Santorum Wants to Enslave People Who Have Unconventional Sex

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And it established the principle of judicial review, also nowhere in the Constitution.

It also established the doctrine that the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means, per the rule of law.

But feel free to cite a Supreme Court case overturning Marbury or the right to privacy.

Absent that, you and Santorum are free to exhibit your ignorance of Constitutional case law to your hearts’ content.

Or is it my understanding that this is indeed the position of the radical right, TPM, et al – that all the Supreme Court rulings – starting with and including Marbury – are to be ignored?

Are you aware of the principle of stare decisis? Were you aware that the likes of Robert Bork agreed with the Marbury ruling (not that his opinion was required)?

If that’s the case then you and your ilk are hopelessly lost in arrogance and ignorance.

The 4A establishes a right to sodomy??

14th Amendment, right to privacy:

In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, declared unconstitutional a Texas law that prohibited sexual acts between same sex couples. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, held that the right to privacy protects a right for adults to engage in private, consensual homosexual activity. Justice Kennedy's opinion expressly overruled the Court's decision in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which had come to an opposite conclusion. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor concurred in the judgment and said that she would not overrule Bowers, but would declare the Texas law unconstitutional on equal protection grounds because it prohibits sexual acts between same sex couples that are allowed between opposite sex couples.

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion forcefully declared that there is a fundamental right for consenting adults to engage in private sexual activity. Justice Kennedy said that this right is protected under the word "liberty" in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Kennedy spoke eloquently of the importance of this interest. Justice Kennedy wrote: "The Court began its substantive discussion in Bowers as follows: 'The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time.' That statement, we now conclude, discloses the Court's own 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 to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse." He further stated: "When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice."

Justice Kennedy explained that the Court has protected the right to privacy under the due process clause since early in the 20th century. Justice Kennedy expressly analogized to Supreme Court precedents protecting the rights to purchase and use contraceptives and right to abortion as aspects of privacy. The Court expressly overruled Bowers v. Hardwick and disputed that decision's conclusion that history supported the ability of states to prohibit private, consensual homosexual activity. The Court thus emphatically held that the Texas sodomy law violated the right to privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Lawrence v. Texas

Now, again, you and Santorum may dislike and disagree with the above all you like - but understand it’s the law of the land, and both of you are required to abide by it.

This may also help you understand, from the Lawrence ruling:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

 

[Vanquish]

Rabbi must type standing up and with one hand...cuz he just got his ass chewed out and handed to him.

Keep telling yourself that, "counselor."

You haven't addressed the idea that gay men have exactly the same right to marry that straight men do. And you cannot. You can merely mouth crap and hope some of it sticks.

You keep equating the wrong two groups of people....BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.

You should go to law school like I did so that you can learn how the Equal Protection clause actually works sometime.

The groups you should be equating are straights and gays. Not men to men. Of course, all men have the right to marry women, but that doesnt help gay men now does it?

Can you really be this stupid? Repeating the same shit over and over and over and over AND OVER?

Pretty funny really.

 

[bodecea]

Right.
In AL gays are not discriminated against since they enjoy the same rights as anyone else.
Glad you agree. Now get lost.

So, gay people can marry the law abiding, tax-paying citizen of their choice. I'm delighted to hear that they can do that now.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi must type standing up and with one hand...cuz he just got his ass chewed out and handed to him.

Keep telling yourself that, "counselor."

You haven't addressed the idea that gay men have exactly the same right to marry that straight men do. And you cannot. You can merely mouth crap and hope some of it sticks.

You keep equating the wrong two groups of people....BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.

You should go to law school like I did so that you can learn how the Equal Protection clause actually works sometime.

The groups you should be equating are straights and gays. Not men to men. Of course, all men have the right to marry women, but that doesnt help gay men now does it?

Can you really be this stupid? Repeating the same shit over and over and over and over AND OVER?

Pretty funny really.

Can you look at a man and tell he is gay? No, neither can I. So any attempt to connect it to civil rights cases is bogus.
It doesn't matter whether we are helping "gay" men. Gay men are not a recognized minority in this country, nor is there a common definition of gay men. The object of the law is not to confer excess rights of one group over another.
Surely you know that, "counselor."

 

[The Rabbi]

Right.
In AL gays are not discriminated against since they enjoy the same rights as anyone else.
Glad you agree. Now get lost.

So, gay people can marry the law abiding, tax-paying citizen of their choice. I'm delighted to hear that they can do that now.

No. They can marry any member of the opposite sex who is not a) already married, or b) of consanguinous relationship. Just like everyone else.
Aren't equal rights great?

 

[Vanquish]

Again, not equal. You continue to compare the wrong protected groups.

It's insane how pathological you are. Funny too.

 

[Vanquish]

Keep telling yourself that, "counselor."

