Anthony Kennedy wrote the infamous Lawrence v. Texas decision that made laws against sodomy unenforceable in America. The Court issued this egregious display of arrogant and immoral judicial activism despite the fact that sodomy had been a criminal offense in all 50 States until 1961 and was still against the law in 24 States and the District of Columbia when the Lawrence decision was issued.
So in one fell swoop the Court deprived almost half the Union of the right to self-governance through their elected representatives, the essence of a republican form of government, and imposed its own twisted version of morality on the entire country. And here we thought imposing your values on others was supposed to be bad! Silly us for believing that swill.
62 comments
Listen. If you actually read the reason WHY the SCOTUS decide on that law (assuming you have the brain cells and attention span to read that much), the justices who voted in favor had clearly stated that the government has no rule over what people do in their bedrooms between 2 consenting adults. Is it alright to condone heterosexual couples from having anal sex while banning homosexual couples from doing the same thing? They both aren't having reproductive sex so why should there be a double standard? Would YOU wanted to be prevented from doing something while other people who are of exactly same citizenship, freedoms and pay taxes are allowed to? It isn't the homosexuals who have an agenda, but people like you who spout vitriol against your fellow citizens just because they love someone of the same sex. They aren't hurting anyone, except your self imposed "morals" from a book written by men thousands of years ago who had to explain to people that making babies was between men and women, unlike today where that is an obvious fact.
"And here we thought imposing your values on others was supposed to be bad!"
It is, unless the imposition is against monstrous evil, like Bryan Fischer for instance.
You must have read the other post stating that gay organisations are trying to ban heterosexuality. Luckily for you that was a lie. You are still totally free to not fuck men, as it happens. Knowing this, I'm sure you'll agree you aren't having alien values imposed on you.
No?
Well fuck you. ;)
Imposing one's morality on others is when INDIVIDUALS are deprived of rights, not when individuals rights are expanded.
Also, do you know how stupid you fundies sound every time you use the phrase "judicial activism" to describe the courts correctly doing their job of upholding the Constitution?
"So in one fell swoop the Court deprived almost half the Union of the right to self-governance through their elected representatives, the essence of a republican form of government, and imposed its own twisted version of morality on the entire country. "
This is exactly why the Constitution exists: because people like you twist issues of basic human rights into these abstract, irrelevant issues like "self-governance" that are intended to to distract the public away from the original issue at hand. Human rights trump states' and majority rights, and the Constitution makes that clear, but even if it didn't, that simply means it needs to be amended, since neither authority nor majority are inherently right or moral, but I digress. Anyway, why don't you actually read this "Constitution" document I speak of sometime?
All this started in 1967 when an activist supreme court ruled that niggers could marry white women despite the fact that misegenation was still a criminal offence in all southern states.
So in one fell swoop the Court deprived almost half the Union of the right to self-governance through their elected representatives, the essence of a republican form of government, and imposed its own twisted version of morality on the entire country. And here we thought imposing your values on others was supposed to be bad! Silly us for believing that swill.
And here we thought imposing your values on others was supposed to be bad! Silly us for believing that swill.
"You're being intolerant of my intolerance! STOP PERSECUTING ME BY KEEPING ME FROM PERSECUTING OTHER PEOPLE!"
As far as I can see, the right-wing position seems to be "gubmint shouldn't interfere in my life, they should interfere in the lives of everyone I don't like". If a state's self-governance included outlawing Fischer's American Fucktard Association he'd be screaming blue murder about how his rights were being violated.
I'm guessing Bryan Fischer, and many right-wing conservatives like him, just don't understand the concept of the judicial branch of government and the system of checks & balances. No wonder they make comments about wanting to execute supreme court justices.
They also don't seem to understand the idea of tyranny of the majority and why the courts & Constitution was set up to prevent it.
Constitution, motherfucker.
It's outdated and dumb, but it's yours so deal with it.
Pro-abolitionists also imposed their "twisted version of morality" on the entire nation, including unwilling states.
It's not values that are imposed, but human rights. Human rights goes above and beyond values, asshole.
Yet more on Mr Fischer's obsession with anal sex. Bryan, some people enjoy it, some don't regardless of their sexual orientation. Could you kindly remind us why you should have a say in exactly what two consenting adults choose to do during sex? Or to put it another way, what business is it of yours where someone's penis ends up?
