Supreme Court Decision on Sodomy

The fact that there are three men on the Supreme Court who are able to so "strictly construct" the constitution that they are able to say a state can tell consenting adults that they cannot engage in same gender sex -- is an insult to the basic premises upon which this nation was built.

I'm happy six of the justices had a better grasp of things.

What about sodomy for heteros? Still illegal?

I was glad to hear of the ruling. It baffles me how anyone is concerned about others' bedroom activities...

Yippee!

I'm going to rush right out and buy some lube...

Sofia (love the haircut) - I don't know, but I think the thing was it was okay for heteros, but not for others.

Bedroom activities have always held an attraction. Remember Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter? And, carried to an extreme, Bill Clinton's sex life? That was an enormous intrusion.

Anyway, this has to do with more than homosexuality. This has to do with discrimination, with equality, with so much. That's one reason why Scalis'a comments were interesting. He personalized the whole thing, rather than staying with the legal rights, and tried to smooth it over by talking about a culture war. Which only makes it worse, because it's culture as defned by him.

I know re: Scalia.
I was really surprised he stepped out on a personal limb like that in his decision.

I thought it was bad form. If he had a legal problem with it, he should have kept it in legalese. It has probably happened before, but I don't recall it.

Any dissenters on the Bush 2000 decision make personal comments?

And, I find it hard to believe that the sodomy law, as it was, singled out homosexuals. I think it meant sodomy across the board.... Possibly intended for homosexuals.

At the end of the article it mentions that this decision also shoots down the 13 states that make sodomy among heterosexuals against the law, which include North Carolina, so I put the KY back on squinney's shopping list, cause you know, the Bear would never break the law........

Now if the court would just get hip on decriminalizing marijuana, the new thing in the leather bars would be bong water enemas......

Some more reponses are to be found at this earlier thread :wink:

Wow, the Supreme Court verdict is more far-reaching than I thought....at first, I thought it was just a "sodomy is okay but only in chambers, and after court" kinda thing.

Yeah!

Yea! I find that ruling very hopeful. If the justices would learn to stay out of an individual's private life completely, then Americans would really have the freedom that the Constitution mandates.

'bout time...

SP - no kidding!

It is puzzling to me, though, that Scalia would choose to make a personal statement from the bench. I had thought he was considered to be the one with one of the sharpest and brightest minds when it came to the law. This, coupled with Thomas ' use of a personal biography instead of a legal position on the affirmative action ruling, almost makes it seem as though these two had given up on the Supremes. I know Scalia wanted to be Chief Justice, and there's been some talk about Thomas - but their comments almost seem defeatist

Anyway, it's about time. Although I should think it make some politicians nervous, because the Clinton impeachment had so much to do with the invasion of personal privacy.

It really does appear that Scalia has come to share a world view with Bill Bennett and the cuckoo christian right - 'homosexual agenda' and 'culture wars' are typical cliches from those quarters. I used to very much enjoy watching him in debate on PBS, but perhaps he is just getting a bit loose up top with age.

On one thread earlier, I posted some wonderful comments from Valclaf Havel where he talked about the sixties, and the positive influences on the body politic that arose in that decade. But Thomas, Rehnquist and Scalia are definitely not of the artistic temperment like Havel. Freedom, to these guys, really suggests something scary, something chaotic. It is why they are so literal minded in understanding the constitution, and it is why their rulings so often come down on the side of regimentation, either of social behavior or formalized class structure via the corporatization of the social arrangements. The little trick they play (they most of all trick themselves, I think) is to say that they despise the regimentation forced down from the federal level, and that the state level should be isolated from such control - but it is from the state level where so much legislative oppression of the citizenry occurs. Thus they really wish the states to be free to quite arbitrarily reduce our liberties, for our own good of course.

It is amazing that three of the justices have the audacity to vote for bigotry. William H. Rehnquist who is soon to retire, Scalia the right wing religious fundamentalist and of course Scalia's lapdog Thomas. I wonder is there any mechanism for removal of Supreme Court Justices. If there is a case can be made regarding these three.

I guess we'll have to think of a new legal term for "makin' bacon". Sodomy sounds so criminal... has too many negative connotations. Imagine a gay guy saying to his partner, "Hey beefmuffin, I can't wait to sodomize you again tonight."

Doesn't sound right.

Anyway, I'm happy to see that most people are still against having Republicans monitor their bedroom activities. After all, if 2 guys and a hamster... er, I mean if 2 guys want to get down and dirty, it's none of Rick Santorum's business.

Frist calls on Senate not to filibuster any Supreme Court nominee

Democrats press for consultations

Thursday, June 26, 2003 Posted: 5:15 PM EDT (2115 GMT)

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist urged colleagues on Thursday to disavow actions to stall any potential Supreme Court nominee if a current justice decides to retire.

Democracy republican style. Don't do as I do -do as I say. They seem never have heard of checks and balances.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/26/senate.scotus.ap/index.html