 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Who's the one legislating? I'm upholding the status quo. |
The Christians have already legislated it.
Who do you think created the anti-sodomy laws?
quote:
Coming from a Canadian?  |
Coming from a dual citizen who spent four years in the USA. 
quote:
Yes, and last I checked it says that the legislature gets to make laws, not the judiciary. |
Who's making laws here?
The supreme court has every power to strike down laws it sees as unconstitutional.
quote:
Not just Christians, why don't you slag the Jews and the Muslims, for an equal opportunity rant? |
Because I don't see them forcing their agenda on others ina "democracy" like the USA? And as for the Jews, Israel is far more liberal with homosexuals than the US.
quote:
If the sodomy laws are so bad, get the legislature to change them. Otherwise, we get the ruling caste argument of Scalia politicising the SCOTUS. |
Why would we have to? The laws are unconstitutional, ergo they were struck down.
If you're so against sodomy, helpful advice would be to not practice it. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Good for you, Scalia.
Now defenders of democracies are swine Boris? |
It was "democratic" practive to allow courts to enforce covenants on the sale of real property to prevent selling to non-whites and Jews. It was "democratic" practice to forbid doctors from prescribing birth control to unmarried women at all, and to married women without the husband's permission. It was "democratic" practice to keep "niggers" on the back of the bus, out of our white children's schools, and in their own section in restaurants, public parks, restrooms, community pools and the like.
"Democracy" under the US Constitution does not give a majority of the electorate an unconditional fiat to impose it's world view on the entire populace in the absence of a legitimate state interest.
Christian morality does not create a legitimate state interest under the restrictions of the Establishment Clause. So if you can tell me, outside a Christian or religiously based "moral" context, why the state has a legitmate interest in what goes up the rectum of a consenting adult in that adult's own home or other location where privacy is reasonably expected, then let's have it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:29
|
|
MtG:
Had to come sooner or later.
quote:
It was "democratic" practive to allow courts to enforce covenants on the sale of real property to prevent selling to non-whites and Jews.
|
quote:
It was "democratic" practice to keep "niggers" on the back of the bus, out of our white children's schools, and in their own section in restaurants, public parks, restrooms, community pools and the like.
|
And neither justified, because minorities need to be protected. How is this situation comparable? Are homosexuals beaten in the streets by the police and the civil authorities? Are they denied the same basic rights as the blacks?
quote:
It was "democratic" practice to forbid doctors from prescribing birth control to unmarried women at all, and to married women without the husband's permission.
|
I actually agree with both. Women and men in a marriage should abide to birth control by mutual consent. As for the latter, shouldn't actions have consequences? No one forces the woman to have sex.
quote:
"Democracy" under the US Constitution does not give a majority of the electorate an unconditional fiat to impose it's world view on the entire populace in the absence of a legitimate state interest.
|
No, nor does it give the judiciary free reign to override the legislature. There have to be very good reasons to override the legislature.
quote:
Christian morality does not create a legitimate state interest under the restrictions of the Establishment Clause.
|
That would be a good argument against making a law to favour Christians, but not so against a law already in place. Should we uproot the entire constitution because Christians made the laws?
quote:
So if you can tell me, outside a Christian or religiously based "moral" context, why the state has a legitmate interest in what goes up the rectum of a consenting adult in that adult's own home or other location where privacy is reasonably expected, then let's have it.
|
Is there a basic right to privacy, on the same level as the right not to be discriminated against found within the constitution that renders this law unconstitutional? If not, then you have an excellent argument to take the case to the legislature and to make such a right available.
|
|
| |
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 23:54
|