one of the last posts need on this topic.......hopefully

[Justin_stacy]

Experts: Court's Gay Sex Ruling Will Strike Down Laws in Other States
Thursday, June 26, 2003

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court (search) ruling that struck down a Texas law banning gay sex on Thursday will have a ripple effect on 13 other states across the country that have similar anti-sodomy laws (search).
The 6-3 ruling overturned the court's decision 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what was historically considered deviant sex.

The issue of states rights is a particularly touchy one when it comes to legal matters, and state authorities often argue that federal laws should not supercede their own.

As recently as 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy law. Since then, the statutes have been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts in 37 states.

Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four — Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri — prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine — Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia — ban consensual sodomy for everyone.

Though seldom enforced by police, the state anti-sodomy laws are sometimes invoked by judges to deny homosexuals legal custody of their children, equal employment guarantees (search) and other civil rights.

"As of two hours ago, they are all invalidated," Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano said after the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday.

But "the practical effect of that is next to nothing," he said, because most states don't enforce their anti-sodomy laws. "They're practically unenforceable," Napolitano said, adding that police can't just barge into people's homes to find out if they're having illegal sex.

Thursday's Supreme Court ruling reversed a 1986 decision upholding state anti-sodomy laws similar to Texas'. Many legal briefs filed in support of the two men in the Texas case argued that times have changed since 1986, and that the court should catch up.

"That's almost one of the reasons the court invalidated the statute — because Texas itself didn't enforce it within the past 10 years with the exception of this one case," Napolitano said.

At the time of the court's 1986 ruling, 24 states criminalized such behavior. States that have since repealed the laws include Georgia, where the 1986 case — Bowers v. Hardwick — arose.

Of the nine justices who ruled on the 1986 case, only three remain on the court. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor sided with the majority in that case, and Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.

"Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority Thursday.

Although laws forbidding homosexual sex were once universal, those on the books now are rarely enforced but underpin other kinds of discrimination, lawyers for the two Texas men whom the case centered around argued in court.

"Law enforcement, our lawmakers, have better things to do" than police people's bedrooms, criminal defense attorney Daniel Perez told Fox News.

"People doing things behind closed doors, states can stay out of it," agreed former prosecutor Michael Worthy.

The Texas case began when a neighbor with a grudge against John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner faked a distress call to police, telling them that a man was "going crazy" in Lawrence's apartment. Police went to the apartment and found the two men having anal sex. They were each fined $200 and spent a night in jail for the misdemeanor sex charge in 1998.

Dale Carpenter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, said the court's decision "did signal it was sympathetic to the equal protection argument" of the 14th Amendment.

The home "is a sacred place in American law and in constitutional law, and that is the principle that was vindicated in this ruling today," Carpenter said.

Attorneys for Texas defended the sodomy law, saying it was in keeping with the state's interest in protecting marriage and child rearing. Gay sex, the state argued, "has nothing to do with marriage or conception or parenthood and it is not on a par with these sacred choices."

The state had urged the court to draw a constitutional line "at the threshold of the marital bedroom."

But Texas lost its argument in the end.

"Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home," Kennedy wrote.

"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime … adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons."

Justices Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Kennedy in full. O'Connor agreed with the outcome of the case but not all of Kennedy's rationale.

Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Napolitano said he disagreed with Scalia's decision, but he defended the justice's rationale.

"This is not the first time he has made this argument," Napolitano said.

Scalia was arguing that "it is a state's right issue," Napolitano said. "He may not have voted for this law … but he believes the people of Texas should be able to establish their own laws, not the nine unelected justices in Washington, D.C."

But Napolitano added his own opinion: "It's not a state's issue, it's a privacy issue."

Although the majority opinion said the Texas case didn't "involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter," Scalia said the ruling invites laws allowing gay marriage.

"This reasoning leaves on shaky, pretty shaky grounds, state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples," Scalia wrote.

Thomas wrote separately to say that while he considers the Texas law at issue "uncommonly silly," he couldn't find any general right to privacy in the Constitution.

[evil zach]

Its about time. Now just give gays the right to marry

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by evil zach
Its about time. Now just give gays the right to marry

progress takes time but it will happen.........

