Give Sodomy a Chance

Give Sodomy a Chance

There are 13 comments on the www.laweekly.com story from Jan 26, 2011, titled Give Sodomy a Chance. In it, www.laweekly.com reports that:

You have no legal right to sex, and never had.

In fact, in case you haven't heard, Texas Republicans want sodomy to be a crime again. Last June, the Texas Republican Party embraced a political platform that opposed the legalization of sodomy.

To be clear, sodomy law refers to either oral or anal sex. It would be a bleak day if Congress made the eradication of the backdoor and the blow job a priority over war, economic upheaval and environmental disasters, but that's beside the point. The bigger question is, does sex, sodomy included, warrant constitutional protection?

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.laweekly.com.

“TMA&CRR One Love One Marriage ”

Since: Sep 09

port orange

#1 Jan 26, 2011
good article!

“The Buybull is innerrrent.”

Since: Jun 08

Parksley, VA

#2 Jan 26, 2011
>The bigger question is, does sex, sodomy included, warrant constitutional protection?...If nonreproductive sex is recognized as a fundamental human right retained by the people....

I must not have understood the article, because I thought Lawrence clearly found a "liberty" right in the Constitution for adult, consensual sodomy in private.

What Scaliar claims he believes on the matter amounts to nothing unless and until the Supreme Court reversese itself. Whether some alcoholic, Republican closet cases in Texas want sodomy legislated against (because they prefer frottage, assumedly,) amounts to nothing unless they can get an Amendment to the US Constitution.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#3 Jan 27, 2011
Travis A wrote:
good article!
We should stop using the term 'sodomy.'Oral and anal'ARE SEX.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#4 Jan 27, 2011
writewingproxycontin wrote:
>The bigger question is, does sex, sodomy included, warrant constitutional protection?...If nonreproductive sex is recognized as a fundamental human right retained by the people....
I must not have understood the article, because I thought Lawrence clearly found a "liberty" right in the Constitution for adult, consensual sodomy in private.
What Scaliar claims he believes on the matter amounts to nothing unless and until the Supreme Court reversese itself. Whether some alcoholic, Republican closet cases in Texas want sodomy legislated against (because they prefer frottage, assumedly,) amounts to nothing unless they can get an Amendment to the US Constitution.
Think of the Lawrence decision as the anti-Bowers. Bowers v Hardwick asked the question as to whether there was a fundamental right to "homosexual sodomy" and the Court said the answer was no. The Court in Lawrence re-framed that question as one of whether there existed a right of privacy when it comes to adult, consensual, non-injurious intimate relations, period, regardless of the sex of the participants. They didn't find a right to engage in sodomy, only that we had a right to not have the government peeking into our bedrooms (or anywhere else with a reasonable expectation of privacy) when we were engaging in it (or anything else for that matter) within the parameters of adult, consensual, non-injurious intimate relations...

“The Buybull is innerrrent.”

Since: Jun 08

Parksley, VA

#5 Jan 27, 2011
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Think of the Lawrence decision as the anti-Bowers. Bowers v Hardwick asked the question as to whether there was a fundamental right to "homosexual sodomy" and the Court said the answer was no. The Court in Lawrence re-framed that question as one of whether there existed a right of privacy when it comes to adult, consensual, non-injurious intimate relations, period, regardless of the sex of the participants. They didn't find a right to engage in sodomy, only that we had a right to not have the government peeking into our bedrooms (or anywhere else with a reasonable expectation of privacy) when we were engaging in it (or anything else for that matter) within the parameters of adult, consensual, non-injurious intimate relations...
Yes, you have labored through this with me before.

Let me quote from the first paragraphs of Lawrence:

"For this inquiry the Court deems it necessary to reconsider its Bowers holding. The Bowers Courtís initial substantive statement ó'The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy ...,' 478 U. S., at 190ódiscloses the Courtís failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake."

The Court re-considered the Bowers finding on sodomy. The Court found a "liberty" right for sodomy.

You can do a search of the 50 page or so decision in Lawrence to see how many times the word "sodomy" appears. Of course the decision also acknowledges that outlawing or permitting sodomy has implications far beyond just a particular sexual act. That in now way supports your tortured interpretation of a decision which was, clearly, literally, apparently, about a sodomy prosecution.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#6 Jan 27, 2011
writewingproxycontin wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you have labored through this with me before.
Let me quote from the first paragraphs of Lawrence:
"For this inquiry the Court deems it necessary to reconsider its Bowers holding. The Bowers Courtís initial substantive statement ó'The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy ...,' 478 U. S., at 190ódiscloses the Courtís failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake."
The Court re-considered the Bowers finding on sodomy. The Court found a "liberty" right for sodomy.
You can do a search of the 50 page or so decision in Lawrence to see how many times the word "sodomy" appears. Of course the decision also acknowledges that outlawing or permitting sodomy has implications far beyond just a particular sexual act. That in now way supports your tortured interpretation of a decision which was, clearly, literally, apparently, about a sodomy prosecution.
Even though the Lawrence decision was centered on a sodomy prosecution and spends a great deal of time discussing sodomy, what they ended up with isn't a right to engage in sodomy, but a right to privacy in order that one might engage in it. Remember, while they struck down the state laws, they allowed the military's ban on the acts to remain in place, because in the military, the expectation of personal privacy is lower than in the civilian sector.
Rose

