...Drama Queen Scalia Throws Hissy Fit

I am really suprised that the conservatives on the court didn't find some way to waiver and hold off on this decision. "The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench. "The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals." (Full text here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&e=1&u=/ap/20030626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_sodomy)) What culture war would that be? The neocons & fundies against everyone else?

I'm thrilled with the ruling and enjoy the added bonus of annoying Nino. But hey, c'mon! This case should have been a no-brainer. Things are really pretty bleak when these battles still have to be fought. This is the 21st century, for cryin' out loud. It should've been 9-0.

:m: Peace.

P.S. I've lost my copy of the homosexual agenda. Could someone please send me one?

Originally posted by goofyfish
P.S. I've lost my copy of the homosexual agenda. Could someone please send me one?
Homosexual Agenda (http://www.bettybowers.com/homoagenda.html)

All is right in my world, now! :D

:m: Peace.

Well, this is a historic day for civil rights, and I for one couldn't be happier!

"This is giant leap forward to a day where we are no longer branded as criminals and where that is no longer accepted by the most powerful court in the country," said Ruth Harlow, of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, who represented the two men.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/index.html


I'm glad that the argument, that the public somehow had a stake in, and right to legislate, what two consenting adults do behind closed doors didn't hold up. Scalia can suck it, as far as I am concerned, and I think it's great, now that the government can't come in and say that it'd be illegal for him to suck it, because frankly he just really needs to get that over with.

With this ruling, I predict that the next target will be the defense of Marriage act, which denies the rights of homosexuals to marry all through out the United States. With the removal of the governments power to legislate against consensual sodomy, and the repeal of the DMA, I will personally be adequately satisfied with the state of homosexual rights in this nation, and you all will finally stop hearing me bitch about it.


P.S. I've lost my copy of the homosexual agenda. Could someone please send me one?

The homosexual agenda: "Just leave us the fuck alone already." It's really that simple.

"This is social engineering by a court. It will have very bad effects on the idea of our republican form of government," Knight said. "If a government like Texas cannot legislate on public health, safety and morals, what can it legislate about?"
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/index.html


As far as I know, states still have the right to legislate on these things. All that has happened now is that the government has woken up and acknowledged the fact that homosexuality doesn't factor into any of these issues.

Originally posted by goofyfish
All is right in my world, now! :D

:m: Peace.

You gay? I'm a straight (um, cuz I'm in LTR with girl atm) who thinks this is just great. Marriage should be next.

As an extreme libertarian, it's clear that sodomy laws are bad but so are rules forcing employers to turn a blind eye to everything (in this case sexual orientation). Ditto to "hate laws"--the original law is fine.

Originally posted by goofyfish
P.S. I've lost my copy of the homosexual agenda. Could someone please send me one?

I too have lost my copy, but I remember a few things...

Some are quite reasonable; mainly having to do with rights to privacy and equal treatment under the law.

At least one aspect is quite unreasonable and oppressive: the tendency of at least a few homosexuals and/or their supporters to try to sue their way into private entities where they are not wanted.

why the hell shouldnt all people be concidered equally for a job baised SOULY on there ability to PERFORM the job?

Originally posted by Asguard
why the hell shouldnt all people be concidered equally for a job baised SOULY on there ability to PERFORM the job?

A smart businessman would do just that, but it shouldn't be required by law since doing so would involve a gross violation of property rights and freedom of association.

vs a gross vilolation of peoples rights to earn a living and have there tax's pay for only those who NEED help as oposed to those who are simply discriminated against?

ill take our system thank you

As an extreme libertarian, it's clear that sodomy laws are bad but so are rules forcing employers to turn a blind eye to everything (in this case sexual orientation). Ditto to "hate laws"--the original law is fine.
Fen, what are you talking about here? As an extreme libertarian myself, I am cornfused...

Of course the ruling is nice, but there is still a long way to go for civil rights here in the supposed land of the free.

Originally posted by Fen
You gay?Nope. Originally posted by Mystech
As far as I know, states still have the right to legislate on these things. Absolutely. And I don't know of any state ready to redefine marriage as between same sex couples; even Dean made clear that Vermont was not ready to go that far when he signed the civil union legislation.

I'm glad Justice Kennedy framed the decision in terms of personal liberty instead of reaching a decision based on a narrower equal protection or substantive due process ground, which could have given some clever state legislator a loophole to enact yet another sodomy law, that while appearing neutral on its face, would have served as cover for further discrimination against gay people. I also like his subtle swipe at the fundies for mentioning that historically, there was never this moral hyperactivity over certain homosexual behavior, as Bowers would lead one to believe, until the past 30 or so years when the religious right started becoming politically active after Roe and has been trying to inject their version of Biblical morality into the law ever since. But I'm wondering how O'Connor reached her concurrence because I know she based her decision on narrower grounds than the Court.

What disturbs me is Scalia's dissent. Scalia has always disturbed me anyway because he's just as much of a judicial activist as he has accused liberal justices of being -- especially when it comports with his own personal religious-political viewpoints -- and because he allows his fundamental Catholicism to shape his concept of legal principles. In any event, I think in his dissent he's either being completely disingenuous or he just doesn't get it, or it may be a little of both. His dissent in this case, as with most of his opinions, is spent in large part attacking the underpinnings of Kennedy's rationale for overturning Bowers on morality grounds instead of confronting the questions raised by the case, namely those of personal privacy, head on. It's apparent from his decision that he doesn't believe there is such a thing as a privacy right lying within the broader concept of liberty and this should scare everyone because it would seem, in Scalia's world at least, the reach of government is far and broad; very totalitarian.

