Scalia: ‘Homosexual Sodomy’ Should Be Crime

[Agorism]

http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/scalia-homosexual-sodomy-should-be-cri

Well, at least we know how Justice Antonin Scalia will be leaning as new cases arrive at the Supreme Court this year. He offered a glimpse into his decision-making process during an event at the American Enterprise Institute. RightWingWatch has an excellent run-down on AEI here.

Scalia calls himself a “textualist” and, as he related to a few hundred people who came to buy his new book and hear him speak, that means he applies the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them.

So Scalia parts company with colleagues who have come to believe capital punishment is unconstitutional.

“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state,” Scalia said at the American Enterprise Institute.

Scalia also took issue with justices who try to be true to the values of the Constitution as he applies them to a changing world. This imaginary justice goes home for dinner and tells his wife what a wonderful day he had, Scalia said.

This imaginary justice, Scalia continued, announces that it turns out “’the Constitution means exactly what I think it ought to mean.’ No kidding.”

According to the Washington Examiner, Scalia was asked by an audience member how he stays hopeful in the face of the Obama administration's "failure to leave lawmaking to Congress."

Scalia first responded, "Who says I'm hopeful?" before saying he soldiers on.

"I feel like I'm Frodo in 'Lord of the Rings,' " he said. "The evil eye will get us sooner or later, but it's worth the fight."
Personally, I think Scalia got into the wine for the wine and cheese reception before his speech. His remarks are bolder than his usual partisan, pompous rhertoric. And my aren't we lucky with this windbag on the bench that we're not still burning witches, or any number of "crimes" and their punishments that been vanquished from the books in our changing world.

Justice Scalia's reference to the Obama administration as "the evil eye" is an exclamation point on his career of allowing his right-wing leanings to influence his rulings, and there have been multiple calls for his impeachment. It's well past time we got it done, then he can go peddle his books and criticize anyone he wants, and leave outdated laws in the past where they belong.

Late addition: As noted by The General, at least Scalia may be more "moderate" than Mitt Romney.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

I'm pretty sure he was saying that criminalizing homosexual sodomy is constitutional. It was until 2003. Ron Paul agrees that SCOTUS got that ruling wrong.

[Agorism]

I'm not a textualists though but rather results oriented.

[robert68]

..

[tod evans]

So sodomy between heterosexual couples is cool with him?

Or possibly cool only under the umbrella of marriage?

[tangent4ronpaul]

You can impeach a supreme??? What's the procedure for that?

OK, so homosexual sodomy is criminal.
What about 2 girls and a strap on?
What about a girl with a strap on and a guy?
I guess hetrosexual sodemy is A-OK?
What about is one or both partners are transexual. Some become so via surgery and drugs, some are born this way... Does that make a difference?

Should we still be trying people for witchcraft and executing them?

pondering...

-t

[acptulsa]

So sodomy between heterosexual couples is cool with him?

Or possibly cool only under the umbrella of marriage?

He didn't say he wasn't cool with sodomy under any circumstances. He was just saying that he considers laws against sodomy constitutional.

His point seems to be that the Supreme Court has to read the Constitution in the light of modern morality. Not exactly the traditional 'conservative' take on it.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Scalia can eat a dick

[Agorism]

Scalia can eat a dick

LMAO

YEP!

[tangent4ronpaul]

If you can find it, there is a book called "Public Sex". It's sort of a legal history of sexual repression. It's not a book about having sex in public, but rather a key point leading to the title was about how states, particularly in the bible belt, made your bedroom a "Public" place in their efforts to crack down on homosexual males.

Remember that little bit of the BoR about a persons right to be secure in their home? This was how that was torpedoed and the interpretation perverted to justify SWAT teams, sneak and peak searches, etc.

-t

[Feeding the Abscess]

If you can find it, there is a book called "Public Sex". It's sort of a legal history of sexual repression. It's not a book about having sex in public, but rather a key point leading to the title was about how states, particularly in the bible belt, made your bedroom a "Public" place in their efforts to crack down on homosexual males.

Remember that little bit of the BoR about a persons right to be secure in their home? This was how that was torpedoed and the interpretation perverted to justify SWAT teams, sneak and peak searches, etc.

-t

Just like giving government the power to enforce immigration. Nothing could ever go wrong with that!

I'll have to search that book down and give it a read. Sounds fascinating.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Just like giving government the power to enforce immigration. Nothing could ever go wrong with that!

I'll have to search that book down and give it a read. Sounds fascinating.

used.addall.com - It's a meta-search engine of used book store inventories.

-t

[awake]

An Astronomer who claimed that all lights in the night sky should be classified as stars would be immediately laughed at. A judge that defines a crime from a voluntary act between to persons is such the same.

The Supreme Court is populated by frail little men and women.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

For those who are insulting Scalia, why don't you insult Ron Paul? He holds the same view that criminalizing homosexual sodomy is constitutional.


Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

[MelissaWV]

For those who are insulting Scalia, why don't you insult Ron Paul? He hold the same view that criminalizing homosexual sodomy is constitutional.

Because most of them read the title, and not the actual article.

[angelatc]

Crooksandliars.com story - read no further than that. They make a career of telling half truths to keep us divided. The rest of the thread proved to me that the judge said what I figured he said, and C&L was having a hissy fit on behalf of the gays.

[torchbearer]

You can impeach a supreme???
-t

i believe the impeachment procedure is that same as for president. the house of reps would have to indict and the senate conduct the impeachment hearing of a judge behaving badly.

[angelatc]

I'm not a textualists though but rather results oriented.

What results are you looking for, exactly?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Anyone who is referencing Ron on this issue is ridiculous. Ron never said it should be a crime, in fact, he said the opposite - that the law is ridiculous and tyrannical, he simply stated that the Federal Government has no authority in the matter. That's a value-free statement or in other words, he didn't make a normative statement, except to say, that locally it would be a ghastly law. Anyone who thinks Ron would outlaw sodomy has to have their brains checked.

Scalia, plainly put, is out of his goddamn mind once again.

[NiceGoing]

Exactly right!
+100

[MelissaWV]

Anyone who is referencing Ron on this issue is ridiculous. Ron never said it should be a crime, in fact, he said the opposite - that the law is ridiculous and tyrannical, he simply stated that the Federal Government has no authority in the matter. That's a value-free statement or in other words, he didn't make a normative statement, except to say, that locally it would be a ghastly law. Anyone who thinks Ron would outlaw sodomy has to have their brains checked.

Scalia, plainly put, is out of his goddamn mind once again.

Maybe you missed it.


The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.
Ron would not "outlaw sodomy," but he is a champion of a state's rights to do just that.

Scalia said that sodomy had been illegal in every state, not that he would "outlaw" it, either.

Honestly it's much ado about nothing.

[torchbearer]

Maybe you missed it.


Ron would not "outlaw sodomy," but he is a champion of a state's rights to do just that.

Scalia said that sodomy had been illegal in every state, not that he would "outlaw" it, either.

Honestly it's much ado about nothing.


take note of this part:

no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution.

the constitution wasn't written to grant rights to people. (if a right is given, it can be taken- and by definition is not a right, but a privilege)
rights are a part of your nature, not written on a hemp cloth.
you have a right to jab a penis into any hole in your body, because its your body- not because its written somewhere.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Maybe you missed it.


Ron would not "outlaw sodomy," but he is a champion of a state's rights to do just that.

Scalia said that sodomy had been illegal in every state, not that he would "outlaw" it, either.

Honestly it's much ado about nothing.

He prefers local authority to national authority - that's no secret, and honestly the right prescription, however, to say that isn't to say that he accepts local authoritarianism anymore than he accepts national authoritarianism. There are people in this thread who are using Ron to advocate that it is ok to enact sodomy laws at the local level - that he himself would approve, which can't be farther from the truth. It is deceptive and egregiously wrong. Also, I didn't miss shit. Read my post again.

