flamers rejoice! (does not necessarily apply to those on xoc )

It has been noted . . .

Oral is considered sodomy??? Sodomy is illegal in VA??? Oops...

eyup. been on the books for some 200 years.

At least in Virginia it doesn't discriminate. It's for EVERYONE.

Because of this Supreme Court ruling there are no more effective sodomy laws in any state.

This is a dark day in American history. The Supreme Court has once again over stepped its bounds and made a policy decision instead of defending the Constitution. Something that is totally out of the scope of its powers.

This decision is another "fuck you" to the states in this republic. This case should have been turned down by the court. There is no mention of sodomy anywhere in the constitution. This is not a federal right. If the Texas legislature wants to have a sodomy law, this is up to the people of Texas. If the federal government wants to outlaw sodomy it is up to Congress to do this. The justices job is to protect and uphold the constitution. Not pervert the constitution by making policy and morality (immorality) decisions.

This will lead to a snowball of more gay agenda issues. Maybe even polygomy cases. Who knows. The public's tolerance for this garbage and "forced immorality by the state" is fading fast.

The Federal Government is out of control. States have almost no rights anymore other than to hand out traffic violations and collect taxes. State legislatures mean nothing anymore. Our representative democracy is virtually disappearing right before our eyes. The sycophants in Washington are out of control.

The Federal Government has now entered a dangerous point in history. Our system is broken. Representative democracy is a thing of the past. They are now in the business of usurping public morality and the religious convictions of much of the populace. There will be a point in the near future when the states and the people will have had enough.

It's decisions like this and the inevitable fallout that could sow the seeds for a second civil war. If shit like this keeps up I can easily see secession movements starting up in the future. It might be a good idea this time.

Wow, this is quite possibly the most paranoid ultra-conservative delusional bullshit you have spewed here so far.

How exactly does someone else's right to have anal sex affect you, your family, or your rights as an individual? Why is it "beyond" the powers of the Court to protect the rights of all individuals in this country? Just because you don't agree with Graham and Chia's habits ( ), doesn't mean you, or the Texas government have any right stop them. Remember, "All men (even the gay ones) are created equal."

I do agree with you on one point, we may one day get enough paranoid, delusional fucking morons like yourself together in a group and start another succession movement. I can only hope that your little band of Elitist Ultra-Conservative Christian Warriors takes things a little too far and get put down quickly and quietly.

Riddle me this Batman, since the other 49 states in the Union long ago decided not to have effective sodomy laws, why wasn’t your easily ignited succession movement set off sooner?

First of all this is really a privacy issue.
Secondly if states were allowed to do whatever they wanted to do, we would still have slavery, and later segregation.(Yes I got the second point from O'reilly, but it is a good analogy)

You are correct, they shouldn't be making morality decisions. So Scalia should NEVER have mentioned anything about some supposed "gay agenda."

No, there is no law that says you can't have anal sex. But that's not why it was thrown out. It was thrown out on PRIVACY. How do you enforce a sodomy law? Searching. No other way. It is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

Quote:

This will lead to a snowball of more gay agenda issues. Maybe even polygomy cases. Who knows. The public's tolerance for this garbage and "forced immorality by the state" is fading fast.

Sorry, it's not forced immorality. I don't recall them saying that you or I have to do it.

Once again you show how far out there you are. Idiot. Why don't you go start a militia group, and go take on an Army base, so you can be put down quickly. Part of our system is also designed to protect the minority from the majority.

You like that huh...??

I was a little worried I was soft on the topic...

Hey... I always speak well of you.

Well Robin... There are about 13 states that have sodomy laws. At least until today. In 1960 all 50 states had them. I think the states have the right to repeal laws like this as they see fit. It shouldn't be up to a bunch of radicals in robes to decide on subject matter that has no mention in the constitution. This is an extreme stretch in interpretation. It is out of the bounds of their power

Plus the Supreme Court overuled its own decision from 1986 regarding a state's rights to sodomy laws. Justice Scalia was correct in everything he said. The Supreme Court has sold out on an "agenda".

You know, the funny thing is...had it been a man and woman that the cops found having the anal sex, I'd put any amount of money on it that they never would have been arrested.

And what would Scalia's argument have been if it was a man and woman bringing the case? hmmm... makes you wonder, doesn't it? Does he have no respect for privacy at all? Or is it just that SOME people are afforded the privacy that others aren't?

And only four (now three) are for same-sex only. While all had something by 1960, 20 were gone by 1980 (Illinois repealed in 1962).

Quote:

Plus the Supreme Court overuled its own decision from 1986 regarding a state's rights to sodomy laws.

They are allowed to do that. As far as the '86 ruling: Justice Lewis Powell - "I think I probably made a mistake in that one."

