Quote:
Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one
Well yes, if you change the idea of my post it most likely won't make sense. My emphesis was on the relationship ITSELF being allowed at all. I don't have a problem with incestual marriages being outlawed because those types of relationships are not even allowed in the first place. I do have a problem with gay marriages being outlawed because gay couples ARE allowed.
As it is right now:
You CAN'T be involved in incest and an incest couple CAN'T get married. -- makes sense
You CAN be involved in a gay relationship but you CAN'T get married. -- doesn't make sense
There's a huge difference there.
|
You do realize that the law was just changed in Texas in 2003 right -- as far as it being legal to be in a gay relationship. You do realize that states all over the country are changing constitutions trying to make it illegal don't you. Here is an article from 2003.
LAW OF THE LAND
Court strikes down
Texas sodomy law
Seen as creation of right to 'gay' sex,
Scalia: Justices entered 'culture war'
Posted: June 26, 2003
10:55 am Eastern
By Art Moore
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
In a landmark decision regarded by many as establishment of a constitutional right
to "gay" sex, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Texas' ban on same-sex sodomy.
Citing the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, the high court said in its 6-3 ruling that states cannot punish homosexual couples for engaging in sex acts that are legal for heterosexuals.
Tyron Garner and John Lawrence were arrested for violating Texas sodomy law
Critics of the decision differ on the legitimacy of the Texas sodomy law,
but they agree the court has usurped the role of lawmakers, establishing a far-reaching precedent that threatens any law based on moral choices, including incest and polygamy.
"There is no constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy," said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of the Liberty Legal Institute, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of nearly 70 Texas legislators. "Read the Constitution as many times as you'd like. It's not there."
The ruling reverses a 1986 Supreme Court decision, Bowers v. Hardwick, which said individuals have no federal constitutional right to engage in homosexual acts. Until the 1960s, every state prohibited sodomy, but Texas was one of just 13 states in which a law exists and one of just four that banned same-sex sodomy only. The rarely enforced laws carry penalties ranging from fines to 10 years in prison.
Writing for the majority in today's ruling, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the Texas law "demeans the lives of homosexual persons."
"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," Kennedy wrote.
Defenders of the Texas law had contended the ultimate goal of Lawrence v. Texas is not to end sodomy laws, but to advance the "ambitious agenda" of homosexual activists.
"This case is all about a small group attempting to force their agenda on the rest of the country, since they could not win it through the democratic process," said Shackelford. "The Constitution does not change overnight on the whim of judges to legislate morality for the rest of the country. This decision is wrong and emphasizes the importance of having judicial-restraint justices on the court."
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia essentially agreed with that assessment.
"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote.
"The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, noting he has "nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means."
Justice Thomas, in a separate dissenting opinion, said the Texas law before the court is "uncommonly silly" but as a judge he has no power to change it.
"If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would vote to repeal it," Thomas wrote. "Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources. Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to decide cases agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States."
Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer said the White House should take notice that four of the six justices making the decision were appointed by Republican presidents.
"This is a sad day for federalism and representative democracy," said Bauer, president of Virginia-based American Values. "And it is a most significant case for the president to consider as he ponders who to appoint to fill a future Supreme Court vacancy."
Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Kennedy. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented along with Thomas and Scalia.