Date: 6/29/2003 2:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 24845
hmmmm, I think that when the government starts coming in and invading someone's privacy. Thier homes it's going too far. Yes, drugs bad, Yes, prostitution bad, and Yes, Crime bad. But where is the line drawn. Since when is it ok to walk into someone's home and start saying "you can't do that here". The way I see it is "Oh yes I can." I feel like if your not hurting anyone doing what you want in your own home (within reason) that it's noone elses business. I'm all for Gay rights and all that. I however, think it's none of the governments business to butt into the private lives of the citizens of the United States. The constituion (sp?) is something that the leaders of this country are going to have a hard time getting under. We have our rights and I doubt that some guy that is ignorant to the ways of life is going to be able to bypass that without a lot of whooping and hollering from us.  |
Date: 6/29/2003 3:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 54444
anything to disrupt the overbearing power of government and return power to the people is what I am for.  |
Date: 6/29/2003 7:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
I think neither the state, nor the Federal Government should be able to say "boo" about what people do in their own homes, behind closed doors. UNLESS, children are being harmed, animals are being abused, or anyone is victimized, sex, religion, diet, sleeping habits, whatever, are an individual's decision. I see this as less of a "republican vs. Democrate" issue (since by tradition Republican's want smaller government), but this guy makes no sense. I agree with you there, Perse. It is an illogical statement, and faulty reasoning....  |
Date: 6/29/2003 10:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
It seems to me that the Constitution gives powers to the states that are not expressly granted to the Federal government. IMO, states should have the power to make laws regulating such things as bedroom behavior. I know that the Supreme Court's recent ruling striking down a sodomy law in Texas has been well received in some circles, but I feel the Court has overstepped its bounds. I agree with Lady Spirit Guide: this is not a partisan issue.  |
Date: 6/30/2003 2:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
*stops playing banjo* ya see them thar homersexuals are bad, they er the devils chilren, all they want to do is to make er kids one of them thar homosexuals, i think we should hang em all frum a galley in the middle of the town*spits out tobacco and laughs*keek ke keek keek ke keek
ok im done now, i just wanna know how the police are gonna notice this lil tidbit of "sexual action"  |
Date: 6/30/2003 2:09:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 3321
See, Alfrowi, I am about limited government interference, especially in aspects of private life. I see here that the fact remains that the State firstly interfered in PRIVATE areas of life that have been previously said protected by Roe v. Wade, the formed Penumbra of Privacy. The Supreme Court was in its rights to take actions so that we are not violated by the State. Its not black and white, rather a large gray area.  |
Date: 6/30/2003 2:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
He is a FOOL. he also said that the Supreme Court's decision on gay sex "Threatens to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned". Criminal? What about a person's RIGHT to PRIVACY under the Constitution? He goes on to link this with prostitution and drug dealing in the home! He is supporting an admendment to ban same sex marriages. NO, the Supreme Court did NOT overstep its boundaries. As with any State Laws; if these cannot be resolved by the State, then the Supreme Court steps in. That's what they are there for; and the Supreme Court has the final authority.  |
|
Date: 6/30/2003 4:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
LOL@JSTR...... |
|
Date: 6/30/2003 9:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
with some handy dandy research, actually my friends brother(soon to be sister) told me that on june 26th 2003 the senate passed a law that states cant make laws against same gendered partners |
|
Date: 6/30/2003 9:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
Thanks for your response, Persephone. If you support limited government, I would think you would oppose the Supreme Court's decision, which has transferred more power to a small but extremely powerful governing body: the Court itself. This has more far-reaching consequences than if the same power were conferred upon Congress, where there are 535 "rulers" instead of nine. This decision has further limited the powers of the states, an act that is, IMO, clearly in violation of the Constitution. As Thinker said, the Court does have the final authority...if it chooses. In this case, it would have been better had the Court let the state of Texas resolve this. The Supreme Court does make mistakes--the Dred Scott decision of 1857 and Plessy v. Ferguson of 1896 come to mind--and the cost to society in time and money to repair the damage is incalculable; our society stills suffers from the effects of both these judgments. This decision is, I fear, another mistake. |
|
Date: 7/3/2003 1:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
states should have to follow the constitution and the invasion of privacy laws unless a person or animal is in danger of their life or well-being, being gay is not indangering your life or your well-being unless your from a hicktown in the south |
|
Date: 7/29/2003 8:58:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 3321
Alfrowie, I think not ruling on this and letting Texas have its way off with a civil liberty would have been a large mistake. |
