems to object to overturning precedents that he agrees with.
Thomas’ dissent was a joke. I wonder if he thinks there’s a right to privacy regarding inquiries into one’s video rental habits because, oh, didn’t he call that part of the “high tech lynching” during his confirmation hearings?
Maybe we’ll get lucky and his head will simply explode.
This is such great news.
I do not fear God. My wife on the other hand…
Haj
[sub]No, my wife does not read the boards[/sub]