I also think the parade of horribles that Scalia cites to by proposing that allowing "homosexual sodomy" opens to door to gay marriage, legalized prostitution, etc., is just dicta meant to whip the fundies into a frenzy.

:m: Peace.

the justices of the supreme court are supposed to be the smartest most just and fair minded people in the government, i wonder how any of them, let alone three could have decided the government aught to be able to go into the bedroom of a private residence and pull a gay man off his boyfriend and throw him in jail.

Originally posted by Asguard
vs a gross vilolation of peoples rights to earn a living and have there tax's pay for only those who NEED help as oposed to those who are simply discriminated against?

ill take our system thank you

You don't have a right to expropriate the property of others to make your living.

First off, I don't care what you do in your own home.

The reason why the other 3 probably voted against are that in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick the found that state sodomy laws were constitutional. The court is usually very wary of overturning a law that they ruled constetutional. They don't want the the courts to look political and the Constitution appears malleable.

The question decided by the Court was not whether sodomy is bad or good, but whether a state has the ability to prohibit it.
They uses different standards of review. Unless something is considered a constitutional right, the Court looks for any "rational basis"

The morality of the state wanted sodomy illegal. So there is a rational basis for that law. This was used in the case of Bowers vs. Hadwick.

What does this mean? The Court has stated implicitly, while denying it explicitly, that anal sex is a constitutional right and subject to heightened scrutiny, when they said it was NOT a constitutional right 17 years ago.

They also know that many states have been repealing thier sodomy laws. The United States is a federalist country. If there were some people who couldn't stand anybody having sodomy near them they could leave for another state. So those 3 may have also not seen it as necissary. The 3 just wieghed the costs diffrently I suspect.

I don't think that the government should be able to regulate what goes on between consenting adults, but it seems pretty clear the Supreme Court ruled improperly here. The Supreme Court's job is to decide whether or not a law is in violation of the constitution, not to make decisions about what the government can and cannot regulate based on their own personal opinions.

Texas outlawed sodomy, which was stupid of them, but a state legislature has the right to outlaw anything it wants, so long as it doesn't infringe on a right guaranteed by the constitution. Since the constitution never gives people any rights regarding what sex acts they can and cannot perform, the Texas state legislature has every right to outlaw sodomy if they wish, just as they could outlaw wearing hats or driving a car after 9:00 pm, or any other absurd thing.

The court basically decided that they didn't want the government to regulate sex acts, so they declared the law unconstitutional – not because of any constitutional grounds, but because they just didn't like it. That is not how the Supreme Court is supposed to operate, and it sets a dangerous precedent. Just because I like the results of the decision this time does not mean that I'll like the results of the decision the next time the Supreme Court decides to dictate policy based on their own personal opinions.

The constitution is a joke these days. Its ignored as a matter of routine. Given thats its going to be ignored anyway I'm glad this happend.

this law is from another era. it's overdue to be overturned.

but, if a group of ppl decided to get their god-given right of having sex with their pets (on their own property behind closed doors), should that be legalized too? there's nothing in the constitution about sex with pets.

There may be nothing written expressly about these particular acts in the constitution, however it is stated that citizens of the United States, have rights beyond those which are specifically outlined in the document, and that one is entitled to any liberties which do not infringe on the rights of others. So yes, sodomy laws are in violation of the constitution.

Ummm.... I would like to pose a question.

Who the f*** decided to make a law against this in the first place? what people do in their own homes with whomever they want is their business.

(sarcastic) well thats a very anti-social thing to say (/sarcastic)

i would say the kind of people in question are upright religious folk who spend more time moralizing and worrying about what the outsiders fo their clique are doing than worrying about thier own actions.

why the hell shouldnt all people be concidered equally for a job baised SOULY on there ability to PERFORM the job?
Because customers only like certain people. A company that was run by a majority of gay people would be less successful than a competing company, even if product quality, service, and price were the same. When a business is starting up, it must fit in with what it's customers want.
The reason why the other 3 probably voted against are that in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick the found that state sodomy laws were constitutional. The court is usually very wary of overturning a law that they ruled constetutional. They don't want the the courts to look political and the Constitution appears malleable.
I believe the courts are very politically minded. The president appoints the judges, the president is the most politically driven person on the planet. Everything he does isn't for the obvious cause, there's always something behind the reasoning that's shady. Congress approves the president's nominations.
Congress wants to be strong and support the president if the people are in support of the president. Basically if the president has a nice image, he can do whatever he wants and influence the judicial branch as well as the legislative branch of government.

As trite as the subject of privacy and sex is in politics, this ruling becomes news because of how the Supreme Court went against the traditional grain. Why wasn't it unamimously passed?...to support the president. Why was it passed at all?...because of how idiotic the law was in the first place.
There may be nothing written expressly about these particular acts in the constitution, however it is stated that citizens of the United States, have rights beyond those which are specifically outlined in the document, and that one is entitled to any liberties which do not infringe on the rights of others. So yes, sodomy laws are in violation of the constitution.
Is someone's anus considered their constitutional right these days; that it can't be "infringed" upon? Someone said it before, it's between consenting adults. The participants are legally labelled as being able to take care of themselves, so they should be able to make a decision about what type of sex they ingage in.
i would say the kind of people in question are upright religious folk who spend more time moralizing and worrying about what the outsiders fo their clique are doing than worrying about thier own actions.
Those religious folks sound better than politcians who don't moralize and just worry about their clique; destroying and inhibiting life without a conscience. But when people in high places moralize, there'll only be one person-clique's conscience governing for many people. That sounds unfair. Actually both sound unfair. At least the Supreme Court is there to add another conscience to the moralizing and decision making. It could be worse. I'm very pleased with the ruling....I'll stop there because there's too many things to bitch about.