That was my beef with some of the posts in the thread that they can't make the distinction between the two. Scalia is right, that Fed.Gov has no authority in the matter, but something tells me his opinion would change if instead of the ridiculous religiously tyrannical laws that were on the books for hundreds of years in the U.S. locally, that the opposite were enshrined.

From reading the website this came from, it is pretty easy to tell they're Nationalists. I disagree with them as much as I disagree with some posters in this thread who are trying to use Ron to justify their own approval of sodomy laws.

[Kilrain]

I clicked on a thread that said "Scalia: ‘Homosexual Sodomy’ Should Be Crime". Title does not match content. Please revise.

[acptulsa]

I clicked on a thread that said "Scalia: ‘Homosexual Sodomy’ Should Be Crime". Title does not match content. Please revise.

Spoil sport.

If the title reflected the content, would the thread have this many views and responses?

Truth in advertising is for losers. Did you see any in the presidential debate? Any at all? Well, what does that tell you?

[Origanalist]

Spoil sport.

If the title reflected the content, would the thread have this many views and responses?

Truth in advertising is for losers. Did you see any in the presidential debate? Any at all? Well, what does that tell you?

:rolleyes:

[Jumbo Shrimp]

rights are a part of your nature, not written on a hemp cloth.


The Constitution wasn't written on hemp cloth, it was written on parchment.

[Agorism]

It's just like Jury nullification.

People have a right to judge the merits of the law itself rather than some textualist\originalist interpretation of it. The way to judge the law is with an Anti-Federalists or even individualistic perspective in my opinion.

[torchbearer]

The Constitution wasn't written on hemp cloth, it was written on parchment.

out of the info i post, that is what stuck out to you?
the difference between hemp cloth and hemp parchment being purpose?

[specsaregood]

out of the info i post, that is what stuck out to you?
the difference between hemp cloth and hemp parchment being purpose?

no. the parchment that the constitution was written on is from animal skin not hemp.

[torchbearer]

no. the parchment that the constitution was written on is from animal skin not hemp.

so the drafts were made on hemp, the letters were made on hemp and flax, and the official docs were made on animal parchment.
now, back to sticking penii in holes.

[MelissaWV]

so the drafts were made on hemp, the letters were made on hemp and flax, and the official docs were made on animal parchment.
now, back to sticking penii in holes.

But the plural is "penes"!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

so the drafts were made on hemp, the letters were made on hemp and flax, and the official docs were made on animal parchment.
now, back to sticking penii in holes.

Not just any holes - assholes. To be fair, sodomy is more than just penises. Those people who like other foreign objects inserted...we'll I guess they're SOL too. I wonder...why isn't an enema considered sodomy? I bet there are a few folks who derive pleasure from it. Snark.

[MelissaWV]

Not just any holes - assholes. To be fair, sodomy is more than just penises. Those people who like other foreign objects inserted...we'll I guess they're SOL too. I wonder...why isn't an enema considered sodomy? I bet there are a few folks who derive pleasure from it. Snark.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHKTE75dgE4

[torchbearer]

But the plural is "penes"!


penes and holes.
specifically the backdoor hole and the mouth hole.
i mean- sodomy is everything outside of penis and vagina interaction.

[MelissaWV]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSQSx3OCrXQ&feature=related
I'll just leave that there for lulz.

[Origanalist]

Not just any holes - assholes. To be fair, sodomy is more than just penises. Those people who like other foreign objects inserted...we'll I guess they're SOL too. I wonder...why isn't an enema considered sodomy? I bet there are a few folks who derive pleasure from it. Snark.

Ol' Frothy?

[ZenBowman]

Maybe you missed it.

Ron would not "outlaw sodomy," but he is a champion of a state's rights to do just that.


I'm sorry that's a cop out. It's like saying "Obama wouldn't outlaw guns, but he is a champion of state's rights to ban guns".

Does not compute. States do not have a right to ban guns, or sodomy. The federal government's most important role is to prevent states from oppressing their own people.

[torchbearer]

I'm sorry that's a cop out. It's like saying "Obama wouldn't outlaw guns, but he is a champion of state's rights to ban guns".

Does not compute. States do not have a right to ban guns, or sodomy. The federal government's most important role is to prevent states from oppressing their own people.

from an original intent perspective, i don't think the states ever intended the federal government to take the role of policing the states. unless it was specific to enumerated powers like keeping states from taxing each others exports.

[MelissaWV]

I'm sorry that's a cop out. It's like saying "Obama wouldn't outlaw guns, but he is a champion of state's rights to ban guns".

Does not compute. States do not have a right to ban guns, or sodomy. The federal government's most important role is to prevent states from oppressing their own people.

Which amendment is that?


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people... unless of course the Federal Government doesn't approve.

^I don't remember that one.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Not just any holes - assholes. To be fair, sodomy is more than just penises. Those people who like other foreign objects inserted...we'll I guess they're SOL too. I wonder...why isn't an enema considered sodomy? I bet there are a few folks who derive pleasure from it. Snark.

back in the day, enemas were considered standard medical treatment for anything not well understood, especially mental issues. Bleeding a patient via leaches, likewise to remove infection from the blood. This contributed significant;y to George Washington's demise.

-t

[acptulsa]

Which amendment is that?



^I don't remember that one.

It's called the Civil Rights Movement Quasi-Amendment. And because some Alabamans did benefit from the Federal power grab forty-five years ago, it's now racist to ask if this attitude hasn't caused as much harm as good overall.

[torchbearer]

Which amendment is that?



^I don't remember that one.

amendment 10.
the most important amendment when concerning the intent of the constitution as a very constrictive document on the newly formed federal government.

[tmg19103]

I see RP and Scalia agreeing here on the principle, but not the results. If its not spelled out in the Constitution as the founders intended, it's either left for the states or you amend the federal Constitution via the processes outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

Otherwise, it is left for the states, and state constitutions provide broad plenary powers and are not limited like the U.S. Constitution.

Thus, states can, under their constitutions, make things like abortion, sodomy, mandated healthcare, etc. legal or not.

This is how the founders intended it. If it is not spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, it is left for the states.

I want legalized abortion, no mandated healthcare and believe what people do sexually is their own private business as long as it does not harm the equal rights of others (is consensual) and does not involve minors, but I would not use the federal government to achieve what is unconstitutional for the federal government to be involved in as it is not spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.

It's left for the states.

[ShaneEnochs]

Regardless of constitutionality of it, how do you enforce such laws?

[Brian4Liberty]

While the discussion of sexual practices is all fun and everything, the real subject of Scalia's opinion is probably gay marriage. When will the Supreme Court make a decision on that, and will the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment be applied?

Ok, back to butsecks (although the classic definition of sodomy also includes oral arguments). :p

[Origanalist]

Regardless of constitutionality of it, how do you enforce such laws?

Rectum checks.

[Brian4Liberty]

Regardless of constitutionality of it, how do you enforce such laws?

SWAT and battering rams?

[acptulsa]

Regardless of constitutionality of it, how do you enforce such laws?

With a camera in every bedroom, of course.

Do you mean, how were they enforced back when they were common? They weren't. These laws mainly kept down the spread of sexually transmitted disease, and deprived homophobes of potential targets, by demanding discretion.

[Origanalist]

SWAT and battering rams?

Good point, forgot about that. Then the rectum checks.

[acptulsa]

Good point, forgot about that. Then the rectum checks.

And after they pull the battering ram out, guess what they'll determine about whether or not you've allowed yourself to be violated?

[Origanalist]

And after they pull the battering ram out, guess what they'll determine about whether or not you've allowed yourself to be violated?

Ouch.....

[torchbearer]

Don't have butt sex, the government hates competition.

[acptulsa]

Ouch.....

Hey, if the fedgov can't add insult to injury, what is it good for?

[MelissaWV]

amendment 10.
the most important amendment when concerning the intent of the constitution as a very constrictive document on the newly formed federal government.