[papathomas]

yay for texas! now homosexual sex is legal!

[WithStamin]

While I don't especially support the laws that were in place in Texas, I think the Supreme Court was overstepping its authority in this ruling. Are sodomoy laws unfair? Yes. Discriminatory? Sure. But unconstitutional? I don't think so. Show me where in the Constitution it says that you can have sex with whomever you want. The Supreme Court is supossed to deal with the Constitution, not what they believe is right or wrong.

[evil zach]

show me where in the constitution it says it's ok to have sex with some people, but not others

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by evil zach
show me where in the constitution it says it's ok to have sex with some people, but not others That's kind of a rediculous argument. Show me where in the Constitution it says that you can't murder. It doesn't deal with specifics. Unless the sodomy law breaks one of the amendments, it's not the Supreme Court's business.

[NOFXdesendents5]

You know what? I dont fucking care any more.

If the gays wanna marry, get them married. Just don't start fucking flaunting at me that you are gay and married. Im fine with gay people as long as they dont have their stupid ass gay pride parades.

i mean, what if me and like 100 straights went out there and paraded around san fransisco about the glories of the straight relationships? the liberals would call that wrong.

if they want to marry, shit, they can marry. just don't flirt with me around.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5

if they want to marry, shit, they can marry. just don't flirt with me around.

have you had alot of gay people flirt with you before.......or are you just personally scared of those that are different from you?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by WithStamin
That's kind of a rediculous argument. Show me where in the Constitution it says that you can't murder. It doesn't deal with specifics. Unless the sodomy law breaks one of the amendments, it's not the Supreme Court's business.

so abortion should be a state issue right..................

[kidinthecorner]

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5
You know what? I dont fucking care any more.

If the gays wanna marry, get them married. Just don't start fucking flaunting at me that you are gay and married. Im fine with gay people as long as they dont have their stupid ass gay pride parades.

i mean, what if me and like 100 straights went out there and paraded around san fransisco about the glories of the straight relationships? the liberals would call that wrong.

if they want to marry, shit, they can marry. just don't flirt with me around. See, you're what's wrong with the world. "Gays" aren't any different from you. No matter what you hear, just cuz someone is gay, they are not going to be attracted to you and hit on you. They wont, for the most part, run around and say "look at me, I'm gay!" The gay pride parades and the rainbow bumper stickers are to promote acceptance, to get rid of feelings people like you have.

[BanMe]

This shouldn't even be an argument. They removed an antiquated law designed to restrict the rights of certain people, the end. The clergy would have you believe different, but why should anyone subscribe to the moral boundaries they set?

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by NOFXdesendents5
You know what? I dont fucking care any more.

If the gays wanna marry, get them married. Just don't start fucking flaunting at me that you are gay and married. Im fine with gay people as long as they dont have their stupid ass gay pride parades.

i mean, what if me and like 100 straights went out there and paraded around san fransisco about the glories of the straight relationships? the liberals would call that wrong.

if they want to marry, shit, they can marry. just don't flirt with me around.


Quick look! It's a newly married inter-racial gay couple burning the American flag!!!

[WithStamin]

Click (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/29/frist.gay.marriage.ap/index.html) :D

[evil zach]

so I guess people are only equall when its convienent.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Click (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/29/frist.gay.marriage.ap/index.html) :D

ignorance like this, is just proof as to why i would never aline my self with any particular party...........

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
it's not ignorance, it's a diffrent belief. He has a point constitutionally when he says:


its ignorant to think everyone has the same beliefs as you and to force your unwanted beliefs upon them..........

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
it's not ignorance, it's a diffrent belief. He has a point constitutionally when he says:

"And I'm thinking of -- whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home -- to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern."

wouldn't privacy mean that you should be able to sleep with any adult that you want...........and how are court rulings different from out of date oppresive state laws????????

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by cal1082
privacy could be used in arguing incest, polygamy, and drug use too. That's what are laws do they form what is seen as right and wrong morally

Incest causes harm to people that other types of sex (homo and hetero) do not. You can't argue privacy concerning that..

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
privacy could be used in arguing incest, polygamy, and drug use too. That's what are laws do they form what is seen as right and wrong morally

how do these (^) issues have any thing to do with whether or not gay citizens are alloud to marry?

