Supreme Court

I would like to hear some people's opinions about the Supreme Court striking down the anti-sodomy laws. Tell us whether or not you agree and why.

Personally, I belive the supreme court has been overthrown by the very same secret societies that have overthrown the rest of the Govenment. the anti-sodimite laws were a cornerstone of this country. I see them as nothing more than traitors to this country!

I've never been one for courts making or breaking laws of any kind. They are to merely interpret. Laws are the legislative branch's fortea and I think boundery set for either branch crossing over is a little too vague. I could care less about anti-sodomy laws as long as its still illegal to force sex upon someone who doesn't subscribe to their political agendas, I'm in no danger from gays ( but they are probably working on that one too). I just hate to see our courts used to change laws everytime someone finds it too inconvenient to adhere to them. It gives them much too much power and that the reason we divided the government into three branches to begin with wasn't it?

I thought they wwere correct in doing so being that the laws were an invasion of privacy, a fundemantal right guarnateed by the Constitution.

Then they need to put in legislation and lets get a vote on it.

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of a great big you know what in the you know where."

I think I shall take a pass on that Constitutional amendment....but thats just me. My health is much more important and my doc assures me thats an exit only...and he's and actual physician not a politcian..
Plus, I really dig the chicks ...very, very much.

Originally posted by astrocreep
I've never been one for courts making or breaking laws of any kind. They are to merely interpret. Laws are the legislative branch's fortea and I think boundery set for either branch crossing over is a little too vague. I could care less about anti-sodomy laws as long as its still illegal to force sex upon someone who doesn't subscribe to their political agendas, I'm in no danger from gays ( but they are probably working on that one too). I just hate to see our courts used to change laws everytime someone finds it too inconvenient to adhere to them. It gives them much too much power and that the reason we divided the government into three branches to begin with wasn't it?

It is true the original job of the Supreme Court was to interpret laws but since Marbury vs. Madison, it has the right to declare laws unconstitutional.

Originally posted by Colonel
I thought they wwere correct in doing so being that the laws were an invasion of privacy, a fundemantal right guarnateed by the Constitution.

Ah, Colonel read the Constitution. Nowhere is a right of privacy guaranteed. The SC read that into it in some case I am sure you read your first year of law school. The right of privacy stems from "prenumbres and emanations" (or something like that) of the Constitution. In other words, the SC simply made up the rationalle. I'd look it up, but I am lazy and really hate con law.

I ahte the supreme court. They are limitless with there power. They decide how far there power can go. I wish there was an admendment to limit the SC.

I'd have to agree the SC has too much power. Their job is to interpret the law, not make things up like a right of privacy. Of course I value privacy, but it should stem from an amendment, not from case law.

I disagree with this completely!

I say Rule by Law! Which states that the Constitution must be upheld.

The Constitution does not give the Federal government, nor Judicial Branch for that matter, to make decisions about personal life.

Thus, it is left to the states and their constitutions.

Therefore a state can make a state-constitional law that states you can not have sodomy, IF, that state's constitution does in fact allow it.

This decision by the Supreme Court also takes away the majority's opinion in it.

Thus enacting Minority Rule and further endangering our Grand Republic.

If the Supreme Court declares that homosexual marriages are allowed, I bet you Nevada will be the first to Seceed.

Not that I'd agree with that necissarily, but when a state makes a law saying you can't have one thing, the Federal Government should not unconstitutionally over-ride it.

Sincerely,
no signature

[Edited on 10-7-2003 by FreeMason]

FM, largely I agree with you. I think you have inadvertantly cut to the root of the whole agenda here. I don't give a damn if gays marry and I don't think many others do either..after all why can't they have a chance to be miserable too but the mani point here is establishing a platform of the courts making law. That is the dangerous, very dangerous ideology that takes away power from the people and puts it in the hands of the elite who buy the judicail appointments. This, I feel is the only way the socialist/communist movement can be implimented into a liberated society which otherwise would not vote for such a change. This is the short cut the liberal party has been looking for and make no mistake, they haven't just happened upon it recently. They use these touchy subjects to test the waters and mandate them through using political correctness as a cattle prod to give a little shock to anyone who might take issue with the idea of courts making law. I think thats why we're seeing such a fight over judicial nominies right now. If this isn't stopped, whoever owns the courts will be able to effectivly side-step the will of the people by cutting out the process of legislation.

