U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-13-2012, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Houston
22,410 posts, read 11,542,632 times
Reputation: 9037

Advertisements

The USSc decision in Lawrence v. Texas

Quote:
(a) Resolution of this case depends on whether petitioners were free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. For this inquiry the Court deems it necessary to reconsider its Bowers holding. The Bowers Court’s initial substantive statement–“The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy … ,” 478 U.S., at 190–discloses the Court’s failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. Pp. 3—6.

(b) Having misapprehended the liberty claim presented to it, the Bowers Court stated that proscriptions against sodomy have ancient roots. 478 U.S., at 192. It should be noted, however, that there is no longstanding history in this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter. Early American sodomy laws were not directed at homosexuals as such but instead sought to prohibit nonprocreative sexual activity more generally, whether between men and women or men and men. Moreover, early sodomy laws seem not to have been enforced against consenting adults acting in private. Instead, sodomy prosecutions often involved predatory acts against those who could not or did not consent: relations between men and minor girls or boys, between adults involving force, between adults implicating disparity in status, or between men and animals. The longstanding criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy upon which Bowers placed such reliance is as consistent with a general condemnation of nonprocreative sex as it is with an established tradition of prosecuting acts because of their homosexual character. Far from possessing “ancient roots,” ibid., American laws targeting same-sex couples did not develop until the last third of the 20th century. Even now, only nine States have singled out same-sex relations for criminal prosecution. Thus, the historical grounds relied upon in Bowers are more complex than the majority opinion and the concurring opinion by Chief Justice Burger there indicated. They are not without doubt and, at the very least, are overstated. The Bowers Court was, of course, making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral, but this Court’s obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850. The Nation’s laws and traditions in the past half century are most relevant here. They show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 857. Pp. 6—12.

(c) Bowers’ deficiencies became even more apparent in the years following its announcement. The 25 States with laws prohibiting the conduct referenced in Bowers are reduced now to 13, of which 4 enforce their laws only against homosexual conduct. In those States, including Texas, that still proscribe sodomy (whether for same-sex or heterosexual conduct), there is a pattern of nonenforcement with respect to consenting adults acting in private. Casey, supra, at 851–which confirmed that the Due Process Clause protects personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education–and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 624–which struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals–cast Bowers’ holding into even more doubt. The stigma the Texas criminal statute imposes, moreover, is not trivial. Although the offense is but a minor misdemeanor, it remains a criminal offense with all that imports for the dignity of the persons charged, including notation of convictions on their records and on job application forms, and registration as sex offenders under state law. Where a case’s foundations have sustained serious erosion, criticism from other sources is of greater significance. In the United States, criticism of Bowers has been substantial and continuing, disapproving of its reasoning in all respects, not just as to its historical assumptions. And, to the extent Bowers relied on values shared with a wider civilization, the case’s reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent. Stare decisis is not an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828. Bowers’ holding has not induced detrimental reliance of the sort that could counsel against overturning it once there are compelling reasons to do so. Casey, supra, at 855—856. Bowers causes uncertainty, for the precedents before and after it contradict its central holding. Pp. 12—17.

(d) Bowers’ rationale does not withstand careful analysis. In his dissenting opinion in Bowers Justice Stevens concluded that (1) the fact a State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by due process. That analysis should have controlled Bowers, and it controls here. Bowers was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby overruled. This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life. Pp. 17—18.

41 S. W. 3d 349, reversed and remanded.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. O’Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion
.

Obama has actually taken a rather timid view regarding homosexual marriage. Homosexuals are being denied equal protection under the laws in direct violation of the 14th Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-13-2012, 01:16 PM
Status: "Elect a clown? Expect a circus!" (set 10 days ago)
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
58,073 posts, read 40,856,863 times
Reputation: 29752
This has been another episode of "The Roy Who Cried Wolf", tune in tomorrow for the latest in this continuing saga, same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,623,470 times
Reputation: 7720
Ok...let's forget the Glenn Beck/Fox News hyperbole. As usual, they've taken a fairly benign thing and turned it into a major crisis which the "true believers" can get angry about. And, as usual, they do it by pretending the worst possible outcome imaginable and building a case of what MIGHT happen, rather than simply dealing with the facts.

Not surprisingly, some here are suddenly alarmed and scared to death that it means the end of the world.:roll eyes: I really can't imagine what it's like to go through life THAT gullible.

