Sean,
What's your point?
I am just clarifying that the Supreme Court should not be involved in this issue. That is why we have the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government. I don't care what issue it deals with - it is up for the individual States to decide, not the Supreme Court. States rights vs. Federal gov.

PS: Who gives a shit about slavery? That was 150 years ago. Let's move forward....... FYI, more blacks today are for segregation. I.e. United Negro College Fund, Black Essence Awards, Hip-Hop Awards, affirmative action laws, etc. Shall I go on? If they want to be intergrated, why the need for the these individual acts?

Stone

The black guy doesn't look that young to me actually. Sure he is younger than the other guy, but it ain't like he is 18 or something. Hey did you molest your wife/girlfriend when you were kids Madman? That is just as plausible as your comment about these two guys.

No worries.

Graham,

I could care less what homos do in the privacy of their own home.......I am just clarifing that the Supreme Court should not be involved in a States rights issue. Let the people of Texas decide; not the Federal gov.

Stone

As far as it affecting your life..... the topic doesn't affect my life either. But the State's "Big Brother" mentality does. I'm sure you know this already.

If people want to act "immorally", that is their problem. If they break the law, that is another thing. ie. You rape/sodomize a child, you go to jail. Not because of Sodomy. Because you raped a child.

Just to clarify for everyone. It ALL has to do with PRIVACY:

Justice Kennedy: "The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced," he said. "It does not involve public conduct or prostitution."

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle," he said. They "are entitled to respect for their private lives."

The states rights issue is a BS argument. As has been stated the same thing happened during the civil rights movement. The Southern states wanted the feds to let them handle it themselves. That obviously was not acceptable. The job of the Supreme Court is to strike down laws that they see as unconstitutional. They saw the sodomy law as unconstitutional, so they said it had to go. Just because you may have liked the law does not mean it was legal. One thing that I found laughable was Thomas' statement about him not finding a right to privacy in the Constitution. Huh? I like Thomas as a justice, but I think he fucked up on this one.

Here is a little something useless...

Actually, I think he is right.

There is nothing in the Constitution that ever says the word, "privacy."

The Constitution outlines what the Government can do, not what the American people can do.

You don't really see anything about Rights until the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution.

Then, in Amendments 9 and 10, privacy is referred to in a back-handed way . . .

Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In other words, the Constitution lays out, specifically, what the Governemnt can tell the American people they can and cannot do. Everything else that isn't specified, is up to the States and the people.

Including privacy . . .

I could not disagree more in this case Graham. I think Ammendment IV covers privacy. No it does not specificall say it, but it is implied. I believe this is what the justices were thinking of as well. We have the right to our private lives, without the police busting down our door for no reason.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

2001frontier,

Your a wrong here. Yes, the Supreme Court decides on what is Constitutional. But, the Constitution says nothing about gay rights. Therefore the SC should not be involved in deciding for the individual States. If, the individual States want to have sodomy laws, that is their decision. That is what their people want.

I agree with Moby now, it is a privacy issue, not a gay issue.

Stone

So which is it. A privacy issue or a gay rghts issue to you?

Since I am not gay, I could care less what issue it is.

My orignal comments were about the separation of the Legislative vs. Judicial branch of government.

The Supreme Court decides on citizens rights violations as described in the Constitution. Since gay rights are not in the Constitution, it should be up to the individual State's to decide if it is a privacy vs. gay issue. Let the people of the indivdual State decide what they want.

Stone

I've never thought of it as a gay rights' issue but as a privacy issue. Much as sexual orientation is a private issue, or should be, and much as whether I prefer whipped cream and cherries or chocolate sauce on my ice cream is a private issue.

Anyone taken you to the zoo lately?[/QUOTE]

Graham,
Before you go dissing me about my signature, do you even know what movie it is from?

Stone

WHAT!

Yes.

You quoted Rocky.

And that is relevant to anything because . . . . ?

THIS IS A PRIVACY ISSUE. If my g/f/fgiance/wife likes to be kinky and get done up the bum, I dont think a State has the right to say I cant do that. I am not hurting anyone by doing it. Privacy not gay rights is what it is about.

That is true, there is not one mention of the word "privacy."

Quote:

The Constitution outlines what the Government can do, not what the American people can do.

You don't really see anything about Rights until the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution.

The Amendments are part of the constitution. When one speaks of the "constitution," we are not talking about only the original document.

Quote:

In other words, the Constitution lays out, specifically, what the Governemnt can tell the American people they can and cannot do. Everything else that isn't specified, is up to the States and the people.

Quote:

Including privacy . . .

Nope:

"(The right to privacy is a person's) right to be left alone by the government... the right most valued by civilized men."
- Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

1973 Roe v. Wade was decided on the "Right to Privacy."

The Fourth Amendment protects us from federal government intrusion.

The Fourteenth Amendment protects us from state and local government intrusion. The actual text enforcing this: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Therefore, since the federal government cannot do unreasonable search and seizure, neither can the states.

Thomas can ignore previous cases if he wants, but the court has ruled many times that individuals do indeed have a "right to privacy" under the fourth and fourteenth amendments.

EDITED TO ADD:

Several Amendments have been used to support the right to privacy:

First Amendment in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449,462.

Third and Fifth Amendments in Tehan v. Shott, 382 U.S. 406,416.

the guy on the left is in his 50's, the guy on the right looks to be in his late 30's, early 40's. I dont see a problem.

Graham,
Before you go dissing me about my signature, do you even know what movie it is from?

Stone[/QUOTE]
Its from Rocky! The mob boss' driver who hated Rocky said it.

You've got to at least do the ... when you leave part of a quote out!

Like this ? Did I use the dots correctly ?

Unfortunately, yes....

I don't know....you tell me, why did you ask me if I have been to the zoo lately?

Stone