PDA

View Full Version : Privacy Upheld


question fear
Jun 26, 2003, 11:15 AM
So has anyone else heard about this incredibly historic event? My jaw dropped to the floor when I heard...I spent four years of college discussing the issue of sodomy laws, especially as it pertained to our right to privacy...and the supreme court i least expected to uphold that right just did...i am in shock. complete shock. Not only have queer rights taken a MAJOR leap forwards, but the rights of all americans to have a private life have been upheld.
Amazing. Here's the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/index.html

anyone else completelyshocked and excited?
--carly

rainman::|:|
Jun 26, 2003, 11:48 AM
hmm a gay rights thread not started by myself or vniow :)

i was actually anticipating this, it's about frigging time. Hopefully this will provide some base for challenges to the Defense of Marriage bills... A federal strike-down would be the fastest way to get rid of them, which is perhaps the first step towards marriage... Tho, if the supreme court got just a bit of turnover, and a class-action suit against the government was formed, and it went to the supreme court... It could give us marriage and strike down the defense bill all in one fell swoop. Which would be nice.

Back to the point... I'm very happy about this :) Gay people weren't the only ones hurt by these laws governing sexuality-- I'm willing to bet this will kill the anti-sex-toy law that some places have... as well as heterosexual sodomy (keep in mind, folks, oral sex is sodomy, think of that every time your girlfriend gives you a hummer)... This is truely a victory for human rights.

:) :D
pnw

3rdpath
Jun 26, 2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
(keep in mind, folks, oral sex is sodomy, think of that every time your girlfriend gives you a hummer)...

:) :D
pnw

somehow in that situation i feel that legal issues and the supreme court will be the last thing on my mind...:D

but seriously, i'm also shocked that the supreme court ruled as they did on this issue. its about time...welcome to the 80's your honors.

i'm also surprised that the republicans didn't try to somehow imply that sodomy supports terrorist activities...every other individual freedom seems to somehow endanger the security of our country.

question fear
Jun 26, 2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
hmm a gay rights thread not started by myself or vniow :)


heh. well, i called everyone i knew, and then i wanted even more people to know. i was really excited. and besides, i was trying to find a way to ingratiate myself with my fellow gay folk without jumping into the insanely long gay thread.

and i agree about marriage...it removed almost all legal justifications for preventing marriage. I also considered how it affects the concept of hate crimes laws, equal protection, etc. i think these could go either way. since privacy becomes protected, theres more of a justification to maintain that protection.
on the other hand, theres always the risk that it gets left ENTIRELY in the realm of privacy, meaning that state/nat'l governments could back off and refuse any involvement due to "privacy".

relatedly, does anyone understand what the law says about international marriage? like, when gay people go to canada to get married, and come back, does the US have to acknowledge it? what about canadians who are visiting the US? even if the US does not recognize same-sex marriage, do they have to treat a visiting couple wiht a legal marriage from their home country as married?

--carly

wdlove
Jun 26, 2003, 02:45 PM
I think that the Supreme court ruling was correct. The government has no business making laws about what is done in private. As long as it hurts no one else, it's none of there business!

Ugg
Jun 26, 2003, 03:00 PM
Many states have laws on the books saying that marriage is a union between a man and a woman which essentially negates any legal status that a foreign marriage might have. It does bring up some interesting questions though about same sex couples who are legally married in their home country and come to the US to visit.

Reading through the SC's statements on the ruling, it is extremely clear that Scalia is clearly worried that gay marriage will result from this. The analysis I read essentially stated that only a constitutional amendment would be able to stop gay marriage.

Scalia's comments about the ramifications, legalized incest, etc, etc, are almost word for word about that a hole ultra christian mega-breeder republican who spouted off on the issue a month or so ago. it does raise interesting questions about Scalia's position and the fact that it appears that he has already made up his mind regardless.

QCassidy352
Jun 26, 2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
it does raise interesting questions about Scalia's position and the fact that it appears that he has already made up his mind regardless.

almost all of the justices have made up their minds already. remember when Scalia attended some expensive anti-gay marraige group dinner a little while ago?

rainman::|:|
Jun 26, 2003, 06:24 PM
international gay marriages are worthless within this country for all practical purposes.

doesn't mean we're not considering going up-- maybe for the big 3rd anniversary...

to be honest i've kind of abandoned the gay thread, too much to keep track of. We need a registry of all the gay people, post once, then don't get into religious arguements :)

paul

question fear
Jun 26, 2003, 07:45 PM
registry of gay people....hmm....
not a bad idea.
could bring up some interesting precedents and cross marketing problems though-imagine if you were asked to register your sexual orientation with your phone or something....you'd get phone calls on new club openings, softball games, abercrombie and fitch catalogue sales....it would be insane.
kind of amusing, but only because its so unlikely.
--carly

voicegy
Jun 26, 2003, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by question fear
[...] i was trying to find a way to ingratiate myself with my fellow gay folk without jumping into the insanely long gay thread.