You haven't addressed the idea that gay men have exactly the same right to marry that straight men do. And you cannot. You can merely mouth crap and hope some of it sticks.

You keep equating the wrong two groups of people....BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.

You should go to law school like I did so that you can learn how the Equal Protection clause actually works sometime.

The groups you should be equating are straights and gays. Not men to men. Of course, all men have the right to marry women, but that doesnt help gay men now does it?

Can you really be this stupid? Repeating the same shit over and over and over and over AND OVER?

Pretty funny really.

Can you look at a man and tell he is gay? No, neither can I. So any attempt to connect it to civil rights cases is bogus.
It doesn't matter whether we are helping "gay" men. Gay men are not a recognized minority in this country, nor is there a common definition of gay men. The object of the law is not to confer excess rights of one group over another.
Surely you know that, "counselor."

What does looking at someone and telling if they are gay has to do with anything?

Protected classes aren't always readily visible. Case in point - AGE or DISABILITY. Someone could be "regarded as" too old, yet still be young. If you discriminate against someone you "regard as" too old...even if they are technically young...you've illegally discriminated.

See...there's just so much you don't know about the law. You really embarrass yourself.

Where do you get this notion (I'm asking for a citation to case law) that says that protected classes are based on looks?

BTW, the definition of GAY...is being sexually interested in your own sex. There is a definition...and a protected class.

You're just pulling my leg with all this, right? You dont actually believe the shit that's coming out of your fingers do you???

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, not equal. You continue to compare the wrong protected groups.

It's insane how pathological you are. Funny too.

Homosexuals are not a protected group under Federal law, "counselor." Homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals legally speaking.
Are you really this ignorant? Law school? I doubt you finished grade school.

 

[The Rabbi]

You keep equating the wrong two groups of people....BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.

You should go to law school like I did so that you can learn how the Equal Protection clause actually works sometime.

The groups you should be equating are straights and gays. Not men to men. Of course, all men have the right to marry women, but that doesnt help gay men now does it?

Can you really be this stupid? Repeating the same shit over and over and over and over AND OVER?

Pretty funny really.

Can you look at a man and tell he is gay? No, neither can I. So any attempt to connect it to civil rights cases is bogus.
It doesn't matter whether we are helping "gay" men. Gay men are not a recognized minority in this country, nor is there a common definition of gay men. The object of the law is not to confer excess rights of one group over another.
Surely you know that, "counselor."

What does looking at someone and telling if they are gay has to do with anything?

Protected classes aren't always readily visible. Case in point - AGE or DISABILITY. Someone could be "regarded as" too old, yet still be young. If you discriminate against someone you "regard as" too old...even if they are technically young...you've illegally discriminated.

See...there's just so much you don't know about the law. You really embarrass yourself.

Where do you get this notion (I'm asking for a citation to case law) that says that protected classes are based on looks?

BTW, the definition of GAY...is being sexually interested in your own sex. There is a definition...and a protected class.

You're just pulling my leg with all this, right? You dont actually believe the shit that's coming out of your fingers do you???

Gays are not a protected class under Federal law. Again. Surely you know this, "counselor."
Looking at them and seeing is the very basis of discrimination. That is the basis of discrimination against blacks and women, both protected classes btw.

 

[daveman]

Again, not equal. You continue to compare the wrong protected groups.

It's insane how pathological you are. Funny too.

I thought you went to law school (did you graduate, by the way?). Now you're giving psychological diagnoses.

Did you know law school does not qualify one to practice medicine? True story.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, not equal. You continue to compare the wrong protected groups.

It's insane how pathological you are. Funny too.

I thought you went to law school (did you graduate, by the way?). Now you're giving psychological diagnoses.

Did you know law school does not qualify one to practice medicine? True story.

Shh, he thinks the Civil Rights Act protects homosexuals.
It's amazing how lefties here will yank out the "I am a lawyer" card, as though that somehow made all their nonsense valuable.

 

[daveman]

Again, not equal. You continue to compare the wrong protected groups.

It's insane how pathological you are. Funny too.

I thought you went to law school (did you graduate, by the way?). Now you're giving psychological diagnoses.

Did you know law school does not qualify one to practice medicine? True story.

Shh, he thinks the Civil Rights Act protects homosexuals.
It's amazing how lefties here will yank out the "I am a lawyer" card, as though that somehow made all their nonsense valuable.

It's funny when they threaten to sue you for disagreeing with them.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Rick Santorum wants to invade your bedroom in the middle of sex and arrest you for doing sexual acts he doesn't like.

He believes in upholding the current sodomy laws that imprison people for up to 1 to 15 years for acts such as falatio, anal, and other acts that aren't missionary position. This law extends to straight people and even married couples.

If you're gay, you especially better watch out because simply identifying as "gay" will immediately make you suspect to being indicted for sodomy. This means only gay virgins are safe, but if you're a sexually active gay, you will be enslaved.



