Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Sodomy Law
What's next, actual tolerance?
Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Sodomy Law
Thu June 26, 2003 10:16 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court struck down on Thursday a Texas sodomy law that makes it a crime for people of the same sex to engage in "deviate sexual intercourse," a ruling that gives gay rights advocates a major victory.
By a 6-3 vote, the nation's high court ruled the law violated constitutional privacy rights. The court also overruled its 1986 decision that upheld a Georgia sodomy law and that declared homosexuals have no constitutional right to engage in sodomy in private.
Thu June 26, 2003 10:16 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court struck down on Thursday a Texas sodomy law that makes it a crime for people of the same sex to engage in "deviate sexual intercourse," a ruling that gives gay rights advocates a major victory.
By a 6-3 vote, the nation's high court ruled the law violated constitutional privacy rights. The court also overruled its 1986 decision that upheld a Georgia sodomy law and that declared homosexuals have no constitutional right to engage in sodomy in private.
For more information:
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Anytime the Court reverses itself it's big news.
Elsewhere Scalia has been chastised for his reference to the "homosexual agenda". Here's my take on him:
I've heard that Scalia is one of the brightest minds on the bench.
(A powerful witch, but a bad witch.) Does he really not realize
that this has no more to do with the "homosexual agenda" than his
objections are part of the "'moral majority' agenda"?
Actually, here's what he said:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/scotus/lwrnctx62603opn.pdf
[The Court] has largely signed on to the SO-CALLED homosexual
agenda by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual
activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has
traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.
Well, by that standard, a majority of Americans support this "agenda".
But in the next paragraph, Scalia makes reference to the "culture war":
It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the
culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral
observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.
Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual
conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their
children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders
in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their
families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and
destructive.
I see. That many of these same people similaraly "viewed" miscegnation laws
seems to be lost on Scalia. Not to mention that they are just "protecting
themselves" from falling property values should a mixed couple (let alone a
full-blown black couple) move into the neighborhood, even if as boarders....
The truth of the matter is that it was the Court, in the 1986 Bowers v.
Hardwick case, which took the wrong side in the culture war. It lost,
precisely because that was a bad decision based on an "agenda" rather
than one made as "neutral observer". (That was a 5-4 decision, and Justice
Lewis Powell later stated that it was his one vote he wished he could change.)
It's almost surprising that the most egregious of sodomy laws (which
prohibit sexual behavior unequally, prohibiting it only to homosexuals)
managed to stay on the books for so long following the ruling that
Colorado's Amendment 2 was unconstitutional.
Elsewhere Scalia has been chastised for his reference to the "homosexual agenda". Here's my take on him:
I've heard that Scalia is one of the brightest minds on the bench.
(A powerful witch, but a bad witch.) Does he really not realize
that this has no more to do with the "homosexual agenda" than his
objections are part of the "'moral majority' agenda"?
Actually, here's what he said:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/scotus/lwrnctx62603opn.pdf
[The Court] has largely signed on to the SO-CALLED homosexual
agenda by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual
activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has
traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.
Well, by that standard, a majority of Americans support this "agenda".
But in the next paragraph, Scalia makes reference to the "culture war":
It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the
culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral
observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.
Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual
conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their
children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders
in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their
families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and
destructive.
I see. That many of these same people similaraly "viewed" miscegnation laws
seems to be lost on Scalia. Not to mention that they are just "protecting
themselves" from falling property values should a mixed couple (let alone a
full-blown black couple) move into the neighborhood, even if as boarders....
The truth of the matter is that it was the Court, in the 1986 Bowers v.
Hardwick case, which took the wrong side in the culture war. It lost,
precisely because that was a bad decision based on an "agenda" rather
than one made as "neutral observer". (That was a 5-4 decision, and Justice
Lewis Powell later stated that it was his one vote he wished he could change.)