Don't you mean Insanely Great?;)

Hey Supreme Court...well done. 'bout 100 years late, but, hey, well done. Thanks for posting this, question fear.

uhlawboi80
Jun 27, 2003, 02:03 AM
few quick points: oral sex is NOT "sodomy" in every state...it really does depend on the states laws.

also, whats really remarkable about this ruling (and if you arent in the legal field you proobably didnt catch this) is that that they struck down ALL sodomy laws. Now, we all expected them to strike down the laws that said only homosexual sodomy was illegal. Thats a clear violation of equal protection. By striking down all sodomy laws the supreme court just elevated the sexual privacy issue to a hightened scrutiny. In this area the only things give a hightened scrutiny are right to marriage, right to birth (includes the contraceptive laws), and a right to live with your family and raise your children. Before, sexual conduct, even int he privacy of your own home was judged under rational basis scrutiny.

This court just added a "fundamental personal liberty." This ruling, along with romer v evans also helps with the push to elevate homosexuals as a class to a suspect classification, and mid level scrutiny (harder to get away with discrimnation against).

i was suprised also by the vote. 9-3...we got all the swing voters! go O'conner, way to control the swing voters!

and as an aside...Scalia? are you kidding? he didnt even need to vote, his decision was a given. The entire rehnquist block was a given. In issues like this, it all really comes down the the O'Conner 3.

tazo
Jun 27, 2003, 03:35 AM
w00t?

sedarby
Jun 27, 2003, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
hmm a gay rights thread not started by myself or vniow :)

i was actually anticipating this, it's about frigging time. Hopefully this will provide some base for challenges to the Defense of Marriage bills... A federal strike-down would be the fastest way to get rid of them, which is perhaps the first step towards marriage... Tho, if the supreme court got just a bit of turnover, and a class-action suit against the government was formed, and it went to the supreme court... It could give us marriage and strike down the defense bill all in one fell swoop. Which would be nice.

Back to the point... I'm very happy about this :) Gay people weren't the only ones hurt by these laws governing sexuality-- I'm willing to bet this will kill the anti-sex-toy law that some places have... as well as heterosexual sodomy (keep in mind, folks, oral sex is sodomy, think of that every time your girlfriend gives you a hummer)... This is truely a victory for human rights.

:) :D
pnw

The Texas law applied only to same sex relations.

question fear
Jun 27, 2003, 11:30 AM
The Texas law applied only to same sex relations.


i think this was mentioned earlier, but the law itslef was not the only one overturned. the way a supreme court ruling works is that it federally bans any laws that violate whatever its ruling is about. so even though, for example, brown v. board of ed was about one state, it applied to all 50.
same here. the court ruled that the government in any form regulating what sexual acts were and were not permissible in a bedroom setting (ie private acts) was unconstitutional, and as uhlawboi80 pointed out, created a new section of personal liberties. it struck down directly any laws regulating sodomy, and probably indirectly any laws banning sex toys and other "illegal" sexual acts.
also, what makes this even more amazing is that they've reversed themselves, admitting their previous ruling on sodomy was incorrect-this in and of itself is a historic moment, as the court rarely does this.
even my mother is happy. she called me to tell me she felt much better about my being queer because now the supreme court says its ok. ;)
--carly

Zaid
Jun 27, 2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by question fear
registry of gay people....hmm....
not a bad idea.
could bring up some interesting precedents and cross marketing problems though-imagine if you were asked to register your sexual orientation with your phone or something....you'd get phone calls on new club openings, softball games, abercrombie and fitch catalogue sales....it would be insane.
kind of amusing, but only because its so unlikely.
--carly

Also you could use Rendezvous to detect other gay enabled devices in your vicinity, makinging gaydar a tangible reality :)

I can see it now, Stevo saying << And today Apple is proud to introduce Gaydar Extreme ... wild applause >> :)

Also, Its about bloody time is all i can say. (wrt the Supreme Court)

rueyeet
Jun 27, 2003, 12:27 PM
Yay Supreme Court! (hey, better late than never, right?)

I really hope that this DOES lead to the legalization of gay marriages. In my opinion, any two people with the courage and commitment to keep their loving relationship together through thick and thin ought to be rewarded with the legal prerogatives that legal marriage conveys. And any two people who can provide a stable, loving, and financially secure enough home should be able to have kids. Gender and orientation have nothing to do with it; it's the love that counts.

That, and whatever I do in my bedroom with any consenting adult(s) ;) is my own d**n business, not the government's. About time they recognized that!

Ugg
Jun 27, 2003, 12:31 PM
It seems as though the ruling has a very, very broad reach as is show in this Christian Science Monitor article (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0627/p01s01-usju.html)

Roe vs Wade is evidently based on the privacy thing and this ruling would make it more difficult to overturn it according to this article.

zimv20
Jun 27, 2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Ugg

Roe vs Wade is evidently based on the privacy thing and this ruling would make it more difficult to overturn it according to this article.

don't be so sure. clarence thomas wrote his own opinion, as described here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=1&u=/ap/20030626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_sodomy).