Read the end of what I posted ;)

[Origanalist]

Don't have butt sex, the government hates competition.

+1

[Origanalist]

Hey, if the fedgov can't add insult to injury, what is it good for?

Bombing the shit out of countries a fraction of our size because they don't want to play along?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Ok, back to butsecks (although the classic definition of sodomy also includes oral arguments). :p

LOL! - good one! - I need a good laugh today!
+rep


With a camera in every bedroom, of course.

Well we already have them in tons of public middle and high school bathrooms and locker rooms already, so what's the big deal? The writing is on the wall... :(

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

Don't have butt sex, the government hates competition.

LOL!
+rep

[acptulsa]

Well we already have them in tons of public middle and high school bathrooms and locker rooms already, so what's the big deal?

Normally, pedophilia is a big deal. But not when the government does it...

[Origanalist]

Normally, pedophilia is a big deal. But not when the government does it...

It's for the children.

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=i.4580325674058995&pid=15.1

[Jumbo Shrimp]

I'm sorry that's a cop out. It's like saying "Obama wouldn't outlaw guns, but he is a champion of state's rights to ban guns".

Does not compute. States do not have a right to ban guns, or sodomy. The federal government's most important role is to prevent states from oppressing their own people.

States do not have a right to ban guns, but they do have the right to ban sodomy. Please show me where the federal constitution prohibits states from banning sodomy.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Regardless of constitutionality of it, how do you enforce such laws?

The way it was done for 200 years. If ***** are screwing in the street, parks, public place, they get arrested. If they do it in the privacy of their own homes, nothing happens to them. Easy.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Normally, pedophilia is a big deal. But not when the government does it...

Well, since this has come up twice in this thread, could you clarify if by "pedophilia" you are talking about the American Psychological Association definition or congresses made up definition?

The difference is similar to the militaries definition of an "assault rifle" and congresses made up definition of a "assault weapon".

-t

[dillo]

Its sad when the cultural marxist feminist SCOTUS judges are vastly better with civil liberties than the supposed constitutionalists.

[heavenlyboy34]

Don't have butt sex, the government hates competition.LOLz, +rep

[matt0611]

The Constitution does not protect people's rights. It simply declares the powers of the federal government, its relationship to the States, and the God-given individual rights that the federal government through the powers of congress have no power to infringe upon (speech, freedom of religion, gun ownership etc). The Bill of Rights is technically redundant and James Madison was against it for this reason. The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states, it never intended to be and this never changed (no, not even with the 14th amendment). Ron Paul and historians such as Tom Woods, Kevin Gutzman believe this too. (The 14th amendment does not change this, see "The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights" by Raul Berger for more information on why it doesn't).

The individual States are to have a republic form of government with their own State Constitutions that protect the rights of the individual but may very well end up varying slightly from each other.

Things like drug prohibition and even sodomy laws are legal at the state level if the State Constitutions allow for it. Though I would disagree with and be very much against having laws such as these.

[Qdog]

Wait a second... so I can insert my penis into a lady friends anus, but not that of a gentleman friend?

[agitator]

Rectum checks. Checking for Santorum?

[matt0611]

Its sad when the cultural marxist feminist SCOTUS judges are vastly better with civil liberties than the supposed constitutionalists.

Meh, not really. They don't support your right to protect yourself (gun ownership), you can be told by government what to eat (broccoli), what to buy (health insurance). They're fine with government censorship, hate crime laws, and care nothing for your right to life while your in your mother's womb.

But hey, yeah, sure, they'll always make sure that the states won't infringe on your right to have anal sex with your guy friend though.

[pochy1776]

ALL SODOMY IS BAD. AND THIS thread is stupid.

[AGRP]

What an incredibly random and inconsequential opinion coming from someone on the SCOTUS. Whats that theory about people who are preoccupied about this topic being offenders themselves?

[anaconda]

Why would Scalia suggest that 200 years of state laws against sodomy necessarily make it "unconstitutional?" I get really tired of this blowhard publicly editorializing about the way things should be. As far as I am concerned he can go sit in a duck blind with Dick Cheney.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Why does this jackass civil servant, whose job it is to decide if a law is constitutional, continue to editorialize publicly about public policy? I do not care what he thinks should be legal and illegal, only what he thinks the constitution says should be legal and illegal.

He was talking about what the constitution says...

[TheTexan]

Ron would not "outlaw sodomy," but he is a champion of a state's rights to do just that.

I don't think that's true. He has often used "state's rights" as a tool for making his point, but every time I've looked into any specific issue of his further, I nearly always find clarification that what he really wants is for the laws to be made as local as possible... as local as possible, meaning, within the household (or even the individual).

So while it is true that his state's rights stances would enable the states to make such laws, in most cases he is not in favor of the states actually doing so.

Allowing states to make poor choices is simply an unfortunate but necessary byproduct of breaking jurisdictions into smaller pieces. Breaking jurisdictions into smaller pieces is always a good thing. Some jurisdictions may make some rather asinine laws, and that's ok. If it makes their jurisdiction happy, good for them.

[Brian4Liberty]

What an incredibly random and inconsequential opinion coming from someone on the SCOTUS. Whats that theory about people who are preoccupied about this topic being offenders themselves?

Like I said earlier in the thread, this is not about sodomy, it's preparation for the gay marriage debate, which the Supremes will have in front of them, probably within a year.

[Brian4Liberty]

ALL SODOMY IS BAD.

Kissing is bad too. All that saliva, and mucus, and germs, and hormones, and disease, and bad breath, and garlic, and other random food and drug residue. Let's ban it! It's disgusting! It makes no logical or biological sense.

[Kotin]

Your mom seemed to like it


C'mon now.. play nice y'all

[Carlybee]

Okay this thread is making me want to wear a hazmat suit and be touched by nobody ever, lol.

[MelissaWV]

ALL SODOMY IS BAD. AND THIS thread is stupid.

Sodomy meaning all but the most basic and vanilla missionary-style intercourse...

I guess you're not a fan.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Sodomy meaning all but the most basic and vanilla missionary-style intercourse...

I guess you're not a fan.

How is heterosexual sex in positions other than missionary sodomy??

[TheTexan]

How is heterosexual sex in positions other than missionary sodomy??

How is a religious belief that sodomy is bad justification for making it a criminal offense?

[Jumbo Shrimp]

How is a religious belief that sodomy is bad justification for making it a criminal offense?

That's not what Scalia said. He was talking about whether sodomy laws are constitutional, a position Ron Paul agrees with him on.

[TheTexan]

That's not what Scalia said. He was talking about whether sodomy laws are constitutional, a position Ron Paul agrees with him on.

Are you in favor of sodomy laws?

[Agorism]

Sodomy is defined as nonvaginal sex so oral sex would be outlawed as well.

You could only have vaginal sex.

[DamianTV]

Welcome to "Democracy" where Mob Rule gets to tell two willing parties what they can do with their junk.

[low preference guy]

am i the only one noticed scalia never said it should be a crime?

[MelissaWV]

How is heterosexual sex in positions other than missionary sodomy??


Traditionally courts and statutes referred to it as a "crime against nature" or as copulation "against the order of nature." In the United States, the term eventually encompassed oral sex as well as anal sex. The crime of sodomy was classified as a felony.


Sodomy with a consenting adult female is virtually never prosecuted even in those states in which it remains on the books as a criminal offense. However, there have been a few cases, including one in Indiana, in which a now-estranged wife insisted that a husband be charged with sodomy for sexual acts while they were living together. Traditionally sodomy was called "the crime against nature."


In the various criminal codes of the U.S. the term "sodomy" has generally been replaced by "Deviant sexual intercourse", which is described as any form of penetrative intercourse or cunnilingus between unmarried persons.

The definition of "deviant" for the purposes of "deviant sex" has often been up for interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

There is a handy dandy chart towards the bottom of that page, showing who is/was covered under sodomy laws. You'll notice that it includes oral sex, heterosexual couples, and married couples in the chart.