It's called judicial review, you ass. The court gets to decide what's constitutional or not. That does not mean that every time they make a decision you like, it's constitutional, and every time they make one you hate, it's "judicial activism."
"Anthony Kennedy wrote the infamous Lawrence v. Texas decision that made laws against sodomy unenforceable in America. The Court issued this egregious display of arrogant and immoral judicial activism despite the fact that sodomy had been a criminal offense in all 50 States until 1961 and was still against the law in 24 States and the District of Columbia when the Lawrence decision was issued.
So in one fell swoop the Court deprived almost half the Union of the right to self-governance through their elected representatives, the essence of a republican form of government, and imposed its own twisted version of morality on the entire country. And here we thought imposing your values on others was supposed to be bad! Silly us for believing that swill."
Your argument isn't just not valid...:
image
...it never had the fucking right to exist in the first place.
85% of people can't be wrong , Bryan.
All right, Bryan. I'll bite. You know that Kennedy wrote the decision, but have you actually, you know, read it? I often find that reading any controversial supreme court decision helps to shed a lot of light on how they reached the decision and may even change your opinion of the decision itself. I know it did for me with Kelo v. City of New London, which held that property can be seized under eminent domain for purely economic purposes...
Yeah kind of like how the Courts swooped in and declared Jim Crow laws to be unconstitutional, depriving half of the states the right to be bigoted, racist, pricks.
Majority rules but minority has rights. This is why we don't have a true democracy, but a federal representative republic. The states are supposed to have only very limited rights to self-governance because we are supposed to be a unified country, not a loose amalgamation of 50 tiny countries.
"The essence of a republican fundamentalist puritanical form of government tyranny has imposed its own twisted version of morality on the entire country for over two centuries. You don't complain about that because you're part of the problem, Bryan.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/04/22/jack.johnson.pardon/
Keeping you from imposing your values on others is not imposing our values on you. By the same logic the death sentence is conspiracy to murder and believing that society should be ordered how the Bible say would be treason to the Constitution.
And fucking stop using the term "judicial activism", it's annoying when a prejorative term becomes synonomous with "I don't like that".
By the way, 24 states of 50 is still the minority and the federal government is sovereign on civil rights - the states may only expand them, not take some away "'cause that's the way we like it down here".
And here we thought imposing your values on others was supposed to be bad!
Oh it is. We believe that forcing values upon others through a bedroom nanny state is to be prohibited, and that the government shouldn't impose on sexual acts that involve adults that consent and have full capacity to do so. This is unlike the fascist religious movements that seek to legislate private bedroom conduct oh-so-dishonestly in the name of religious freedom. The Supreme Court has every right to strike down state legislation that infringes upon the individual freedoms of it's citizens.
Of course, this kind of thinking would be lost on you, which is again why your ideas are unworthy of consideration or respect.
Sodomy laws were essentially unenforceable and generally went unenforced well before Lawrence v. Texas. I mean come on, we're talking about finding out when someone is having sex and then having to check to see what gender the person they're having sex with is. Most people, even people who didn't support gay marriage weren't willing to go through all that, just to bring a court case to justice. And if they were...
It was decided in Lawrence v. Texas that that any court case that resulted from a sodomy law would necessarily result from a major invasion of privacy. The court wasn't deciding that gay relationships were to be considered socially acceptable or legitimate (not that they're not) just that sodomy laws were unenforceable.
So there.
My doublethink alarm is sounding off again. Fuck. How the flying fuck do these people get to the conclusion that invasion of privacy and government, whether local, state, or federal, policing morality and private behavior is somehow "freedom" and that its against their freedums to prohibit this?
"And here we thought imposing your values on others was supposed to be bad!"
Imposing one's values on citizens is bad, because citizens have a right to live their own lives. Lawrence v. Texas was SCOTUS imposing values on another branch of government , which is the entire point of having a system of checks and balances as we do . Well, that and to prevent tyranny.
I love how the same people who constantly go on about how much liberals abuse the Constitution always rail against "judicial activism" that violates the "essence of a republican form of government," apparently without the understanding that the courts (yes, including the Supreme Court) were created by the Constitution.
Admittedly, the Constitution did not specifically enumerate the power of judicial review (this was a result of Marbury v. Madison ), so technically this goes beyond the Constitution as it is strictly written. But I'll give twenty bucks to anyone who can find me either (a) a conservative who actually knew that or (b) any scholar of constitutional law who believes that judicial review is not the proper role of the modern Supreme Court. I doubt this will cost me a dime.
