 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You're gonna have to lead me by hand down the rose-garden path, cuz I just can't follow this.
If gay sex is legal, how can it be used as a basis to find a parent unfit? I just don't get it. |
Because some narrow-minded jacka** will see it as making the gay person as being an unfit parent.
AS an aside, you don't have to do something illegal to be legitimately judged unfit . An alcoholic that gets tanked every night and fails to stumulate their child may break no laws but be unfit. In many jurisdictions conduct may not rise to the level where charges can be brought but the child apprehension teeth are usually stronger and more proactive.
IN. my early years as a lawyer we apprehended 5 children from a couple who were just intellectually incapable of handling themselves and their children. The IQs of the parents were really low ( below 80 IIRC). They committed no crime but there was a legitimate way to seize their children.
So seizure is possible absent a crime. Relating back to gay people , I would like to see a reasoned rationale why anyone would seize a child solely due to sexual orientation of the the parent. The bigotry needed to reach that conclusion would be amusing if it were not so sad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:29
|
|
Oh and while the title is somewhat accurate, it appears that the rationale would mean that heterosexuals can frolic through the backdoor as well, without committing a crime
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:29
|
|
Despite my (and Justice Thomas') disagreement with this and other laws of the same ilk, I agree with Scalia's argument.
My bold
quote:
Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts—or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them—than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best. |
quote:
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. ] |
Clearly, there are going to be big implications to this ruling.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-06-2003 22:09
). There is a seperate 'right' that says parents have the right to care for their kids in the best way they desire, but that's different as well, because an exception is the state can take away children from parents who they feel are not performing their parental duties.
Calling a spade a spade is more like it.
|