Missouri begins its laws on sexual acts by defining "deviate sexual intercourse" (566.010 1(2)) as "any sexual act involving the genitals of one person and the mouth, tongue, hand or anus of another person".

[Sola_Fide]

am i the only one noticed scalia never said it should be a crime?

That's what I read too. He never said it should be a crime.

[acptulsa]

am i the only one noticed scalia never said it should be a crime?

If you read the thread, you know you're not.

And we wonder why our comments that the Civil War was really about states' rights, not slavery, got blown all out of proportion and completely misunderstood...

[Jumbo Shrimp]

The definition of "deviant" for the purposes of "deviant sex" has often been up for interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

There is a handy dandy chart towards the bottom of that page, showing who is/was covered under sodomy laws. You'll notice that it includes oral sex, heterosexual couples, and married couples in the chart.

I see nothing there about heterosexual vaginal sex in positions other than missionary being called sodomy...

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Are you in favor of sodomy laws?

I'm in favor of communities and states deciding their own laws.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

am i the only one noticed scalia never said it should be a crime?

No, you're not the only one. I'm also curious how many others here realize Scalia's position is the same as Ron's.

[TheTexan]

I'm in favor of communities and states deciding their own laws.

Are you in favor of your community or your state deciding to make a law against sodomy?

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Are you in favor of your community or your state deciding to make a law against sodomy?

If it came to a vote, I probably would vote in favor. I'd have to read the bill first, though.

[Ranger29860]

If it came to a vote, I probably would vote in favor. I'd have to read the bill first, though.

wow.... you may be on the wrong forums.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

wow.... you may be on the wrong forums.

Paleoconservatives aren't welcome?

Are people who oppose homosexual "marriage" also not welcome here?

[Ranger29860]

Paleoconservatives aren't welcome?

Not my forums so can't "unwelcome" you though I really wish I could. Anyone who out of one side of their mouth praises individual liberty and small government but then wants a law that would make something that is done between two consenting adults in the privacy of their home illegal. Goes against anything I have ever seen Ron Paul say.

[MelissaWV]

I see nothing there about heterosexual vaginal sex in positions other than missionary being called sodomy...

Other positions are often called deviant throughout history, hence why I stated that "the definition of 'deviant' for the purposes of 'deviant sex' has often been up for interpretation."

Of course, other unnatural things include using one's mouth, breasts, feet, legs, hand, an object, and so on. Oh and sex outside of marriage, though that's just fornication, which is a whole 'nother kettle of legal fish.

Life without sodomy seems rather... boring.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Other positions are often called deviant throughout history, hence why I stated that "the definition of 'deviant' for the purposes of 'deviant sex' has often been up for interpretation."

Of course, other unnatural things include using one's mouth, hand, an object, and so on. Oh and sex outside of marriage, though that's just fornication, which is a whole 'nother kettle of legal fish.

But you claimed anything other than missionary is sodomy...

[Ranger29860]

But you claimed anything other than missionary is sodomy...

In the UCMJ before they got rid of it last year that was the definition of sodomy.

[juleswin]

If it came to a vote, I probably would vote in favor. I'd have to read the bill first, though.

Reminds me of the tag line for Reason's Nanny of the month videos. Busy bodies minding other peoples business. Please dont be that person, also remember you can still be against sodomy without supporting a ban for other people that do accept it.

[MelissaWV]

In the UCMJ before they got rid of it last year that was the definition of sodomy.

Stop it with the facts!

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Reminds me of the tag line for Reason's Nanny of the month videos. Busy bodies minding other peoples business. Please dont be that person, also remember you can still be against sodomy without supporting a ban for other people that do accept it.

I'm not a libertarian so I don't believe in absolute individual freedom to do whatever you want.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

In the UCMJ before they got rid of it last year that was the definition of sodomy.

I looked it up and this is the definition that was in there:


“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.

No mention of what position must be used for heterosexual sex not to be sodomy.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not a libertarian so I don't believe in absolute individual freedom to do whatever you want.
That's not libertarian-it's libertine. HUGE difference

[Ranger29860]

I looked it up and this is the definition that was in there:



No mention of what position must be used for heterosexual sex not to be sodomy.

I need a source for which version of the UCMJ you got that from to be able to figure out where you cut the second part of that. There are multiple definitions given for sodomy upto and including rape and having sex with a minor under 16(changed to 17 then 18 later) .

[Jumbo Shrimp]

That's not libertarian-it's libertine. HUGE difference

Let me clarify, I'm not a libertarian so I don't believe you have unlimited individual liberty to do whatever you want to yourself and with other consenting adults even in the privacy of your own home.

For example, I don't believe heroin should ever be legal.

[juleswin]

I'm not a libertarian so I don't believe in absolute individual freedom to do whatever you want.

I didnt know you had to be a libertarian to mind your own business. I was minding my own business even as a liberal (except for the whole tax everybody thing). Quite frankly, my warning bells start going off when someone proclaims their support of looking into private bedrooms to enforce their favorite laws.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

I need a source for which version of the UCMJ you got that from to be able to figure out where you cut the second part of that. There are multiple definitions given for sodomy upto and including rape and having sex with a minor under 16(changed to 17 then 18 later) .

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm

And

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/925

There's no mention at all about what position heterosexual couples must be in during intercourse.

Even the 1949 version of the UCMJ does not mention anything else other than what I already united
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/ucmj_1949.pdf (page 161)

[TheTexan]

I'm not a libertarian so I don't believe in absolute individual freedom to do whatever you want.

By advocating laws against sodomy you are essentially saying you are more than happy to use violence to prevent someone from getting a blowjob.

Using violence against someone who has harmed noone isn't Christian, it isn't moral, it isn't righteous, it is evil.

[Ranger29860]

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm

There's no mention at all about what position heterosexual couples must be in during intercourse.

about.com is not the .gov ucmj so take anything on the site with a grain of salt. Something you have to remember that most people don't know about the military is the UCMJ is only the top standard as you get closer to your actual unit they can add rules on top of it. Their is a decent chance the regulation I saw was added by the division I was in but "unnatural carnal copulation" was defined in writing anything other than missionary hetero vaginal sex. I know this for a fact since I had to fight for one of my soldiers to not get charged for sodomy.

His 17 old wife moved in with him in the barracks (against regs) and a jack ass SSG busted in on them having sex "doggie style" and due to him being an ass had writen up papers for a court martial for sodomy based solely on sexual position. My troop had to take a article 15 in order to avoid the court martial.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

I didnt know you had to be a libertarian to mind your own business. I was minding my own business even as a liberal (except for the whole tax everybody thing). Quite frankly, my warning bells start going off when someone proclaims their support of looking into private bedrooms to enforce their favorite laws.

You're free to your own opinion on the matter and you're free to live in a community that holds your values. I believe that I have those same rights.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

about.com is not the .gov ucmj so take anything on the site with a grain of salt. Something you have to remember that most people don't know about the military is the UCMJ is only the top standard as you get closer to your actual unit they can add rules on top of it. Their is a decent chance the regulation I saw was added by the division I was in but "unnatural carnal copulation" was defined in writing anything other than missionary hetero vaginal sex. I know this for a fact since I had to fight for one of my soldiers to not get charged for sodomy.

His 17 old wife moved in with him in the barracks (against regs) and a jack ass SSG busted in on them having sex "doggie style" and due to him being an ass had writen up papers for a court martial for sodomy based solely on sexual position. My troop had to take a article 15 in order to avoid the court martial.

These sources better?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/925

Even the 1949 version of the UCMJ does not mention anything else other than what I already quoted before.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/ucmj_1949.pdf (page 161)

[Ranger29860]

You're free to your own opinion on the matter and you're free to live in a community that holds your values. I believe that I have those same rights.

Yes you do, but that community does not have the right to trample on others rights.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Yes you do, but that community does not have the right to trample on others rights.