"My doublethink alarm is sounding off again. Fuck. How the flying fuck do these people get to the conclusion that invasion of privacy and government, whether local, state, or federal, policing morality and private behavior is somehow "freedom" and that its against their freedums to prohibit this?"
Because lots of people (particularly those raised in the South) judge their own freedom based on how much they're able to compromise the freedom of others. If they aren't allowed to persecute others, then their own rights have been violated.
It's the same reason why they're all for business deregulation and all that jazz. The ruling class shouldn't be told what not to do... that's what THEY are supposed to do to the rest of us!
In a few years, I would not be surprised if Bryan Fisher is caught with his pecker buried in some young boy's rectum. The louder the anti-gay fundies yells, the more in the closet they are,
It's interesting because Jesus taught "on earth, as it is heaven." I see atheists and others trying to make it "on earth, as it is in hell." As I've pointed out before, sodomy is a daily practice in hell. It's not surprising that atheists, etc., want to make it a daily practice in America too as they transform this country into the likeness of their father the devil's kingdom.
@His4Life:
"I do not remember giving consent for my kids to study homosexual practices in school. "
I do not remember giving consent for my kids to study a bronze age superstition in school.
Nor do I remember giing permission for me to live under a tyranny based on tht superstition.
"As I've pointed out before, sodomy is a daily practice in hell."
Provide evidence that hell even exists, then we'll talk. Until then, STFU.
Also, did you mean the christian hell or the muslim hell?
Guess what, His4Life, sodomy already IS a daily practice in America. Most of its practitioners are heterosexual couples.
And there ain't a damn thing your preaching can do about it.
"What couples do in their bedrooms is their own business, but why do you gays have to literally parade it in front of us and our children?"
Why do you have to parade your religion in front of us and our children?
'What couples do in their bedrooms is their own business"
Then you agree that anti-sodomy or anti-homosexual legislation can never work. I happen to disagree with the sentiment of the second half of your sentence, but we'll stick to the first. Again, how are you going to enforce an anti-sodomy law without invading a couple's bedroom, literally according to you, invading their own business.
His4Life,
I don't understand what you mean by "you gays have to parade it in front of us, etc".
Where do you live? In an apartment above a drag show bar?
the judges are merely upholding the right to the pursuit of happiness that you have. you may not be gay, but a sizeable portion of the population is gay, and i would imagine they like gay sex. they didnt impose anything on the states except the inability to impose things on people
Actually, Lawrence v. Texas struck down sodomy laws in 14 states, not 24. Besides, though not exactly the same, Washington, Maryland, and Maine all just legalized marriage equality through their citizens' vote (a first).
Mister Spak, we don't. Many major cities have "Pride Days" for homosexuals now. Where are the "Christian Days?" I don't remember seeing them, nor do I think there should be "Christian Days." It's not appropriate.
@His: Oh, you mean the one day a year when the queer sommunity organises to present a united front against the homophobes who pervade every town, every apartment block, everywhere, and say "Look at us. Brave enough to try a fag-drag now, brother Christian? Didn't think so."... Those days?
The mainstream majority who control nearly the whole country and whinge if their views aren't shoved on others as much as they'd like don't need a day. And if you're so worried, one day staying inside won't hurt you.
My point is that every day is a Christian Day in some parts of the world - such as yours. I can't go a day without seeing someone pray, or a congregation of Christians talking about Jesus' love, or about seven little fish stuck on the backs of cars. Christians never feel the need to hide their faith at work or in public (and if some do, it's due to a persecution complex rather than genuine risk).
Also, there is no such thing as pro-sodomy legislation.
Felix, I don't know where you live, but I never see that here. How do you see a congregation of Christians talking about Jesus' love unless you walk into said congregation and listen to the sermon?
And where do you get the idea that Christians control this country? Last I heard, Obama had been re-elected, along with many liberals in both the house and the senate. You can certainly expect to see sodomy more widely accepted in the years ahead.
@His4Life
"You can certainly expect to see sodomy more widely accepted in the years ahead."
Nothing to do with who gets elected, everything to do with people growing up and relising grown adults screwing each other is none of their business.
"And where do you get the idea that Christians control this country? Last I heard, Obama had been re-elected, along with many liberals in both the house and the senate."
Most of whom are Christians.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.