A victory for human rights.

[antryg]

Originally posted by Rokenn: On the radio they were reading portions of Scalia's dissent and one of the first lines in it is that this will allow bestiality. Why is it that whenever gay rights advance the first thing the conservatives drag out is animal sex? Are they repressing something? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Since your signature quote is from Thomas Jefferson about dissent being the highest form of patriotism then I guess you are affirming Scalia's patriotism. Maybe it is just an ironic byproduct.

[IronDragon]

Piestrider wrote: No, I just think that the government shouldn't go around voiding laws by the States unless there is some Constitutional issue involved, which I really do not see, here.

You don’t think equal protection under the law or the right to privacy are constitutional issues?

[ 06-29-2003, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: IronDragon ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by IronDragon: quote: Piestrider wrote: No, I just think that the government shouldn't go around voiding laws by the States unless there is some Constitutional issue involved, which I really do not see, here.

You don’t think equal protection under the law or the right to privacy is a constitutional issue? [/QUOTE]I think those are two of the most important constitutional issue of our times.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by khazadman: Affirmative action is just the liberals way of telling blacks and hispanics that they are lesser beings. That they need help if they want to compete with whites. And did you ever notice that the areas that have the worst rates of poverty in the US are run by Dems?

This is a standard conservative line. It leaves out the possibility that people are still racist in our society and in my expirience some still are.

I would rather have the assurance of a diverse workplace/school/military posting than leave the door open for a few racists to do their dirty work.

Also since schools/companies usually only take the best qualified people to fill positions, even with affirmative action, the incentive for excellence is just as relevant to minority applicants as to white.

Lastly, perhaps some poor people relize that some "dems" actually will work to improve their lives, unlike the "repubs" who do things like leave out tax credits for poor people in their tax bill. If I were "poor" I would vote for the guy giving me the best opportunity to change that, not the guy who is going to give the best opportunities to his rich cronies.

For the record I'm independant, so I'm not trying to defend the dems here, only making an observation.

[ 06-29-2003, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Chewbacca]

Do homophobes run the Republican party? Some of them definitely think their values and culture are better than everyone elses. To imagine they equate this kind of bigotry with moral and cultural high ground.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...marriage_x.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate majority leader said Sunday he supported a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage in the United States. Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the Supreme Court's decision last week on gay sex threatens to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned. The court on Thursday threw out a Texas law that prohibited acts of sodomy between homosexuals in a private home, saying that such a prohibition violates the defendants' privacy rights under the Constitution. The ruling invalidated the Texas law and similar statutes in 12 other states. "I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually — or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," Frist told ABC's This Week. "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." Asked whether he supported an amendment that would ban any marriage in the United States except a union of a man and a woman, Frist said: "I absolutely do, of course I do. "I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between — what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined — as between a man and a woman. So I would support the amendment." Same-sex marriages are legal in Belgium and the Netherlands. Canada's Liberal government announced two weeks ago that it would enact similar legislation soon. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., was the main sponsor of the proposal offered May 21 to amend the Constitution. It was referred to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution on Wednesday, the day before the high court ruled. As drafted, the proposal says: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state under state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." To be added to the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states. Frist said Sunday he respects the Supreme Court decision but feels the justices overstepped their bounds. "Generally, I think matters such as sodomy should be addressed by the state legislatures," Frist said. "That's where those decisions — with the local norms, the local mores — are being able to have their input in reflected. "And that's where it should be decided, and not in the courts."

[ 06-29-2003, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Luvian: quote: Originally posted by khazadman: The true tragedy here involves the case of the asshole in Kansas who had his sentence vacated. He was 17 when he had sex with a 14 year old retarded kid. So I guess that makes him a victim? Let's just hope he got what was coming to him while locked up.

Well... if they arrested him for doing sodomy, then yes, he should be freed, but then re-arrested for rape. [/QUOTE]Had they been male and female, it would have been an underage sex charge, which would have resulted in 1 year probation and NO JAIL.

Attalus, isn't PRIVACY a Constitutional issue? Whatever majority moral you're enforcing, is the citizens' bedroom a place to do it? The Right to Privacy is one of our most fundamental rights, is it not?

