The proper way would be for the legislature to grant marriage rights to gays. The Supreme Court should not declare it unconstitutional just because they have become more progressive in their thinking.
I have to say I think I agree with Padgett here. There is supposed to be some room for local communities to determine the sort of behavior they do or don't want to encourage. For example, while prostitution is legal in some places, the Supreme Court doesn't need to or even want to step in and make it legal everywhere in the United States. An argument could be made for why it should be legal everywhere based on the same reasoning that we saw with this case. What's different about this case is that there has been a lot of work done in the last several decades to get people to understand the issue in terms of discrimination. I think that this is part of what Scalia was getting at when he referred to the issue as being something that should have been argued in the courts of public opinion. As others have pointed out, it has largely been handled through public opinion and a lot of those laws were being repealed. I have to say that to base the decision largely on the so-called right to privacy makes it harder for me to agree with it. I'm pro-life and don't think privacy entitles women to abort their babies. If I wouldn't grant an individual "privacy" in that regard, why would I extend privacy to behavior in your own home? And generally I don't. You can't abuse your children, or even your pets, in the privacy of your own home. You can grow illegal substances, conduct any other illegal activity, etc. Where I think they did have a very legitimate complaint was that the law only applied to homosexuals. If the activity itself was so problematic, it should have been illegal for everyone.
i'm not sure...i don't believe that it started in roe v. wade. roe was an awful opinion, period. even people that support the end result say that it was a bad opinion...poor logic.
Mrs. Valdez, I also agree with you. I believe Sandra Day O'Connor did base her argument on the fact that it only applied to homosexuals.
When the state has a compelling interest...like protecting the life of an unborn child...or the health of a child being abused...then the compelling interest overrides any right to privacy, in my mind. there is no compelling interest in this case. but saying people have no expectation to privacy in their own homes flies in the face of the 4th amendment...it flies in the face of the Bill of Rights, in general. private property was sacred to the founding fathers...the idea that authorities can turn it upside down to determine whether or not you've been engaging in sodomy is ridiculous.
Yes, it idid start with Roe v. Wade. And I was always under the impression that Roe was a horrible decision, at least in part, because it introduced the "right to privacy" practically out of thin air. (Of course, there is the idea that a fetus is a human life, but people won't accept that argument). http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/january98/roe_1-30.html And while individual rights are considered the cherished base of U.S. law, the Constitution does not mention the right of "privacy" anywhere. Justice Harry A. Blackmun, who argued the idea of privacy rights when he penned the Roe v. Wade decision, could not use any specific sections of the Bill of Rights or previous court rulings to explain his argument. Instead he used various Amendments, particularly the Fourteenth Amendment’s idea of personal liberty, to explain the basis for his decision.
What if you hadn't had sympathy for the decision that was made. Please take your emotions regarding homosexual rights out of the equation. What if the court had ruled differently on an issue you felt strongly about? With this kind of overreaching, with this kind of broad 'privacy right' interpretation, they can. It just so happens that the court agreed with the populous in this situation. But the problem is that ruling on cases such as these, that should be outside of the SC's realm, sets a precedent for future activist courts to butt in where they should not. I agree that people have been ranting about the Court overreaching its bounds for years, and this case is another example of why we yell...because they continue to overstep their bounds. This is a nation of 50 individual states, not a nation under 9 justices. Issues such as abortion, gay rights, etc., are issues intimate and complex enough that states should decide them. There is not a clear cut right or wrong answer regarding abortion, or gay marriage, or homosexuality, contrary to many activists' opinion, which is why it takes more than a panel of 9 individuals to decide them, as it should require to repeal them. And please keep homosexuality out of the schools. Continual wrongs will not fix the real root of the problem. The family structure in this country is on life support. If you would prefer that some random person details the intracies of sexuality and reproduction to your child, feel free to send your children next-door and let your neighbor explain it. I would prefer that parents take some accountability upon themselves and deal with things in the home.