If they don't like it they can try and have the laws changed or move.

There is no right to sodomy, though.

[Ranger29860]

If they don't like it they can try and have the laws changed or move.

There is no right to sodomy, though.

My religion tells me that all people should commit sodomy in celebration of my god. You can't outlaw that.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

My religion tells me that all people should commit sodomy in celebration of my god. You can't outlaw that.

Good for you and your religion. If your community is like-minded and wants to legalize sodomy that's their right. You could even legalize public sodomy, group sodomy, whatever you want.

I wouldn't live in a community like that, though.

[Ranger29860]

Good for you and your religion. If your community is like-minded and wants to legalize sodomy that's their right. You could even legalize public sodomy, group sodomy, whatever you want.

I wouldn't live in a community like that, though.

1st amendment prevents a community like you want.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

1st amendment prevents a community like you want.

How so? I'm not proposing establishing a state religion or the infringement of free speech, or assembly, or censorship of the press.

[Ranger29860]

How so? I'm not proposing establishing a state religion or the infringement of free speech, or assembly, or censorship of the press.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" If my religion says I have to commit sodomy with my partner and it does not impose on other peoples rights you can not make a law against it.

And that is assuming that you basis for wanting an anti sodomy law is not based on your religion.

If your community is 90% against sodomy it is irrelevant. We are not a democracy and our government was designed to prevent exactly what you are wanting. Rule of the majority is not what this country was founded on. By your reasoning I could make anything illegal.

[Sola_Fide]

wow.... you may be on the wrong forums.

In a free society, I could envision communities enacting these kind of moral laws...just like I could envision small communist enclaves existing in a free land.

[Sola_Fide]

...

[TheTexan]

1st amendment prevents a community like you want.

He is an intolerant, evil person who resorts to violence to get what he wants. Unfortunately, there will always be people like him. Along the same lines of "we can't police the world" we likewise need to mind our own business if his community is doing no harm to us.

As long as there is such a community that would support the kind of laws that he seeks, and that community allows land-owners to secede from that jurisdiction, I see no reason we would need to intervene with the goings-on of his own community.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to educate him, but "live and let live" goes both ways imo

[Ranger29860]

In a free society, I could envision communities enacting these kind of moral laws...just like I could envision small communist enclaves existing in a free land.

The rule of the majority is not a free society.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" If my religion says I have to commit sodomy with my partner and it does not impose on other peoples rights you can not make a law against it.

And that is assuming that you basis for wanting an anti sodomy law is not based on your religion.

If your community is 90% against sodomy it is irrelevant. We are not a democracy and our government was designed to prevent exactly what you are wanting. Rule of the majority is not what this country was founded on. By your reasoning I could make anything illegal.

Not working on Sundays is religiously based, does that mean it's a violation of the 1st amendment? No. Neither would a ban on sodomy.

Also, the government is allowed to infringe on your religious beliefs in many cases.

And yes, actually a state could pass such a law by a simple majority in the legislature or by a vote of the people to amend the state constitution.

[awake]

back in the day, enemas were considered standard medical treatment for anything not well understood, especially mental issues. Bleeding a patient via leaches, likewise to remove infection from the blood. This contributed significant;y to George Washington's demise.

-t

Good point:

Actually, when you get an endoscopy procedure your are drugged and sodomized with a 8 ft flexible rubber tube. This is a voluntary medical procedure...some people are not that happy to have it done. What would this be called under the this train of thought of banning sodomy?

[Jumbo Shrimp]

The rule of the majority is not a free society.

Then don't live in that community. But don't force your beliefs on them if they don't want them. Similarly I wouldn't object to another community having laws permitting sodomy, I just wouldn't live there.

[jkob]

Scalia is wrong and if Ron Paul agrees with as some you guys so claim then he is wrong too.

[farreri]

Anti-Sodomy laws are for bigots.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Scalia is wrong and if Ron Paul agrees with as some you guys so claim then he is wrong too.

Please point to the section of the US Constitution that forbids the states from criminalizing sodomy.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Anti-Sodomy laws are for bigots.

I knew you'd show up sooner or later.

[awake]

Then don't live in that community. But don't force your beliefs on them if they don't want them. Similarly I wouldn't object to another community having laws permitting sodomy, I just wouldn't live there.

Or, put more another way: you would want to ban anal sex under the current state and those who don't like your supported law can leave. You would never entertain the idea of yourself leaving to find a place that does not allow it. It's always the other guy that must be prosecuted, jailed and kicked out.

[Ranger29860]

Not working on Sundays is religiously based, does that mean it's a violation of the 1st amendment? No. Neither would a ban on sodomy.

Also, the government is allowed to infringe on your religious beliefs in many cases.

And yes, actually a state could pass such a law by a simple majority in the legislature or by a vote of the people to amend the state constitution.

1. Funny I work on Sunday's , Last time I checked there is not a law that prevents companies from having people work on Sundays or not. Nor is a person forced to work at a company that makes them work on Sunday.

2. I would like you to name a case of that, that does not already break my rule about an activity that does not infringe on others rights. Are there laws that infringe , yes. But I would fight for them to be overturned just as hard.

3. A popular vote of the populace more times than most does not stand up in court. For example prop 8 has been overturned multiple times because of the exact reason I am talking about. It is unconstitutional to have the rule of the majority to infringe on the rights of the minority. Also the legislature for states are still modeled after a republic. Only the house is a proportional the senate is a even slate between lower population districts. Then of course all laws passed in the legislator are subject to the courts to decide if the are constitutional and don't infringe on other peoples rights. Its not nearly as simply as "actually a state could pass such a law by a simple majority in the legislature or by a vote of the people to amend the state constitution."

[tangent4ronpaul]

Let me clarify, I'm not a libertarian so I don't believe you have unlimited individual liberty to do whatever you want to yourself and with other consenting adults even in the privacy of your own home.

For example, I don't believe heroin should ever be legal.

Why are you here?

-t

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Or, put more another way: you would want to ban anal sex under the current state and those who don't like your supported law can leave. You would never entertain the idea of yourself leaving to find a place that does not allow it. It's always the other guy that must be prosecuted, jailed and kicked out.

That's not what I said. I would find a community that shares my values. That could be the one I'm living in or could involve me moving.

[DamianTV]

Saying that laws need to exist to prevent people from performing certain types of actions is to say that all people will partake in whatever the prohibited activity is without the existence of said law. If it werent for the laws, every single person governed by the anti drug laws would all immediately and simultaneously start doing drugs. If murder were not illegal, everyone would immediately and automagically murder each other. How on earth could we possibly exist without these laws?

Would the truly Free Man run out and snort coke until his brain turned white if drugs were legalized? Would he immediately stop smoking pot if pot were made illegal? Given a choice, people tend to make the right choice for themselves. But this idea that everyone needs to behave the exact same way is a "cookie cutter" idea that we are all going to behave the exact same way, and what society should have all the say so in any sort of concenting action between any number of individuals.

Besides, one idiot is bad enough, but when idiots group together and become the "majority", they are suddenly not idiots?

[Ranger29860]

Then don't live in that community. But don't force your beliefs on them if they don't want them. Similarly I wouldn't object to another community having laws permitting sodomy, I just wouldn't live there.

How in hell would I be forcing a belief on someone. If I want to have anal sex with someone in the privacy of my home , how in the hell am I "forcing" my belief in sodomy on others? I don't want their beliefs that I am a criminal for doing something in the privacy of my own home that involves on consenting adults to be allowed to be a law.

[awake]

That's not what I said. I would find a community that shares my values. That could be the one I'm living in or could involve me moving.

Well that's a good start. Now you have to explain how two other individuals having anal sex outside of your property injures you personally?

[Philhelm]

Then don't live in that community. But don't force your beliefs on them if they don't want them. Similarly I wouldn't object to another community having laws permitting sodomy, I just wouldn't live there.