Panorama City, CA

#7 Jan 27, 2011
Republicans lie when they say they want "small government" and/or government out of our lives.
They really want government so big it runs our lives, and sticks its nose into the most intimate decisions we make.
Should I have to check on the con dumb government list of approved sex acts before I get it on with my honey!?

And what is a dumber plan than putting men in jail to get them to stop having sex with each other?
Amazed

United States

#8 Jan 27, 2011
Wow that is strange - I was just thinking about this same issue. Funny how the subject of sodomy comes up each year about the time I am getting ready to fill out my tax return.
Rose

Los Angeles, CA

#9 Jan 27, 2011
Amazed wrote:
Wow that is strange - I was just thinking about this same issue. Funny how the subject of sodomy comes up each year about the time I am getting ready to fill out my tax return.
LOL.
And the IRS doesn't even send us any lube.

“The Buybull is innerrrent.”

Since: Jun 08

Annapolis, MD

#10 Jan 28, 2011
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Even though the Lawrence decision was centered on a sodomy prosecution and spends a great deal of time discussing sodomy, what they ended up with isn't a right to engage in sodomy, but a right to privacy in order that one might engage in it. Remember, while they struck down the state laws, they allowed the military's ban on the acts to remain in place, because in the military, the expectation of personal privacy is lower than in the civilian sector.
You're confused again.

1. Lawrence was about sodomy, as you've had to admit because I quoted the actual decision.

The decision allowed sodomy based on a recognition of a wider "liberty" right to private conduct, but the decision was about anti sodomy laws.

2. You are confusing things with your reference to DADT, which has been repealed _before_ the military has re-done its UCMJ regarding sodomy.

DADT Don't Pursue had nothing to do with sodomy in a one to one sense, as you falsely claim, because a celibate service person who came out as gay/lesbian could still be discharged. It was about a declaration, not about sodomy.

Str8 service members violating the military's rules against sodomy didn't get discharged under DADT.

Stop wasting my time.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#12 Jan 30, 2011
1. No, Lawrence was decided on the basis of a right to privacy, the sodomy was merely circumstantial to that.

2. The confusion with DADT is yours alone (I certainly didn't bring it up) and any discussion of that law is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. I am talking ONLY about the military's consensual sodomy statute (article 125), which was NOT overturned by Lawrence and why the Court refused to overturn it.

“IBM had it right: "Think"”

Since: Mar 07

SF Bay Area Suburbs

#13 Jan 30, 2011
writewingproxycontin wrote:
<quoted text>
You're confused again.
1. Lawrence was about sodomy, as you've had to admit because I quoted the actual decision.
The decision allowed sodomy based on a recognition of a wider "liberty" right to private conduct, but the decision was about anti sodomy laws.
2. You are confusing things with your reference to DADT, which has been repealed _before_ the military has re-done its UCMJ regarding sodomy.
DADT Don't Pursue had nothing to do with sodomy in a one to one sense, as you falsely claim, because a celibate service person who came out as gay/lesbian could still be discharged. It was about a declaration, not about sodomy.
Str8 service members violating the military's rules against sodomy didn't get discharged under DADT.
Stop wasting my time.
Sodomy was just the symptom. Lawrence, indeed any privacy law issue, is fundamentally about limits on the power of the stayed in a legal framework where this individual is supreme. It wad not a question whether we have a right to sodomy, but a question of whether the state (government) has any constitutional authority to intervene in the personal life of citizens.
John

Johor Bahru, Malaysia

#14 Mar 26, 2011
In light of the discrepancy of murphy's law , Anwar should be given 24 hour security but who will guard the guardians. The matron of Columbia Asia hospital who views and disseminates pornography is still free and the surgeon who killed the helpless lady is stil free. There has bee no one looking into this. Using all forms of logic , Anwar is framed but the Malaysians have a learning curve and we are no longer such idiots.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Privacy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Uproar as Capitol Hill pharmacist dishes on pre... Oct '17 Red Crosse 2
News Why does your identity depend on one number? Se... Sep '17 Data 1
News Credit agency pushes feds to give it access to ... Jul '17 Tell em Get lost 1
News Credit agency pushes feds to give it access to ... Jul '17 Tell em Get lost 1
News Credit agency pushes feds to give it access to ... Jul '17 Get lost 1
News New lawsuits filed over Trump commission's requ... Jul '17 Pessimist 3
News When Can a School Search a Student's Bag? (May '17) May '17 They cannot kill ... 1
More from around the web