[evil zach]

Originally posted by cal1082
marrying you cousin, or sister causes no harm.
I have no problem with people marying their cousins. I just think its icky

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
i'm talking about the article that was posted about Frist with these examples.

Frist's examples are bullshit.......hes comparing things that have nothing in comon, and that does not prove a point.........its just a pathetic cover to hide his own personal fears and hatred towards gay people/couples.............

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
thats my point alot of people dont agree with it though, and that's why there's a law against it. Same with gay marriages.

but a majority of people dont feel that same sex marriages are bad, gallops poll this year found it to be 49% for and 49% against, this was a change from 51% against and 46% for, last year.........so by those figures, chances are the majority of people will probably favor it by this time next year or the year following..........


Favor
Oppose
No opinion

%
%
%

2003 May 5-7
49
49
2


2002 May 6-9
46
51
3

2002 Apr 8-11
45
46
9

2002 Feb 8-10
41
53
6

2001 May 10-14
44
52
4

2000 Oct 25-28 ^
42
54
4





http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030627.asp

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
that pole isnt about marriages, it's just about relations.

Plus the margin of error is +/- 3, so the results are the same pretty much from 99 till now.

the bottom half of the article is all about marriage........the heading should have told you that..........and the + or - 3 could go either way, so the actually results could just as easily be 52% for and 46% against......which are very different from past results.......

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
ok i see where you are talking about, but still statistically you would say it's been the same for the past year or so. Also it's a small sample for a national sample. I'm not saying it's not correct, but i'm also not putting full faith in it.
The oppose percentages have pretty much been the same since 2000, it's the no opinion thats changed.

would you be more willing to put "faith" in it if it favor your veiw? the gallup site is rather respected......

both opinions are changing just very slowly......which isnt a bad thing, it just means people are slowly growing smarter......:)

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082

I'd be in favor of some sort of union which is what the question was that they asked. It wasnt about marriages though it was about civial unions. i'd like to see a poll that asked just about marriages.

civil unions would be the start, and is closer to a more true marriage then what they are allowed now............

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
Also the amendement banning gay marriages that Frist would support would allow for gay unions. It would leave that decision up to the state.

i doubt he would support any union/marriage of any kind.......but i would like to read more on the amendment he is promoting.......

[Justin_stacy]

About Marriage...
What is Legal Marriage?

Legal marriage is a civil contract established through a license issued by state governments in the United States of America.

Legal marriage, more commonly referred to as civil marriage, is a contract between two individuals and the state, which is recognized socially, legally and politically at all levels of society.

Civil marriage has no impact on a religious organization's autonomy. It is therefore important to differentiate between civil marriage and religious marriage. We will use the term married to refer to persons who have entered into a legally recognized civil marriage. No clergy member of faith tradition can be forced to perform or recognize a civil marriage. However the refusal of a clergy member or faith tradition to perform or recognize a marriage has no impact on the ability of a couple to enjoy the legal rights of their civil marriage



how would some thing like that sound to you?.......

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
where's that from?

a same sex marriage site..........this is basically what there asking for..........

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
isnt that what the amendement gives them? It be up to the state whether they can form unions.

There has to be a compromise somewhere, i think the amendement is a fair compromise.

but why cant the word marriage be used for both, if it doesn't have religious meanings............

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
i think cause many people believe the word marriage itself does have religious meanings. On the same token, why does it have to have the word marriage?

to show that there bond is no different or less important, under the state, from that of an opposite sex couple................and i would think that in this day and age the majority of those getting married don't see it as a religious act or an act that has to fall with in the confines of the christian religion...........

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
it is diffrent though, if it wasnt diffrent there would be no argument.
I still say it's a good compromise, between the two.

the bond is no different.....just the sex of those involved.

and compromises are hard to pass...when one side is still given more benefits and control over the lives of another.........wouldn't a better compromise be to let each live as equals and that if you don't like or except "gay" marriages to just ignore them and have no part in them (but not try to control them)?


ps im going to bed so i'll talk/post with ya latter...........

[evil zach]

many people also belive that one shouldn't marry outside of their race or religiion....