.

These are state issues....

If someone wants to ban some odd sexual behavior I don't have a problem with it via the Tenth Amendment..

I will say such a proposal violates the First Amendment.. It certainly violates the equal protection clause within the Fourteenth (which I believe is vague bullshit BTW)..

So I think banning sexual practices is unconstitutional...

Oh and I'm highly opposed to banning sexual practices, however my personal opinions have nothing to do with the legality of an action, or even legislation.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rick Santorum wants to invade your bedroom in the middle of sex and arrest you for doing sexual acts he doesn't like.

He believes in upholding the current sodomy laws that imprison people for up to 1 to 15 years for acts such as falatio, anal, and other acts that aren't missionary position. This law extends to straight people and even married couples.

If you're gay, you especially better watch out because simply identifying as "gay" will immediately make you suspect to being indicted for sodomy. This means only gay virgins are safe, but if you're a sexually active gay, you will be enslaved.



.

These are state issues....

If someone wants to ban some odd sexual behavior I don't have a problem with it via the Tenth Amendment..

I will say such a proposal violates the First Amendment.. It certainly violates the equal protection clause within the Fourteenth (which I believe is vague bullshit BTW)..

So I think banning sexual practices is unconstitutional...

Oh and I'm highly opposed to banning sexual practices, however my personal opinions have nothing to do with the legality of an action, or even legislation.

Fine. That's a reasonable position people can debate.
The issue is whether the sovereign states have the power to enact such legislation. I think they do and ought to. The amount of power handed over to the judiciary is staggering and unprecedented. Just ask the people of California.

 

[shintao]

Of course he did. And it established the principle of judicial review, also nowhere in the Constitution.
But it didn't establish a right to sodomy.

I think you meant the 4th Amendment, and was just lying about it, ya habitual lying rabbid dog............

The 4A establishes a right to sodomy??
Can I have what you're smoking, Shitnow?

You keep smoking mah cock Rabbid turd. It establishes privacy rights asshole, and liar. Now assume the position, for a rooty toot toot asshole!!

 

[Mr.Nick]

I thought you went to law school (did you graduate, by the way?). Now you're giving psychological diagnoses.

Did you know law school does not qualify one to practice medicine? True story.

Shh, he thinks the Civil Rights Act protects homosexuals.
It's amazing how lefties here will yank out the "I am a lawyer" card, as though that somehow made all their nonsense valuable.

It's funny when they threaten to sue you for disagreeing with them.

You mean like Prop 8...

That shit was messed up. The Tenth Amendment was imposed to decide the issue of civil unions, the voters decided they didn't want civil unions, then the liberal activists sued the state and took the issue to the 9th district and won because the 9th is super liberal...

That shit took tyranny to a new level...

Of course the court ruled prop 8 violated the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, but in reality what action doesn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment?????

I could argue pissing in someones face makes me happy, therefore I have a Fourteenth Amendment right to piss in someones face.... The Fourteenth needs an addendum or be completely abolished and rewritten..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gays are not a protected class under Federal law.

No one said they were. And private employment discrimination isn’t the issue; at issue is a given jurisdiction enacting measures to exclude same sex couples from equal access to marriage laws. The issue is the un-Constitutional infringement by the state with regard to one’s privacy rights, as stated in Lawrence and Perry.

 

[Vanquish]

Rabbi, you're simply pathological. I'm sure you fancy yourself a keyboard cowboy...but you're laughable at best.

You've yet to disprove that I'm a lawyer. I've already offered to post my AL Bar #. I guess you can't stand to look reality in the face.

 

[Meister]

I think you meant the 4th Amendment, and was just lying about it, ya habitual lying rabbid dog............

The 4A establishes a right to sodomy??
Can I have what you're smoking, Shitnow?

You keep smoking mah cock Rabbid turd. It establishes privacy rights asshole, and liar. Now assume the position, for a rooty toot toot asshole!!

As God as my witness, I didn't know your rolled that way, Shintao.

 

[daveman]

Shh, he thinks the Civil Rights Act protects homosexuals.
It's amazing how lefties here will yank out the "I am a lawyer" card, as though that somehow made all their nonsense valuable.

It's funny when they threaten to sue you for disagreeing with them.

You mean like Prop 8...

That shit was messed up. The Tenth Amendment was imposed to decide the issue of civil unions, the voters decided they didn't want civil unions, then the liberal activists sued the state and took the issue to the 9th district and won because the 9th is super liberal...

That shit took tyranny to a new level...

Of course the court ruled prop 8 violated the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, but in reality what action doesn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment?????

I could argue pissing in someones face makes me happy, therefore I have a Fourteenth Amendment right to piss in someones face.... The Fourteenth needs an addendum or be completely abolished and rewritten..

No, I mean on message boards. Internet lawyers threatening to sue people who disagree with them.