Erm... I note no one has posted where in the Constitution this right is found. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Eisenschwarz, I will defend "dont ask dont tell" till the military decides to end it, if ever. Equal protection and/or privacy concerns can be trumped by military rules. Military indoctrination, as they see fit, is necessary to the military system. There are other reasons, but that's the nutshell.

IronDragon and Chewbacca, this case was decided on PRIVACY and explicitly NOT equal protection. I support that reading, since it would take a Constitutional Amendment to make the "equal protection" clause include a group which it currently does not. Should we the people enact such an amendment, I would cheer. But, the law is currently clear.

This ruling will NOT support any claim based on equal protection, including a right to gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act will stand.

[Night Stalker]

Well the rights of privacy fall under the aegis of the 4th and 9th Ammendments. This is not a case where it is delegated to the States under the 10th.

-------------------------
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.

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

-------------------------

Privacy, though not explicitly stated as such, is the 4th, backed up by the 9th. People have the right to do whatever they want in their own home or other private establishment, provided they are not breaking laws. In the case of 'devient sex' between consenting adults it is not possible for gubmint or police to acquire evidence to justify probible cause for a warrent needed for a search.

[Timber Loftis]

Basically, you're right, but more amendments are involved. It's all about penumbras and emanations.

From Internet Lawyer.
______________________________
Nowhere does the text of the United States Constitution contain the word "privacy." [fn.4] The Supreme Court has found the concept of "privacy" to be protected by a number of the Amendments. [fn.5] Thus, privacy is known as a "penumbra right." [fn.6] It is the essence of the Bill of Rights and thus a guaranteed right.
________________________________

From UK law online (advocating privacy rights for the UK):
__________________________________
Privacy is not an explicit right under the Constitution of the USA. The Fourth Amendment guarantees:

"the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

The US Supreme Court implied a right to privacy and this also effected the state laws by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cases decided by the US Supreme Court such as Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 381 U.S. 479 and Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113 show that privacy has been given constitutional status when the freedom of speech and the First Amendment is not in issue. This has been called a "penumbra right" of the Constitution.

Justice Harlan clarified the ‘expectation of privacy’ in a two stage test in Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967) which requires:

"[F]irst that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation to be one that society is prepared to recognise as ‘reasonable’"

The ideas of Warren and Brandeis, two leading American academics and judges from the early part of this century, are the main starting point for the privacy arguments in the US. According to their thesis:

"The intensity and complexity of life, attendant upon advancing civilization, have rendered necessary some retreat from the world, and man, under the refining influence of culture, has become more sensitive to publicity so that solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual; but modern enterprise and invention have, through invasion upon his privacy, subjected him to mental pain and distress, far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury."

Fifteen years after the publication of their paper, following a decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia most of the US states incorporated "the right to privacy" in their legislation. It is important to note that Warren and Brandeis based their thesis on the English cases but no similar development has occured in England. So, can we learn anything from the American developments? Here are some leading cases to give you a flavour of how the law has developed in the USA. In most respects, the differences from English law are not dramatic and the main reason for this is perhaps that, whilst recognising privacy as a value, the US courts have tended to recognise press freedom as an even greater value.
________________________________________

Points from TL:

With all the legal gyrations regarding privacy out there, I try to simplify. The right to privacy was an inherent foundation for so many other rights found in the Constitution, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to procreate, freedom from unreasonable searches, freedom from the quartering of soldiers, to name a few off the top of my head. No site I found discusses it well, but this is certainly what you'll find in Supreme Court cases like Griswold -- Justice Douglas said it loudest, but not necessarily best.

This wraps back around to an interesting argument regarding textualism and interpretation of the Constitution. Even though I am ever becoming more fed up with broad readings of the Constitution, I nevertheless feel that a right to privacy is so inherent that it is obvious. In short, I cannot see the founding fathers drafting the document absent the basic notion of privacy (easy to assume and dismiss in their time when good fences and large tracts of land made good neighbors).

[Chewbacca]

Thanks for the constitutional lesson ya'll. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

The more we know of our rights, the less likely it becomes that our ignorance of them can be used against us.