It's almost surprising that the most egregious of sodomy laws (which
prohibit sexual behavior unequally, prohibiting it only to homosexuals)
managed to stay on the books for so long following the ruling that
Colorado's Amendment 2 was unconstitutional.
freedom for teenage screwing!!!!!
Back in the mid-60s Playboy Magazine ran an article on Sex-Laws in the United States. This showed by state a long list of laws (many, not usually enforced), but the run-down was, that to be in 'observance' in all states, due to the language used - that it could be assumed that any sex act could- or would- be illegal.
sex leads to procreation.
procreation leads to an increase in world population.
world population is believed to be a massiv demographic obstacle to world domination by the
war mongers, and their cronies!
procreation leads to an increase in world population.
world population is believed to be a massiv demographic obstacle to world domination by the
war mongers, and their cronies!
That depends on how you do it.
Do you think this ruling will open the door to gay marriage, like just legalized in Canada?
No self respecting women should consume hazardous pills to avoid blessed Pregnancies.
No man in his right mind should wear a condom with all that hazardous material plastered on it.
In short pregnancies are a G-D sent, and everything else is a back drop!
No man in his right mind should wear a condom with all that hazardous material plastered on it.
In short pregnancies are a G-D sent, and everything else is a back drop!
teen screwing is very important because if you are orgasmically satisfied you're less aggressive/neurotic/prone to follow paranoid leaders like hitler or bush in their sesnseless wars.
that's why all stalinisms always prohibit teen sex.
that's why all stalinisms always prohibit teen sex.
What I want to know is: What were they doing in Gamorrah?
the same:except sodomy is easier a noun to build then gomorrahness or something...
Most people think it had something to do with sex. But if you read what it actually says in the Bible, you will quickly realize that the real sin of the Sodomites was inhospitality. That's what they were actually punished for.
Hospitality is of great imporance in such cultures.
What is even more gruesome, if you think about it, is that these angels allowed Lot to give his daughters to the mob rather than surrender themselves or disperse the mob.
If it came down to giving a mob your daughters or some strangers who just came into town.... (a terrible choice, yes, but....)
Daughters. Hmmm, that doesn't sound very gay to me. Were the Sodomites actually bi?
What is even more gruesome, if you think about it, is that these angels allowed Lot to give his daughters to the mob rather than surrender themselves or disperse the mob.
If it came down to giving a mob your daughters or some strangers who just came into town.... (a terrible choice, yes, but....)
Daughters. Hmmm, that doesn't sound very gay to me. Were the Sodomites actually bi?
G-d is like that. Brutal, blood thirsty rapists, murderers and torturers are His very favorite people..
See:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.shtml
See:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.shtml
For a court that is supposed to be neutral about religion, this overturning of the Texas and Georgia Sodomy laws exercises just that. The court's religion of no religion.
The cliche you can't legislate "morality" struck down by legislating (unconstitutionally by the way through the court) immorality a morality of no morals.
Wait for Hillary to be Pres in 2004 then smell the fan of stink that follows.
The cliche you can't legislate "morality" struck down by legislating (unconstitutionally by the way through the court) immorality a morality of no morals.
Wait for Hillary to be Pres in 2004 then smell the fan of stink that follows.
It doesn't matter who's president. Whoever it is is a puppet.
G-d is like that. Brutal, blood thirsty rapists, murderers and torturers are His very favorite people
the devil always accuses others of what he/ is guilty of!He is a congenial liar but never admit to that
if you bring it up he will blame you of antisemitism and play the perpetual victim until he is able of devourin' you.
the devil always accuses others of what he/ is guilty of!He is a congenial liar but never admit to that
if you bring it up he will blame you of antisemitism and play the perpetual victim until he is able of devourin' you.
Christians are no better.
Cristendom: from the people who brought you the stake and the thumbscrew.
Cristendom: from the people who brought you the stake and the thumbscrew.
"weddings"a little off topic aren't we, but what is a little commercial -capitalistic brainwashing between friends!
corporate greed is evil!
corporate greed is evil!
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network