A victory for human rights.

[IronDragon]

Magik said: there is at least one person on that bench that just reversed her previous opinions and ovtes...she caved in to social pressure from gay rights activists

I find it interesting that whenever some decides to no longer support the discrimination and/or persecution of a minority that they somehow cave into some special interest groups.
Maybe Justice O’Conner realized that governmental support of bigotry is NOT protected by the constitution.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by IronDragon: Basically the justices said that this ruling was covered by the 14th amendment and it’s equal protection clause. The 14th amendment, like any amendment is considered tobe part of the constitution. The equal protection of all citizens of this country is part of the constitution and therefore not left to the states to decide if they will protect only some of its citizens but the federal government who is charged to provide equal protection to ALL citizens.

No, they didn't IronDragon. Justice O'Connor specifically mentioned that it should have been struck down for violation of the 14th Amendment, but that was NOT the reason given by Justice Kennedy in his majority ruling.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Kennedy in full. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor agreed with the outcome of the case but not all of Kennedy’s rationale. She indicated that the law should have been overturned on grounds that it violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

The article also specifically mentioned that the ruling did not address the issue of the 14th Amendment violation.

Thursday’s ruling was based on arguments by the plaintiffs’ attorneys that because the men were arrested in a private residence while engaging in consensual sex, the raid amounted to an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

It did not address a second legal point raised by the plaintiffs, that by mandating disparate treatment for two classes of citizens, the statute violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

While I agree that this is a major victory for gay rights, I think it's a bit erroneous to classify it as a victory for human rights. Of course, the real "kicker" is that the Texas legislature can come right back and attempt to re-instate the law...so long as they rewrite it to apply to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. That way, they ARE within the "equal protection" parameters of the 14th Amendment, since the law is applied equally and without discrimination.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by IronDragon: quote: Magik said: there is at least one person on that bench that just reversed her previous opinions and ovtes...she caved in to social pressure from gay rights activists

I find it interesting that whenever some decides to no longer support the discrimination and/or persecution of a minority that they somehow cave into some special interest groups.
Maybe Justice O’Conner realized that governmental support of bigotry is NOT protected by the constitution. [/QUOTE]By the same token, IronDragon, 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.

[IronDragon]

While I agree that this is a major victory for gay rights, I think it's a bit erroneous to classify it as a victory for human rights.

So your saying gays and lesbians are not human.

Originally posted by IronDragon: quote: Magik said: there is at least one person on that bench that just reversed her previous opinions and ovtes...she caved in to social pressure from gay rights activists

I find it interesting that whenever some decides to no longer support the discrimination and/or persecution of a minority that they somehow cave into some special interest groups.
Maybe Justice O’Conner realized that governmental support of bigotry is NOT protected by the constitution. [/QUOTE]
That could have been it...but I believe I am correct and you are wrong...she caved...thats my opinion and you have not provided any evidence to the contrary so...Ill stick with it [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

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.

Wrong. Beastiality in fact will violate animal cruelty laws. A beast can't consent, you see. Scalia is an abject idiot, and always has been.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: 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.

Wrong. Beastiality in fact will violate animal cruelty laws. A beast can't consent, you see. Scalia is an abject idiot, and always has been. [/QUOTE]Wasn't Scalia the one that won the Free Speech award and bared recording devices at the award ceremony?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by IronDragon: quote: Magik said: there is at least one person on that bench that just reversed her previous opinions and ovtes...she caved in to social pressure from gay rights activists

I find it interesting that whenever some decides to no longer support the discrimination and/or persecution of a minority that they somehow cave into some special interest groups.
Maybe Justice O’Conner realized that governmental support of bigotry is NOT protected by the constitution. [/QUOTE]By the same token, IronDragon, 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. [/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.

B. Everyone selectively labels. It's called bias, and we all have it.

C. O'Connor, like other justices, notably Kennedy, has had her opinion change over time, becoming more conservative in certain areas and more mainstream in others. People are dynamic, thankfully. She is still a Repug showcase item, and was on the latest cover of NRO's magazine I believe.

D. With all of the beatings the right to privacy has taken in the past 2 years, we should all rejoice at any decision limiting the government playing nanny in our bedrooms. I may not be gay, and I may find the notion that one male can find another male's hairy smelly body attractive personally offensive to my senses, but I will NOT tell other people how to live their lives. I should be allowed to stick it in my wife's arse or mouth ("sodomy" = both of these, btw), and they should be allowed to do likewise with whomever they choose.

[Timber Loftis]

[quote]Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:

Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Kennedy in full. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor agreed with the outcome of the case but not all of Kennedy’s rationale. She indicated that the law should have been overturned on grounds that it violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause. The article also specifically mentioned that the ruling did not address the issue of the 14th Amendment violation. Thursday’s ruling was based on arguments by the plaintiffs’ attorneys that because the men were arrested in a private residence while engaging in consensual sex, the raid amounted to an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. It did not address a second legal point raised by the plaintiffs, that by mandating disparate treatment for two classes of citizens, the statute violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. While I agree that this is a major victory for gay rights, I think it's a bit erroneous to classify it as a victory for human rights. Of course, the real "kicker" is that the Texas legislature can come right back and attempt to re-instate the law...so long as they rewrite it to apply to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. That way, they ARE within the "equal protection" parameters of the 14th Amendment, since the law is applied equally and without discrimination.

1. Justices applied some common sense here to maintain other parts of their agendas. A holding based on the equal protection clause paves a clear a fast path for claims for a right to gay marriage, a striking of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and many challenges to "dont ask dont tell." A majority of the justices don't want to do this.

2. Since this was decided on the right to privacy (is seems -- I have not read the opinion YET), the Texas legislature can NOT reinstate the law. Had it been decided on the 14th Amendment, then the Texas liegislature COULD reinstate the law -- so long as it was equally applicable to heteros.

3. Bonus question for all: where is the Right to Privacy in the US Constitution? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

Woo Hoo! I wonder how this will effect the long jail sentences doled out to homosexuals for laws like these in South Carolina? As I recall some judge gave two guys more than five years for having oral sex in their home. Will they go free?