NY Madman, are you saying that everything not expressly permitted by the constitution is illegal ?

If it's the case, stop breathing right now... there is nothing about breathing in the constitution...

Note: My english is bad (sorry, French speaking Canadian) so I must add that this is an ironic post to demonstrate the stupidity of the argument... it's not at all a statement that sodomy is necessary for the life... unlike breathing

Moby... I'm worried that you know all these statistics.....

Do you defend deviance with your personal friends with as much motivation as you do on here?

Yeah they can do that. They can do whatever they want.

We need a new amendment to the constitution if we are going to survive "rule by judiciary".

Nah...did a google, like you.

I don't have to defend the "deviance" with my personal friends, because none of them have a problem with it (one is even a devout Southern Baptist, if you can imagine that).

I'd bet in your wettest dreams it would read something like: "Congress shall make no law that is not sanctioned by the ultra Christian conservative left without regard to the other two-thirds of this country's population's opinion."

Perhaps this way "representative democracy" will return to America, serving the interests of the small minded thus preventing another succession movement. :rolleyes:

No, what he's saying is that anything that is not in the constitution is reserved for states to decide, which is correct.

See Madman? I defend you, too.

No doubt. Look who's in the White House.

DOH! I know...that was just too easy.

(and no, I don't think anything was "stolen")

By the way Madman, sorry to hear Strom Thurman finally kicked the bucket. It know it must suck to lose a personal hero.

Now if we can get that idiot Bird to kick the bucket we will be all set.

I agree Mobycat, states must have a certain freedom to create laws. I also think that no state/country should legiferate on what is done by consenting adults behind closed doors...

Thanks, I appreciate it. Some people take things out of context. I guess they don't understand some of my rants.

Not for nothing .... I don't think you are as "liberal" as you might portray yourself.

I think you play "devil's advocate" a lot of times....

Can you say cyber hug, that is so sweet.

Sodomy is a pain in the ass.........

Awwww, now I feel bad.

Sorry for all the name calling NY, I did get kind of carried away -- not to say that I didnt think you are way off in left field but still...

Thats not what my fiance said.

Well, Graham just doesn't want to hurt your feelings :p

Thanks Claus..... A deviant government thread is not the same without you.

What's the deal with you?

I thought you were getting married this weekend? Congratulations by the way....

Not grarham you eeeediot. This fiance

It always has been with the advant of the electoral vote. Remember, Gore won the populace vote.

Quote:

They are now in the business of usurping public morality and the religious convictions of much of the populace. There will be a point in the near future when the states and the people will have had enough.

The people have already had enough, thus the ruling of the court. People of this nation WANT "Separation of Church and State"

Quote:

It's decisions like this and the inevitable fallout that could sow the seeds for a second civil war. If shit like this keeps up I can easily see secession movements starting up in the future. It might be a good idea this time.

"Second Civil War", that's a good one. I admit though, I myself could be driven to such thoughts if the Christain's were to take over our goverment.

Edited to add:

or any other religious group for that matter

Why the sacrifice of Christians on this board? I know as much as the next guy that organized religion will be the end of mankind, but let's not stop with the Christians. Seems to me that Islam and Judaism are taking out there own fair share of individual rights. Here's one that has been taken away regularly, and in large numbers:

Right to live

If I hear about another goddamn suicide bombing in the bum-fucking middle east, I am gonna expel breakfast. Who gives a shit anymore? Why should the US? We have our own problems with hating of people because of which end they "take it" in. We got all the hate we need, and enough to go around.

Sheesh... No wonder I spend so much time just being thankful to have a wife and child who live in my house, and I can take care of. Glad I don't depend on this stupid ass government of ours, Christian or not, to take care of us...

The government should not enforce laws based on morality. Morals are subjective.

Many right wing extremists are quick to point out how we need less governmental intrusion in our daily lives. Here you go. It is a sunny day in America's history. It is called progress. (Oh yeah, Strom Thurmond is dead)

Mainly because they are the most vocal. I don't know of anybody on here who is Muslim/Jewish/Buddhist/et. al. who does any kind of arguing about it. If they did, you'd probably get the same sort of reaction (though I'm pretty sure Madman and Off2 would probably disagree with me on that).

"Virginia is for Lovers" (of the missionary position...)

It's time to put some faces on this case.....

This is a picture of the two deviants that originated the case.



The white guy is old enough to be the other deviants grandfather. Does anyone have the opinion that the old pervert probably started molesting the other one as a teenager?

.....................

This picture is the deviants lawyer. She is also a deviant (yes.. it is a woman.. I think). Word around Capitol Hill is that she has every episode of "Ellen" on tape.