Using the state to force beliefs on others requires the use of force, while "forcing" one's beliefs on others by allowing people to live as they please is the absence of force.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

1. Funny I work on Sunday's , Last time I checked there is not a law that prevents companies from having people work on Sundays or not. Nor is a person forced to work at a company that makes them work on Sunday.

There are laws prohibiting thr sale of alcohol on Sundays which are based on religious beliefs. Not sure there are laws preventing other behavior on Sundays, ill have to look it up.



2. I would like you to name a case of that, that does not already break my rule about an activity that does not infringe on others rights. Are there laws that infringe , yes. But I would fight for them to be overturned just as hard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith




3. A popular vote of the populace more times than most does not stand up in court. For example prop 8 has been overturned multiple times because of the exact reason I am talking about. It is unconstitutional to have the rule of the majority to infringe on the rights of the minority. Also the legislature for states are still modeled after a republic. Only the house is a proportional the senate is a even slate between lower population districts. Then of course all laws passed in the legislator are subject to the courts to decide if the are constitutional and don't infringe on other peoples rights. Its not nearly as simply as "actually a state could pass such a law by a simple majority in the legislature or by a vote of the people to amend the state constitution."

You bring up Prop 8, it was upheld by the California Supreme Court and then struck down by a homosexual federal judge. It will, most probably, be upheld by SCOTUS.

[Ranger29860]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

Reread my post please that broke the exact rule I said.

"that does not already break my rule about an activity that does not infringe on others rights."

Smoking peyote for religious beliefs does not infringe on others rights. So to make peyote illegal in the first place breaks the rule making the rest of the "case" unimportant.

[Ranger29860]

There are laws prohibiting thr sale of alcohol on Sundays which are based on religious beliefs. Not sure there are laws preventing other behavior on Sundays, ill have to look it up.


And that law breaks the rule also.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Reread my post please that broke the exact rule I said.

"that does not already break my rule about an activity that does not infringe on others rights."

Smoking peyote for religious beliefs does not infringe on others rights. So to make peyote illegal in the first place breaks the rule making the rest of the "case" unimportant.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[farreri]

I knew you'd show up sooner or later.
I knew people like you would respond to that.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Why are you here?

-t

Because I share Ron Paul's views of a constitutionally limited federal government, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and sound money. Why are you here?

[Jumbo Shrimp]

I knew people like you would respond to that.

"People like you"...that's awfully collectivist of you.

[jkob]

Please point to the section of the US Constitution that forbids the states from criminalizing sodomy.

the 8th and 14th amendment for sure, maybe more

not only do I feel it is wrong on a constitutional level, but also morally wrong on top of that

[TheTexan]

Because I share Ron Paul's views of a constitutionally limited federal government, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and sound money. Why are you here?

Most of us are here for individual freedom. The above issues are just a part of that bigger picture.

[Ranger29860]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I was asking for an example of a government law infringing on the rights of a religion that also involves an activity that should not be illegal in the first palce according to my infringing on others rights test.

"You bring up Prop 8, it was upheld by the California Supreme Court and then struck down by a homosexual federal judge. It will, most probably, be upheld by SCOTUS. "

Prop 8 was overturned and upheld multiple times before it got to that judge. His sexuality had NOTHING to do with his ruling. His ruling used the same test that I use which is does the law infringe on others rights. Yes it does. Some religions say gay's can get married and prop 8 was mainly a church based law on imposing one persons religious beliefs over another.

I see the SCOTUS saying the same exact thing. They won't say gay marriage has to be "legal" in all states but I do not see them saying that laws such as prop 8 are constitutional. The result would be that no state or federal law can be passed that outlaws outright gay marriage.

[Ranger29860]

Because I share Ron Paul's views of a constitutionally limited federal government, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and sound money. Why are you here?

constitutional limited government? And you want laws that would have to be enforced that criminalize personal private activities, which would need regulations, training manuals and add power to the state? How in the world o you justify that in your head?

[farreri]

"People like you"...that's awfully collectivist of you.
Just calling a spade a spade.

[TheTexan]

constitutional limited government? And you want laws that would have to be enforced that criminalize personal private activities, which would need regulations, training manuals and add power to the state? How in the world o you justify that in your head?

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/Complete-Bible.jpg

[farreri]

Sodomy laws are ridiculous (not to mention bigoted). How would you even enforce it?

[Jumbo Shrimp]

I was asking for an example of a government law infringing on the rights of a religion that also involves an activity that should not be illegal in the first palce according to my infringing on others rights test.

And I gave you an example. Peyote is used for religious purposes by Indians and that infringement was ruled constitutional by SCOTUS. You don't believe peyote should be illegal in the first place.


"You bring up Prop 8, it was upheld by the California Supreme Court and then struck down by a homosexual federal judge. It will, most probably, be upheld by SCOTUS. "

Prop 8 was overturned and upheld multiple times before it got to that judge. His sexuality had NOTHING to do with his ruling. His ruling used the same test that I use which is does the law infringe on others rights. Yes it does. Some religions say gay's can get married and prop 8 was mainly a church based law on imposing one persons religious beliefs over another.

I see the SCOTUS saying the same exact thing. They won't say gay marriage has to be "legal" in all states but I do not see them saying that laws such as prop 8 are constitutional. The result would be that no state or federal law can be passed that outlaws outright gay marriage.

You've got it wrong. Proposition 8 was upheld by the California Supreme Court in Strauss v Horton. It was then overturned in a federal district court by a homosexual judge (yeah...I'm sure his sexuality didn't bias him at all :rolleyes: ) and then his ruling was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.

SCOTUS will rule in favor of states having the right to define marriage as they see fit.

[jmdrake]

How in hell would I be forcing a belief on someone. If I want to have anal sex with someone in the privacy of my home , how in the hell am I "forcing" my belief in sodomy on others? I don't want their beliefs that I am a criminal for doing something in the privacy of my own home that involves on consenting adults to be allowed to be a law.

And Lawrence v. Texas should have been settled on 4th amendment grounds instead of the "right to sodomy" grounds it was settled on. Here's what I mean. The police came to the house based on a false call (one jilted gay man told 911 there was "shooting" in the house). When the police went in the house and found what was going on, they arrested the two men based on sodomy laws. If the court had said "Anytime police go into a house without a warrant and there is a crime in 'plain view' that isn't hurting anyone, they have no right to make an arrest", imagine what that would do to freedom? In other words, if the police come to your house because they think they hear gunshots, but instead you are smoking pot while playing "Grand Theft Auto", there shouldn't be cause to make an arrest.

[Ranger29860]

And I gave you an example. Peyote is used for religious purposes by Indians and that infringement was ruled constitutional by SCOTUS. You don't believe peyote should be illegal in the first place.



You've got it wrong. Proposition 8 was upheld by the California Supreme Court in Strauss v Horton. It was then overturned in a federal district court by a homosexual judge (yeah...I'm sure his sexuality didn't bias him at all :rolleyes: ) and then his ruling was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.

SCOTUS will rule in favor of states having the right to define marriage as they see fit.

If you believe judges can't put aside bias then I demand every christian judge be taken off their seat. His ruling had NO indication of bias based on feelings or personal beliefs, he backed up everything he said with previous cases of SCOTUS rulings. That's seriously is like implying that a black judge can't rule on segregation because he would have a bias so we shouldn't let him be a judge. What about mexican judges? Should they be allowed to be judges since they may eventually see a case on immigration? What about christian judges on abortion?

I was wrong about prop 8 I was thinking about the previous law that spawned the "need" for prop 8 that made it illegal for a legislative law that banned gay marriage.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

constitutional limited government? And you want laws that would have to be enforced that criminalize personal private activities, which would need regulations, training manuals and add power to the state? How in the world o you justify that in your head?

Yes, I support Ron Paul because we both want a constitutionally limited federal government that does not interfere with the rights of the states.