You missed my point entirely. People should be allowed to do what they want to in the privacy of their homes even if thinking about it makes me shudder. Just their is absolutely nothing in the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing privacy. That was made up by the SC years ago. I don't believe it is the SC's place to make things up. Their role is to interpret the law.

People, who cares? It was a law forbidding taking it up the bum? Wait, it was an anti gay law. It is wrong to say what we can and can't do in the bedroom, even if you may think it is gross and sick.

How about a oral sex law that banned oral sex? Would you go yes that is a good idea or no that is bad? Why is it ok to ban anal sex but not oral sex? Gay/lesbians perform oral, so one could say it will stop that, just like banning gay sex will stop that, but still, I know many people who would be upset with a no oral sex law.

Originally posted by Freddie
You missed my point entirely. People should be allowed to do what they want to in the privacy of their homes even if thinking about it makes me shudder. Just their is absolutely nothing in the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing privacy. That was made up by the SC years ago. I don't believe it is the SC's place to make things up. Their role is to interpret the law.

Well, I'm not sure if doing something in the privacy of one's home makes it legal? I could think of a few things that should be illegal reguardless of where they are done. My point is, if people think anal sex is okay to do and there is a law against it, then a referendum should be put forth and "legislation" made to change it and brought before the people. Thats how we change laws, not muscle in our will through the courts.

Anti-sodomy laws? Are you a darkage inquisistor? Just to use such a word without knowing what you speek about is . The sin of Sodom was Ba'al worship. So if you want to front a law against that, feel free, but since there is no or close to no Ba'al worshipping like in Sodom these days I guess you would be rediculed.

For:
In which cities in America (or the world) does the leaders of the city demand to "make love" to your bottom in front of a Ba'al altair before you are allowed to stay in the city? In how many cities do they demand that your whife must do the private with a calf as a fertility rite performed for Ba'al? In which city is inbreeding systematically performed in a big scale? As you see (if you are wise) the laws we and you have today are more than good enough in fighting the crimes connected with Sodom. Only we call it rape, animal mutilation, child abuse and satanism in our courts not sodomy. When were you born? In the dark ages?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Jeez guys... I assumed most of you would be happy that you can now engage in anal sex without fear of arrest!!!!

Live and let live is what I say. Democracy is the tyranny of the mediocre......

To say it simple, it isn't the act itself, but the surroundings and the circumstances in which the act is done. Look at the passages you refer to, they are the laws against Ba'al worship. The situation is the same in the story of Onan, how he sins when he "jumps off" only because he was obligated according to the Law to give his brother offspring, not because it is illegal to "jump off" in general. The law knows not ignorance or arrogance in my mind. To me the law is a protective system, a system of life, a system of socialised live and let live. A tax system and a priesthood shaped with an expression of love, not ignorance and spitting at and killing the unfortunate by nature. It's an educational law, a school of rightiousness as God saw it some 3200 years ago. End of speech.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 11-7-2003 by mikromarius]

What I want to know is why we need laws for anything that should be common sence.

like helmet laws.
seatbelt laws.

the government should not try to interfere with nature culling the heard.

Originally posted by mikromarius
Anti-sodomy laws? Are you a darkage inquisistor? Just to use such a word without knowing what you speek about is

. The sin of Sodom was Ba'al worship. So if you want to front a law against that, feel free, but since there is no or close to no Ba'al worshipping like in Sodom these days I guess you would be rediculed.

For:
In which cities in America (or the world) does the leaders of the city demand to "make love" to your bottom in front of a Ba'al altair before you are allowed to stay in the city? In how many cities do they demand that your whife must do the private with a calf as a fertility rite performed for Ba'al? In which city is inbreeding systematically performed in a big scale? As you see (if you are wise) the laws we and you have today are more than good enough in fighting the crimes connected with Sodom. Only we call it rape, animal mutilation, child abuse and satanism in our courts not sodomy. When were you born? In the dark ages?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

That was what the law have been called. Newsweek said they struck down anti-Sodomy laws.

Isn't like oral sex prohibited in many states in the USA? Man you guys have some strange laws over there. False piety. When or where has a country or culture ever prohibited that? What would be the reason? As long as we speek about grownups making love with grownups and without hurting anyone, they may put corncobbs up their bottoms and cry like roosters while being blown if it is up to me.

The USA has no problem with running wars on false premises, killing thousands of innocent people, distributing and using weapons of mass destruction and producing, distributing and using civillian-killers like landmines and cluster bombs, but they cannot get a desent blowjob. That isn't piety, it's pitty.

Blessings,
Mikromarius