Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's never made sense to me. Unless you're voting for an independent, you're going to get "the party", regardless of who the person is.
Unless, of course, you vote for Ron Paul. He doesn't care what you do in your bedroom, doesn't care if you go to church, doesn't care if you smoke a joint, but he cares if the government infringes on your LIBERTY.
A lot actually since they appoint SCOTUS judges and sodomy is one SCOTUS vote away from being a crime.
Do you really think SCOTUS would ever agree to hear such a case again? Even if they did and that decision was overturned, do you think states without such laws would enact them? Do you think states with those laws still on the books would start enforcing them? They by and large ignored them for a long time before they were finally ruled unconstitutional.
Unless, of course, you vote for Ron Paul. He doesn't care what you do in your bedroom, doesn't care if you go to church, doesn't care if you smoke a joint, but he cares if the government infringes on your LIBERTY.
I agree, and I appreciate Ron Paul for those values.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
40 years behind? LOL
Only fringe candidates like Santorum are "40 years behind."
Homosexuality was delisted as a mental disorder about 40 years ago. Which posters on this forum regularly argue that it should have remained listed as a mental disorder? It's the most outspoken Republicans. You know who they are.
Homosexuality was delisted as a mental disorder about 40 years ago. Which posters on this forum regularly argue that it should have remained listed as a mental disorder? It's the most outspoken Republicans. You know who they are.
Do you really think SCOTUS would ever agree to hear such a case again? Even if they did and that decision was overturned, do you think states without such laws would enact them? Do you think states with those laws still on the books would start enforcing them? They by and large ignored them for a long time before they were finally ruled unconstitutional.
The current governor of Texas still believes that his state was right in Lawrence v. Texas - the case that struck down sodomy laws across the U.S.
Do you really think SCOTUS would ever agree to hear such a case again? Even if they did and that decision was overturned, do you think states without such laws would enact them? Do you think states with those laws still on the books would start enforcing them? They by and large ignored them for a long time before they were finally ruled unconstitutional.
Yes absolutely on both counts. Scalia didn't write the parade of horribles dissent just so it could languish. I think if they could get 5 votes Scalia and Thomas would be more then happy to take a second look at Lawrence and I think in states with very religiously conservative legislatures, where both Democrats and Republicans oppose gay rights I could definitely see those laws being brought back.
Yes absolutely on both counts. Scalia didn't write the parade of horribles dissent just so it could languish. I think if they could get 5 votes Scalia and Thomas would be more then happy to take a second look at Lawrence and I think in states with very religiously conservative legislatures, where both Democrats and Republicans oppose gay rights I could definitely see those laws being brought back.
And would the laws be enforced?
Adultery is still a crime in many states. Have you heard of someone being criminally prosecuted for it in the past few decades?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.