Anyhow...the Hutchinson, KS local chapter of the Kansas Equality Coalition has proposed amending the already existing city ordinance prohibiting discrimination by adding gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered persons to the ordinance's covered persons. Here is the ordinance in question. All this amendment would do is add another classification of protected individuals to the law. Everything else would remain the same.

http://www.hutchgov.com/egov/docs/1188416957_424102.pdf

The City Council received the recommendation and referred it to a committee, which is due to report to the Council whether or not the suggestion should be adopted on May 15th, this coming Tuesday. It is expected they will recommend adoption.

Because of the flood of phone calls and e-mails which has overwhelmed the city switchboards from Beck and Foxbot's (few of whom actually live in Hutchinson and would be affected by the ordinance), they asked the City Attorney to review the ordinance and give his legal opinion in answer to the Beck and Foxbot's questions and concerns. Here it is:

http://www.hutchgov.com/egov/docs/1332537777_170654.pdf

It's not the end of the world. It's not the end of Christianity or the preaching of the Gospel or the reading of Scripture.

And, in response to the author of that original letter to the editor and those who support his bigoted ramblings, let me paste a portion of his thoughts and change a word or two in it and see how you'd feel about that.

"....We know what goes on between blacks in their homes. If I am a property owner, I should still be able to reject races that I don't agree with since it is my property. If I am an employer, I should be able to reject races I don't agree with since I would be paying the person a salary, which would directly finance his or her race. Why should employers or landlords lose those rights to choose their employees or tenants?..."

What about it? Would that be Ok with you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 28,159,110 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
This Jeff White is an idiot.
What do you suppose old Jeff would willingly say about you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 28,159,110 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
What in God's name do you mean by this?
I mean that black people worked a very long time to do what the finally got done and when the GLBT people have only been at it for maybe 25 years they need to stop comparing themselves to the people who earned it all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 28,159,110 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound View Post
Sorry, where in the constitution does it give people the right to discriminate?

I thought the first part of the declaration of independence was "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The puritans came here to get away from religious based discrimination and persecution by the English.

Are we holding to their ideals if we allow discrimination based on religious ideals?

Discrimination by skin color, religion, and sex were also based on exactly same reason. The bibles said so. 3 out of 4 were proven wrong, why not the fourth?

No one forced him to start a business, no one forced him to expand, no one forced him to need additional employees.

People's taxes fund the business environment that allowed him to thrive. You can't take taxes from everyone, and then select who out of those people you wish to hire.
What is Mr. White's business? I failed to see it but you must know how tax money allowed him to have a business. If I had a business I would not hire anybody I didn't want to hire, especially if he would be my only gay employee.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 28,159,110 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0marvin0 View Post
Roy I have a question for you. Are LGBT people citizens of this country? I would suspect that a majority of them in your neck of the woods are. As citizens are they not granted the same protections under the constitution as you? As for Mr. White, why does he think his morals are so superior that they should be the model for everyone to follow? Seems a tad bit presumptive on his part to me.
I saw a man not wanting to forced to do something his morals wouldn't allow. I think that we all read his words from varying view points.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 28,159,110 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
The USSc decision in Lawrence v. Texas

.

Obama has actually taken a rather timid view regarding homosexual marriage. Homosexuals are being denied equal protection under the laws in direct violation of the 14th Amendment.
So Obama failed to fool you. Me too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Murika
2,526 posts, read 2,594,081 times
Reputation: 1919
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
I mean that black people worked a very long time to do what the finally got done and when the GLBT people have only been at it for maybe 25 years they need to stop comparing themselves to the people who earned it all.
Alright, how long, in your estimation, does a particular group have to suffer from discrimination before they are eligible for equality?

Is it 25+ years?

The Stonewall Riots were in 1969 - seems the LGBT community has been fighting for more than 25 years...

Alas, that's essentially the first time that this community dared to raise its voice. As you may have noticed by such terms as "being in the closet," many still don't dare to be who they are out in the open.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 03:07 PM
 
1,812 posts, read 1,165,677 times
Reputation: 1887
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
I saw a man not wanting to forced to do something his morals wouldn't allow. I think that we all read his words from varying view points.
Your usual twostep spin and deflection Roy but you didn't answer my questions. Should I repeat them or can you scroll back and answer them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:03 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top