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
Thats not a compromise though. Many people believe marriage should not be equal, it should only be between a man and a women. So they're recieving nothing in the compromise. NIght

but why should the group(s) you support get EVERYTHING they want, while gay couples are being forced down to second class citizens?........see this is what i mean, there can be no compromise because your sides only arguement is based soley on RELIGION, and a single religion at that, and in america we have a seperation of church and state............

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
How does the proposed amendment make them a 2nd class citizens?

because it doesn't allow them the same freedoms that other tax paying citizens are allowed........the amendment also is being promoted on the bases of fear and hatred, and that is something i dont want to see the constitution basing its self on in the future........

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
It would be up to the state and the people in that state to allow them to form into a union, and then what benifits they would recieve from this. If the people in the state dont support it that should tell you something.

so then it should be up to every state if they allow marriages at all, right..........or if they want to allow only "white" marriages, or only "black" marriages, or out law different race marriages.......

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
but people already have those rights though. I'm sure if someone tried to propose that law they wouldnt be in office long. Why? Because the majority of the people believe they are entitled to those rights.

exactly! people are entitled to marriage..........so unless gays are lesser humans, then they should be allowed to marry.........

[Matthew]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
exactly! people are entitled to marriage..........so unless gays are lesser humans, then they should be allowed to marry.........

Well, according to Klu Klux Kristians like cal1082, they are. But I'm with you. The ruling was good, and I hope the issue resolves soon. Trying to justify the alienation of the rights of a group on any level is horrible.

[Matthew]

Originally posted by cal1082
Funny i dont remember saying they are lesser humans, but if you have to make up stuff to prove your point that proves your ignorance, and stupidity.
Just because people are denied things doesnt make them any less human. My fav. argument against this is if you open the door for gay marriages, you should also argue just as much for polygamy.

ok. sounds good. why not allow polygamy? its part of muslim and mormon religions anyway. what two (or in this case 3 or more...) consenting adults do behind clsoed doors is no business of the governemnt.

and denying an entire group of people their rights IS dehumanizing. i dont know how you could think otherwise. homosexuals are estiamted to make up 10% of the worlds popualtion.... that is a culture far biger thn polygamy, andd a group to large and influential to ignore.

silly Kristians.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
. My fav. argument against this is if you open the door for gay marriages, you should also argue just as much for polygamy.

explain to me how one couple, a man and a man, is simalar in any to a polygamist?.......................

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
why shouldnt a man be able to marry more than one wife, and a wife be able to marry more than one man?

just like saying why should a man be able to marry a man, and a women be able to marry a women.

the reason why they're both illegal is because they are seen as wrong, by the majority of the population. If it changes than the laws we change with them.

right now it stands at about 50/50 on the issue, but say it changes to 60/40 in support of same sex marriages.........do you really think those on your side who are so blinded by hatred and completely closed minded will ever change there opinions or support laws allowing marriage.........No ( i think), so it doesn't really matter what public opinion says..........

and again polygamy and single marriages are not the same thing and really cant be compared..............

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
They are the same thing under the law. What if a man loves 2 or 3 women? You are denying him his "rights" to marry them. Just like homosexuals are being denied their "rights" to marry another.

i love how you try to compare gay marriage with something it has nothing incomon with.......while missing the fact that it has very little differences from that of an opposite sex marriage (why not compare it with them?)................and what is marriage not a "right" any more?

[Matthew]

Originally posted by cal1082


the reason why they're both illegal is because they are seen as wrong, by the majority of the population.


Originally posted by cal1082
it shouldnt matter how big the culture is they would still deserve their rights. wouldnt they?


?

[Ronin]

Originally posted by cal1082
why shouldnt a man be able to marry more than one wife, and a wife be able to marry more than one man?

just like saying why should a man be able to marry a man, and a women be able to marry a women.

the reason why they're both illegal is because they are seen as wrong, by the majority of the population. If it changes than the laws we change with them.

The majority of the population believing that something's wrong doesn't make it wrong.

[kidinthecorner]

Originally posted by Ronin
The majority of the population believing that something's wrong doesn't make it wrong. There's some sign that was in my 10th grade enlgish class like that. It was something like "What's right isn't always popular, and what's popular isn't always right."