[img]graemlins/1drinkspit.gif[/img] Yeah, send 'em to jail where there's no oral or anal sex between men. :rolleyes:

And, yes, Scalia was the one who would not allow the press in the room when he was being given an award for free speech. [img]graemlins/1drinkspit.gif[/img]

I got water up my nose, guys.

Good news! Nuff said!

Mark

So your saying gays and lesbians are not human. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>Nope...I didn't say that at all, <font color=silver>IronDragon</font>. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Justice Kennedy said the law <font color=white>"demeans the lives of homosexual persons"</font>. He did not say the law <font color=white>"demeans the lives of all persons"</font>. Hence, it is specifically a gay rights issue.

Thanks for the chuckle, though. ;) </font>

So your saying gays and lesbians are not human. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>Nope...I didn't say that at all, <font color=silver>IronDragon</font>. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Justice Kennedy said the law <font color=white>"demeans the lives of homosexual persons"</font>. He did not say the law <font color=white>"demeans the lives of all persons"</font>. Hence, it is specifically a gay rights issue.

Thanks for the chuckle, though. ;) </font> </font>[/QUOTE]Unless one implies that homosexuals are not part of humanity as a whole, then a law that demeans homosexuals, demeans all of humanity just as a microcosm relates to a bigger, more diverse macrocosm.

In other words since homosexuals are human and their rights of been improved, all of humanity's rights have been improved.

Besides, alot of the sodomy laws that may be effected by this ruling apply to heterosexuals as well. Anal sex, oral sex, and in some places, any sex thats not performed in the missionary position are all prohibited by theses laws, regardless of sexual orientation.

It is a victory for human rights, a victory for sexual rights, and a victory for the rights of privacy as well.

<font color=deepskyblue>By the same token, <font color=silver>IronDragon</font>, I find it interesting that minority groups call it "affirmitive action" if a college board uses race as part of their decision process, but label it as "profiling" if the police do it. Seems like conservatives are not the only ones advocating "selective application" of certain criteria. ;) </font> </font>[/QUOTE]A. Like "affirmative action," "racial profiling" is something that serves a COMPELLING STATE INTEREST. And, it is legal. Your gripe falls on deaf ears. Now, if Congress outlaws it, then that is LEGISLATIVE, but the courts have upheld racial profiling.
</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>I was merely providing an example to illustrate that both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of applying "selective application" when it suits their needs, <font color=tan>Timber</font>. I wasn't debating the "legality" of either practice. But I appreciate you sharing the information about the courts upholding the practice of racial profiling. I didn't know that.</font>

[ 06-27-2003, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

So your saying gays and lesbians are not human. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>Nope...I didn't say that at all, <font color=silver>IronDragon</font>. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Justice Kennedy said the law <font color=white>"demeans the lives of homosexual persons"</font>. He did not say the law <font color=white>"demeans the lives of all persons"</font>. Hence, it is specifically a gay rights issue.

Thanks for the chuckle, though. ;) </font> [/qb]</font>[/QUOTE]Unless one implies that homosexuals are not part of humanity as a whole, then a law that demeans homosexuals, demeans all of humanity just as a microcosm relates to a bigger, more diverse macrocosm.

In other words since homosexuals are human and their rights of been improved, all of humanity's rights have been improved.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>That's a good counterargument, <font color=orange>Chewbacca</font>, but I disagree. Just because the rights of a particular segment of the population to participate in specific acts has been improved does not mean the rights of the general population overall have been improved. Some members of the overall population do not engage in these activities. Others live in states where this type of law applies to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. The rights of those individuals has not been improved at all.

And - in the case of affirmitive action - the rights of one segment of the population are increased at the expense of rights to another segment. The two offset each other. While it is certainly an important victory for minorities seeking admission into universities, it is accomplished at the expense of others who may also have desired admittance into that same university.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>I may be wrong, but I don't believe it will have an affect on the states that apply the law regardless of sexual orientation. It seems as if they would be protected under the 14th Amendment. <font color=tan>Timber</font> will have to let us know if that is true or not.

Of course, even if the law is written to apply unilaterally, the reality is that they are only enforced when the homosexuals are guilty of the offense. So I agree that it is a major victory for gay rights.

I will also agree that it is a major victory for privacy rights as well. Federal and state gov't has NO RIGHT to regulate the sexual activities of consenting adults within the privacy of their own home. What two (or more [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] ) consenting adults want to do in private is their business, and should not fall under the purview of state legislature.</font>

Well you are correct since Sandra Day O’Connor’s does need to listen to special interest groups to get re-elected to the court….no wait, she doesn’t’ need to do that. Um…she needs to stay popular in the pools…no, she doesn’t need that either. Explain to me again just why she would fall victim to those evil homosexual propagandists?

In Sandra day O’Connor’s biography by Thompson Gale it is noted that over the years justice O’Conner has shown a growing for minority rights. This includes racial, religious, disability and now sexual orientation minorities. O’Conner was the deciding vote in the above mentioned Michigan Affirmative Action case and wrote the majority opinion. O’Conner is getting criticism from the right because of her support of minority rights.

In her autobiography , "The Majesty of the Law." She reflects on her admiration and respect for former justice Powell. In 1986 justice Powel sided with O’Conner in upholding a Georgia anti-sodomy law, later Powell publicly stated that he regretted his decision to do so was wrong and fostered discrimination. O’Connor implied that she agreed with Powel in this matter.

All in all O’Conner has been becoming more liberal in views on civil rights. No grand conspiracy. Just the recofgnition that minorities do have protected rights in the United States

Sorry to disappoint.

I just read this:

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle….[the defendants] are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."
From the majority opinion written by justice Kennedy.

In the minority opinion Scalia, was worried about the implication that this ruling would have on laws against masturbation. [no I am not kidding]

What is so liberal about the court ruling the government should not have the right to barge into the bedroom of consenting adults and tell them how they can love each other? Sounds pretty conservitive to me. </font>[/QUOTE]No, that's libertarian. Conservatives want government limited to its proper roles, like defense. Libertarians want it to have as little role as possible in anything.

What is so liberal about the court ruling the government should not have the right to barge into the bedroom of consenting adults and tell them how they can love each other? Sounds pretty conservitive to me. </font>[/QUOTE]No, that's libertarian. Conservatives want government limited to its proper roles, like defense. Libertarians want it to have as little role as possible in anything. </font>[/QUOTE]Attalus, I think you shot yourself in the foot on this one -- vis a vis your earlier post I mean. Unless you can make some argument that telling me what I can do with my penis in my bedroom is a "proper role," like defense. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

The right to privacy is my most treasured right. Privacy is disappearing, folks. It is a right we are losing. And, the sad fact is we are generally voluntarily giving this right away every time we shrug our shoulders when big corps. amass personal information about us and sell it amongst themselves. This may be one of the last big victories for privacy that we see.

Once we've given all our personal info to our credit card companies, eBay, and message boards, once we've let reality TV come into our bedrooms for the nth time, once we've all got websites with our personal at-home cameras filming our lives, we will not have a leg to stand on when the government walks back into our bedrooms to do a "masturbation check." (Yes, masturbation is still illegal in some states -- I think Scalia should move there and leave us the HELL alone.)