[Ranger29860]

And Lawrence v. Texas should have been settled on 4th amendment grounds instead of the "right to sodomy" grounds it was settled on. Here's what I mean. The police came to the house based on a false call (one jilted gay man told 911 there was "shooting" in the house). When the police went in the house and found what was going on, they arrested the two men based on sodomy laws. If the court had said "Anytime police go into a house without a warrant and there is a crime in 'plain view' that isn't hurting anyone, they have no right to make an arrest", imagine what that would do to freedom? In other words, if the police come to your house because they think they hear gunshots, but instead you are smoking pot while playing "Grand Theft Auto", there shouldn't be cause to make an arrest.

I think the issue there is not the arresting people for victimless crimes when they happen to see it, but to get rid of the law that criminalized that activity in the first place.

[Ranger29860]

Yes, I support Ron Paul because we both want a constitutionally limited federal government that does not interfere with the rights of the states.

But the states can't infringe on the rights of the individuals.

[farreri]

Can states outlaw vaginal sex?

[Ranger29860]

Can states outlaw vaginal sex?

Lol you took all my long winded arguments and put it into 5 words THANK YOU. I may have to use that as my sig now

[Jumbo Shrimp]

But the states can't infringe on the rights of the individuals.

Of course they can and they do all the time.


Can states outlaw vaginal sex?

If there is a compelling state interest, yes. But seeing as vaginal sex is necessary for procreation, it's doubtful a state could prove it has a compelling interest in outlawing it.

[Ranger29860]

Of course they can and they do all the time.



If there is a compelling state interest, yes. But seeing as vaginal sex is necessary for procreation, it's doubtful a state could prove it has a compelling interest in outlawing it.

wow maybe I am reading that wrong but what you just said is very scary.


*edit*

You don't seem to mind oppression as long as it is at the state level.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

wow maybe I am reading that wrong but what you just said is very scary.

I'm just repeating what SCOTUS has ruled.

[TheTexan]

But the states can't infringe on the rights of the individuals.

So says the Constitution. A piece of paper. There are people like Jumbo Shrimp all over the country. Whether it's sodomy, or marijuana, or any other victimless 'crime', they somehow feel either obligated or entitled to use violence upon others who have harmed noone, and a piece of paper cannot ever change that.

Other than successful education in right & wrong, the best we can ever hope for is that they find a community that they are looking for, so that they aren't in our community.

This is simply being realistic. We can't stop every crime against natural rights in every community. What we can strive to do and hopefully one day accomplish is to make sure people's natural rights are protected in our communities.

[jmdrake]

I think the issue there is not the arresting people for victimless crimes when they happen to see it, but to get rid of the law that criminalized that activity in the first place.

Except the constitution, as written, allows for criminalization of victimless crimes. If you don't care about the constitution than I guess you can throw it out. If you do care about the constitution then the "solution" is to make sure that the police can't just kick in your door on a whim to enforce a victimless crime, while working at the state and local levels to decriminalize victimless crimes.

[AGRP]

But the states can't infringe on the rights of the individuals.

hehe I love when thoughts wind up at Voluntaryism.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Other than successful education in right & wrong, the best we can ever hope for is that they find a community that they are looking for, so that they aren't in our community.

This is simply being realistic. We can't stop every crime against natural rights in every community. What we can strive to do and hopefully one day accomplish is to make sure people's natural rights are protected in our communities.

You're quite sensible. At least you recognize that as long as my community is not oppressing your community, it really isn't your place to tell us what to do. If your community wants to legalize heroin, sodomy, public nudity, whatever you have that right. Just don't force your laws and values on my community if we chose a different path.

You believe people have a right to sodomy, then allow it in your community. I don't believe there is a right to sodomy and if a community wanted to ban it, I'd have no problem with that either.

[jkob]

Of course they can and they do all the time.



If there is a compelling state interest, yes. But seeing as vaginal sex is necessary for procreation, it's doubtful a state could prove it has a compelling interest in outlawing it.

what is the state's compelling interesting in sodomy between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

This thread is one of many the reasons why I prefer anarchy/voluntaryism over constitutional government.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

what is the state's compelling interesting in sodomy between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home?

Homosexuality is not an appropriate, healthy or fruitful lifestyle. It does not lead to procreation and leads to the spread of disease. It is also a danger to public morality.

The state has an interest in promoting the family because the family is the only reliable source of good citizens — of men and women with civic virtues, goodwill toward others, peaceable habits of association, and virtues of thrift and hard work. It therefore has an interest in discouraging sexual activity that is harmful to family life. Also, the state has an interest in regulating sexual activity so that children are conceived and raised within stable families.

The state has an interest in making sodomy illegal. Sodomy, first of all, expresses a misguided conception of sexuality. The reason for this is that sodomy is, necessarily, not a procreative act. Thus, it presupposes that genital intimacy may justifiably be regarded as something fully divorced from the possibility of procreation; yet family life depends upon the view that sex and procreation should be linked. Secondly, sodomy is an unreasonable act — it is an instance of reason being mastered by sexual desire, not sexual desire being mastered by reason.

[AFPVet]

I think this is absurd. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is their own business. When the state gets to tell you who you can do, it's time to abolish. I also believe that if there is no victim, there is no crime. Who is the victim in a consensual act? No one!

[Agorism]

If sodomy laws exist, that just means the government is corrupt (or the people "voting" to take your rights away)

Would be hard to enforce people from doing blowjobs etc though, but I suppose they could throw all the porn stars in jail since they have video evidence of blow jobs.

[farreri]

Homosexuality is not an appropriate, healthy or fruitful lifestyle. It does not lead to procreation and leads to the spread of disease. It is also a danger to public morality.

The state has an interest in promoting the family because the family is the only reliable source of good citizens — of men and women with civic virtues, goodwill toward others, peaceable habits of association, and virtues of thrift and hard work. It therefore has an interest in discouraging sexual activity that is harmful to family life. Also, the state has an interest in regulating sexual activity so that children are conceived and raised within stable families.

The state has an interest in making sodomy illegal. Sodomy, first of all, expresses a misguided conception of sexuality. The reason for this is that sodomy is, necessarily, not a procreative act. Thus, it presupposes that genital intimacy may justifiably be regarded as something fully divorced from the possibility of procreation; yet family life depends upon the view that sex and procreation should be linked. Secondly, sodomy is an unreasonable act — it is an instance of reason being mastered by sexual desire, not sexual desire being mastered by reason.
Hate to break it to you, but gays have been around since man walked the earth and considering the population is approaching over-population, looks like gay sex has never been a problem.

Your fear against gays is like people who believe marijuana is bad because they think it's a "gateway" drug.

[heavenlyboy34]

Except the constitution, as written, allows for criminalization of victimless crimes. If you don't care about the constitution than I guess you can throw it out. If you do care about the constitution then the "solution" is to make sure that the police can't just kick in your door on a whim to enforce a victimless crime, while working at the state and local levels to decriminalize victimless crimes.

I don't even see anything about police or state troopers in the Constitution, but that hasn't stopped them. ;)

[bill1971]

Homosexuality is not an appropriate, healthy or fruitful lifestyle. It does not lead to procreation and leads to the spread of disease. It is also a danger to public morality.

The state has an interest in promoting the family because the family is the only reliable source of good citizens — of men and women with civic virtues, goodwill toward others, peaceable habits of association, and virtues of thrift and hard work. It therefore has an interest in discouraging sexual activity that is harmful to family life. Also, the state has an interest in regulating sexual activity so that children are conceived and raised within stable families.

The state has an interest in making sodomy illegal. Sodomy, first of all, expresses a misguided conception of sexuality. The reason for this is that sodomy is, necessarily, not a procreative act. Thus, it presupposes that genital intimacy may justifiably be regarded as something fully divorced from the possibility of procreation; yet family life depends upon the view that sex and procreation should be linked. Secondly, sodomy is an unreasonable act — it is an instance of reason being mastered by sexual desire, not sexual desire being mastered by reason.

