Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member
Username: 95f355c
Post Number: 735
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 11:22 pm: | |
Thus, while overruling the outcome of Bowers, the Court leaves strangely untouched its central legal conclusion: �[R]espondent would have us announce . . . a fundamental right to en-gage in homosexual sodomy. This we are quite unwilling to do.� 478 U. S., at 191. Instead the Court simply de-scribes petitioners� conduct as �an exercise of their lib-erty��which it undoubtedly is�and proceeds to apply an unheard-of form of rational-basis review that will have far-reaching implications beyond this case. Ante, at 3.
Anyone read into this that Scallia is a racist (or at least anti-gay).
Ok all you legal folks. Someone please explain to me this ruling today on Texas anti-sodomy laws. After reading the case it seems to me that the case had nothing to do with answering the question of "homosexual" activity as being legal or one having a right to engage in such acts.
It seemed the whole case was either about states rights OR the right to conduct oneself in private.
Otherwise i am thoroughly confused how the Supreme Court could say it's legal to engage in "homosexual" conduct but illegal for two homosexuals to get married.
For once I am on the side of the liberals on the court but it seems for a different reason. I believe people have a fundamental right to do what they want behind closed doors as long as it doesn't harm anyone else's rights. While I don't agree with the life style it's none of my business as is it none of my business if two men or women want to get married.
After our healthy AA debate what's everyones opinion on this ruling and gay marriages in general?
This case still has me confused. Will someone summarize what the dissenters said and what the majority said.
Regards,
Jon P. Kofod
1995 F355 Challenge #23 |