She is also representing Anne Heche for her upcoming autobiography "Hot Dogs and Donuts".

Why are you so judgemental?

Isn't that God's job?

I thought God didn't want you to judge others.

Why can't you understand that part of the Bible?

Can't you rest assured that God will condemn the "deviants" to hell without your contributing to hypocrisy?

And your point would be? These people don't look dangerous in the least. So now we should hate others because of the way they look?

:rolleyes:

Dude, I never realized I was so cute!

You are a total jackass. Why don't you hide and go fuck yourself, and not worry about what other people do in their bedroom. You are the most hate filled person on this board, and you are most definately a deviant! Most people do not hate everyone that isn't exactly like them, and since you do you are a deviant.

Regardless of how you all here feel about NYMadman, he is exactly right on this point. This gay issue is a Texas problem, not a Supreme Court (Federal) issue. The Supreme Court overstepped its bounds again.

Stone

And slavery/segregation is only a problem for the southern states as well, eh?

Anyone taken you to the zoo lately?

Please, someone, please explain to me how the hell two people doing what the hell they want in the privacy of their own residences has any bearing on anyone else's life?

They weren't building bombs.

They weren't cooking up drugs.

They weren't making prank calls to have 100 pepperoni pizzas delivered to thir friends . . .

They were doing what grown, consenting adults do every night of the week. They just have slightly different tastes in who to do it with . . .

I'm at a loss. How is this in any way something that could harm anyone else?

Well, they obviously feel it is unconstitutional for the Texas State gov't to tell people what they can or can't do in their bedroom. I'd say that is an invasion of privacy. So, they were right.

Thanks fucko....

Damn, I wonder why everyone is so angry by me posting the pictures of the players in this case. Was this supposed to be some kind of liberal secret? Did you libs not want everyone to see how young one of the deviants were? It's the classic May/December romance ... right?

So tell me.... do you think the old pervert molested the other guy as a teenager? That's why you are mad. Because I even raised the possibility that it could be true.

So now age comes in to play? Better not tell Strom Thurmond (death notwithstanding), Tony Randall (becomes a dad in his 70s!), Pavarotti,

Quote:

She is also representing Anne Heche for her upcoming autobiography "Hot Dogs and Donuts".

Now that is funny.

Yes, yes, I agree.

My question is: why are so many people geting their panties twisted about it?

The ruling affects my life in no way whatsoever.

How does it affect yours?

Was funny the first time.

Gets old quick.

Graham,

My reply was directed toward Stonecoldchavez. Just to clear that up. Sorry.

It wasn't ruled on as a gay rights issue. It was ruled on as a PRIVACY issue.

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

What the hell, I'll connect the huge dots for you . . .

Your sig says "I hear retards like the zoo."

So I said, "Anyone taken you to the zoo lately?"

Could the implication be, chuckles, that since retards possibly like the zoo (according to your sig), and I was wondering if you've been to the zoo lately, that perhaps I was comparing you to a retard?

I wasn't "dissing" you about your sig. Memorable line from an excellent movie.

Instead, I was "dissing" you with reference to your sig . . .

Fuck it. Next time I'll just be blunt. :rolleyes:

Graham,

Relax Bro, I am not mad at you. I know what you meant by it. I just didn't know what I said that was "retarded" to you.

Stone

What's the sense of having The U.S. Constitution, (basicly a document stating the minimum requirements the States must adhere to to stay in the Union), if the they (the States) can make any laws they please?

This case is truly a violation of the 4th Amendment:

"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."

The laws referring to the banning of sodomy are just leftover religious jargon.

GUESS WHAT!!

I am going to a lesbian "wedding" here in Jersey today! I will keep you all posted on the "deviant" quota. I am actually quite interested to see what it is all about. One is friends with my fiance,(they went to high school together and work together). Should be interesting, I will let you know if I leave a liberal socialist democrat who wants to overthrow the American system, or if I stay a mostly right leaning republican. What do YOU think. :rolleyes:

Quick! Somebody?

We need an intervention!!!!!

We will all start praying for you now.

God, please protect him from the lesbians! I hear it is contagious. Thank you Lord. Amen

Who cares about your political beliefs. If they are hot, get pics of the honeymoon!

One, her friend, is really hot, the other, no.

Here is a pic of the nice looking one.

Nice!

The whole event was kind of nice but sad. The other woman is dying of pancreatic cancer and they wanted to affirm thier vows in public before she dies (which is likely weeks or a month or two from now.) On the bright side it was chock full of strippers and really hot straight, gay and bi women doing nothing more than acting like regular people. There were no deviant sex acts, no crazy politics, just people being people. I was glad to have been there.