Who's morality does it threaten for one? I guess if you take the bible literally it could be a problem, but so would eating shell fish. Secondly oral sex doesn't lead to procreation, should it be illegal? I know somebody who can't have kids, should she be able to legally have sex?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

The state has an interest in promoting the family because the family is the only reliable source of good citizens — of men and women with civic virtues, goodwill toward others, peaceable habits of association, and virtues of thrift and hard work.

This reads like a 1950s civics textbook.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

I don't even see anything about police or state troopers in the Constitution, but that hasn't stopped them. ;)

Policing is left up to the states...

[GunnyFreedom]

He didn't say he wasn't cool with sodomy under any circumstances. He was just saying that he considers laws against sodomy constitutional.

His point seems to be that the Supreme Court has to read the Constitution in the light of modern morality. Not exactly the traditional 'conservative' take on it.

Seems to me he was saying that the US Constitution didn't give Washington the right to interfere with the states in those matters, in which case he would be correct. But of course it's still wrong to legislate that stuff at the state level too, but it being wrong doesn't make it a violation of the US Constitution.

[AGRP]

This reads like a 1950s civics textbook.

You got the textbook part right. Page 15 under the first citation: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32729365/Roman-Epicurean-ism-Natural-Law-and-Homosexuality Originally written by a Professor Pakaluk.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm sorry that's a cop out. It's like saying "Obama wouldn't outlaw guns, but he is a champion of state's rights to ban guns".

Does not compute. States do not have a right to ban guns, or sodomy. The federal government's most important role is to prevent states from oppressing their own people.

Except 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' is explicitly protected in the Constitution. The right of the people to poke body parts into one another is not covered in the constitution at all. The Constitution is a document of limited enumerated powers. The power to determine what sexual actions the states legislate is not written in the Constitution, period.

Sodomy laws are stupid and ignorant and should not exist, no question about it, but if WE only take the parts of the Constitution we like and just ignore the rest, then we are as bad as the criminals shoving PATRIOT and NDAA up our cavity searches.

[GunnyFreedom]

am i the only one noticed scalia never said it should be a crime?

No. A couple of us have, but you are right, most people here are taking the fictional title as though it were true. People freaking out over a lie in the original title. The lie being constructed by whomever wrote the original article.

[Brian4Liberty]

What a fun thread!


Sodomy meaning all but the most basic and vanilla missionary-style intercourse...

I guess you're not a fan.


I see nothing there about heterosexual vaginal sex in positions other than missionary being called sodomy...

Missionary is unnatural. The only natural form of sexual relations is doggy style. All the mammals in the farm yard are doing it. We could call it bovine style, or equine style, or kitty style, but it's all the same. Everybody learns from the dogs.

:p

[anaconda]

Can states outlaw vaginal sex?

Interesting question. I can't see why not.

[anaconda]

No. A couple of us have, but you are right, most people here are taking the fictional title as though it were true. People freaking out over a lie in the original title. The lie being constructed by whomever wrote the original article.

I am guilty of this in this thread. But I have noticed that Scalia has a penchant for pontificating about the good or bad of a law outside of the courtroom, rather than restraining his comments to the constitutionality of said law. I don't really care much about his politics.

[Brian4Liberty]

Can states outlaw vaginal sex?


Interesting question. I can't see why not.

It would be Constitutional. But let's be reasonable, perhaps we should license, tax and inspect this activity instead of criminalizing it? This could be the most popular public sector job opportunity since the TSA and High School shower room camera monitor.

[GunnyFreedom]

In my philosophical utopia, I am a voluntaryist. In my philosophical practice, I am a strict Constitutionalist. I am a strict Constitutionalist because if the Constitution were strictly obeyed, it would produce something very close to a voluntaryist society. The way I see it, the US Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to protect such private activity from ignorant state level legislation, so it is up to us to ensure that our states do not legislate it. Which is another reason why I have said since 2007 that it is more important for us to win state level offices than federal.

[GunnyFreedom]

I am guilty of this in this thread. But I have noticed that Scalia has a penchant for pontificating about the good or bad of a law outside of the courtroom, rather than restraining his comments to the constitutionality of said law. I don't really care much about his politics.

I'm not much in favor of the 'social cons' either. I kinda get repulsed when people call social lawyers "conservative" actually. there is nothing 'conservative' about a government big enough to police social activity.

I look at people like Santorum and I consider him a raging liberal based on how big a government he wants to police sex.

When people who think like that call themselves 'conservative' it makes me want to puke.

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm moving this thread to Hot Topics. And banning Danke.

[GunnyFreedom]

if 'conservative' means smaller government with less intervention (particularly domestic intervention), then these so-called 'social conservatives' are actually raging liberals, because sex police means BIGGER and MORE EXPENSIVE and MORE INTRUSIVE government interventions.

Just MHO

[jmdrake]

I don't even see anything about police or state troopers in the Constitution, but that hasn't stopped them. ;)

That's because the constitution is supposed to be about what the federal government cannot do. The real question is, why do we have an FBI when that's not in the constitution? Initially the FBI only investigated interstate crime because it was believed (rightly IMO) that the federal government doesn't have a role in intrastate crime. But those days are long gone.

[jmdrake]

In my philosophical utopia, I am a voluntaryist. In my philosophical practice, I am a strict Constitutionalist. I am a strict Constitutionalist because if the Constitution were strictly obeyed, it would produce something very close to a voluntaryist society. The way I see it, the US Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to protect such private activity from ignorant state level legislation, so it is up to us to ensure that our states do not legislate it. Which is another reason why I have said since 2007 that it is more important for us to win state level offices than federal.

Right again!

[AFPVet]

I believe some would use the 9th Amendment to cover implied rights which are not enumerated. If the Founders enumerated every right they could possibly think of, could you imagine how thick that would be?

What does the 9th Amendment really mean? I believe it to mean that you have liberty to do what you wish, so long as it doesn't victimize anyone else. Yes, you could say that states can do whatever they wish, but that's why we have the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment... so that states could not create tyrannies. Of course, it also made us a corporation (side issue).

[Todd]

Scalia can eat a dick

Then he would have to go to jail.

[AFPVet]

Then he would have to go to jail.

LOL + rep

[jmdrake]

I believe some would use the 9th Amendment to cover implied rights which are not enumerated. If the Founders enumerated every right they could possibly think of, could you imagine how thick that would be?

The point Gunny is making is that the federal government was never meant to be the guarantor of individual rights. The 2nd amendment existed to make sure that the means of throwing off tyranny always existed. And note, unlike the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment makes no reference to congress. It just says "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". And why? Because...A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. The founding fathers were wary of standing armies. Remember this quote from Jefferson? I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. The only way to avoid needing standing armies is through a "well regulated militia". If [b]any/b] institution interfered with the ability to have a well regulated militia, whether at the local, state, or federal level, that would be a breech of national security in Jefferson's worldview.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

The point Gunny is making is that the federal government was never meant to be the guarantor of individual rights. The 2nd amendment existed to make sure that the means of throwing off tyranny always existed. And note, unlike the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment makes no reference to congress. It just says "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". And why? Because...A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. The founding fathers were wary of standing armies. Remember this quote from Jefferson? I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. The only way to avoid needing standing armies is through a "well regulated militia". If [b]any/b] institution interfered with the ability to have a well regulated militia, whether at the local, state, or federal level, that would be a breech of national security in Jefferson's worldview.

Good point, which is why the 1st amendment shouldn't apply to the states (and it didn't at first).

[heavenlyboy34]

That's because the constitution is supposed to be about what the federal government cannot do. The real question is, why do we have an FBI when that's not in the constitution? Initially the FBI only investigated interstate crime because it was believed (rightly IMO) that the federal government doesn't have a role in intrastate crime. But those days are long gone.
The constitution does place a few limitations on states. Article I, section 10 for example.