On a completely different note, and not trying to derail this thread, I'd like to wish all of the gay posters on this BBS a happy Pride weekend. I'm quite certain that, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, the Houston Pride parade this weekend (and Westheimer Street Festival) will be a no-holds-barred throwdown party of epic proportions!
padgett -- i don't disagree....as long as the state has a compelling interest that isn't outweighed by an individual's right in the Constitution. the state does not have the ability to say, "ok...let's round up and execute all homosexuals." the reason they don't??...that's right...that pesky 14th amendment and due process clause. even if the majority in a state wanted that, the constitution stands in the way. that's the idea.
It doesn't take much for a Court to find a "compelling interest" in a vague "right of privacy" that isn't even expressly present in the Constitution. They can take it as far as they want and render the legislative process completely useless if they so choose. Decisions like this show how careless the Court is and how eager they are to flaunt their 'compelling interest' powers - they could have very easily taken the route many have voiced - that gays were discriminated against b/c the law only affected them and not straight people - but instead, basking their own power, they chose to make a decision that highlights their apparent ability to circumvent the entire democratic process.
Totally unrelated point. Pro lifers feel that abortion is ending a life that has no input on the decision. How is that relating to two concentual adults having sex in privacy. That also goes to the same point on children. Child abuse laws protect children, who are you protecting by preventing gay men to have sex in private. And your illegal substances point is borderline offensive as you are comparing something that most people consider harmful to the well being of the country to gay people's right to do something that has no affect on anyone else.
padgett -- it's the state's burden to show the compelling interest...it doesn't come from the constitution. you're completely misunderstanding. the court doesn't have a "compelling interest" power...the compelling interest is what the state has to have to justify the law being kept in place.
My fault. Regardless, it is all a game of words that the Court where the Court makes the rules, and they make them as arbitrary and broad as possible so as to best maximize their powers. Actually, you're correcting my errant placement of the compelling interest burden ironically emphasizes my point all the more. The Court has created this 'right of privacy', they have created this 'compelling interest burden', and now they can use it to override the legislative process if they decide it does not exist, even though there is obviously a very unclear and changing definition of when this 'interest' exists. And every 15 years or so, depending on when the political views of the justices have morphed again, they can use it to re-write the laws of the states as they see fit.
The point isn't to compare it to homosexual activity. The point is that using the same reasoning one could conclude that such activities are protected under the Constitution. What if someone sues the state, saying that confiscation of mar1juana plants is invading their zone of privacy?
Child abuse and animal abuse represent harm directed at those who cannot protect themselves. Drugs, while I'm not in total agreement with their status legally, do represent a real threat to the health and safety of their users. It could even be argued, though I don't agree, that eliminating abortion would be protecting innocent lives. However, there is no harm inherent in two concenting adults ingaging in sexual activities in the privacy of their own homes whether they be gay or straight. It happens all the time every day with no more dire consequences for gay couples than straight couples. So, I don't follow the logic that homosexual sex falls under the same category as child abuse or growing illegal drugs.
the court created the compelling interest burden years ago...would you honestly argue against that? do you think states can just make up laws arbitrarily with no compelling interest?? particularly criminal laws that authorize them to arrest people on? the state was charged with just explaining the law...they couldn't...and people's rights were affected...the government, state or federal, can't aribtrarily prosecute people based on laws they can't defend their reasoning on. what you're talking about sounds a lot like nazi germany or the soviet union. the independent judiciary is one of the crown jewels of our constitutional system. to me, it's the most important. it's simply not true to say they rewrite laws every 15 years...they don't rewrite laws at all...they throw out laws that don't pass constitutional muster...and because we don't believe their decisions are holy scripture, we give future courts the right to overturn their decisions later.
what would happen? the courts would ask the state to define their interest in prohibiting the sale of mar1juana...i think the court has already said time and again that the states do have a compelling interest because of the concern for people's health and safety otherwise. and they cite the long history of states regulating narcotics.
MM, I don't think the "zone of privacy" is necessarily limited by a compelling interest. It wasn't in Roe. You are giving 2 rationales here. I think you are right that the government has no compelling interest, and that argument I would probably support. But why does the zone of privacy have to be part of the argument? If in the future, a more progressive court sees mar1juana as "harmless," couldn't they use the zone of privacy rationale and say the government has no compelling interest?