'Thomas wrote separately to say that while he considers the Texas law at issue "uncommonly silly," he cannot agree to strike it down because he finds no general right to privacy in the Constitution.'


if bush can get 2 justices appointed in his term(s), or maybe even just 1, i believe roe v. wade will be overturned.

question fear
Jun 27, 2003, 01:11 PM
I did not read the article myself, so i don't completely understand what it was referring to, but my dad said that there was an editorial in the wall street journal that conjectured if this supreme court was comfortable with overturning old decisions than roe v wade was in more danger than before...however, if this court by a 6-3 margin legalized sodomy and created a right to sexual privacy, i really doubt that these 9 justices would make any decisions vis a vis abortion that would overturn it.
however, theres always the fear of a new appointment.
although its probably less of an issue for this coming year, because it would take a while for a suitable candidate to be picked and voted on by congress and hopefully by then a democrat will be in office. or a more liberal congress that can hold back any pro-lifers.
in other news, i think apple-branded gaydar is great. (my roommate thinks it should be called "igay"). Of course, windows would have to have it too, but it would consistently mis-interpret gym teachers and hairstylists. and very trendy european men. causing awkward moments for both computers.
and then steve could go on and on about how unix provides a much higher accuracy rate.
:-D
--carly

e-coli
Jun 27, 2003, 01:30 PM
We're finally getting somewhere in this country. This is the only logical conclusion to this particular case.

At least we're all entitled to a little privacy in the champagne room. ;)

zimv20
Jun 27, 2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by question fear
however, if this court by a 6-3 margin legalized sodomy and created a right to sexual privacy, i really doubt that these 9 justices would make any decisions vis a vis abortion that would overturn it.


don't need 9, only need 5. most recent rulings have gone a strict 5-4 vote, GOP-appointed justices usually prevailing. sandra day o'conner is the swing vote. for the sodomy ruling, she voted with the Demo-appointed justices.

my guess is a ruling on overturning roe v. wade today would be 5-4 against, w/ O'Conner against. but replace her or a Demo-appointment w/ a bush appointment, and suddenly it's possible to get 5-4 in favor of overturning. replace two and you're pretty much guaranteed.

i may be wrong, but i think what such an overturning would do is simply remove the federal mandate against making abortion illegal, returning that decision to the states. so some states may still support the woman's right to choose.

zimv20
Jun 27, 2003, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by e-coli
We're finally getting somewhere in this country. This is the only logical conclusion to this particular case.


iow, a full 3 justices are illogical? ;)

Ugg
Jun 27, 2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i may be wrong, but i think what such an overturning would do is simply remove the federal mandate against making abortion illegal, returning that decision to the states. so some states may still support the woman's right to choose.

That would be a major mess. Would states be able to criminalize women who cross state lines for receiving an abortion? The neo cons are all about returning rights to the states.

Back to the gay marriage issue though, that would be a real mess if states only recognized heterosexual unions even though they were legal in other states. The US would be polarized like never before. I wonder if that is what the neo cons want though, states that are fighting one another instead of the federal govt.

Ugg
Jun 27, 2003, 02:07 PM
Der Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,254808,00.html)

For an interesting European view of the Supreme Court decision and American morality in general, the above article is a good read. It is filled with phrases like "medieval sense of morality", "few Europeans would think twice about such an issue", "laws that have long since disappeared from Europe".

The article takes the high moral road and makes fun of the us for its antedeluvian attitudes and takes a couple of potshots at gw & co. It's interesting that there is such a huge divide in the world.

The Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0627/p02s01-woam.html) has an article on the diverging attitudes between Americans and Canadians with gay marriage, marijuana legalization and attitudes towards immigration and public health topping the list.

uhlawboi80
Jun 27, 2003, 07:32 PM
ok, first: the only thing the supreme court did was strike down texas's law. In effect, it has made it unconstitutional for the other states to enforce their similar laws, and most will repeal them. Any court can only impact the case before it.

Roe v. Wade was neither strengthened nor weakened by this ruling. R v. W has been modified and reigned in by many other cases. so parts of Roe have already been "overturned" however, the supreme court cannot now easily make abortion banning laws constitutional again. They have given abortion an elevated level of scrutiny and in order to allow complete banning of abortion, they would have to remove abortion as a privacy right (which sprang from the right to contraception) and screw with more than 50 years of jurisprudence...its not going to happen, even if bush DOES get to appoint a few judges. Besides that, they cant just sit down and go *poof* we repeal. Some state would have to make a law, pass a law, and try to enforce the law and then have someone sue...at that point SCOTUS could summarily change their mind...but again, dont think so.

zimv20
Jun 28, 2003, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by uhlawboi80

Roe v. Wade was neither strengthened nor weakened by this ruling.


agreed. the point i was making is what was implied by what thomas wrote in his dissenting opinion.

they would have to remove abortion as a privacy right


and that's what thomas said: the constitution doesn't provide that privacy right.

and screw with more than 50 years of jurisprudence


well, bush undid 200+ years of non-aggression pretty easily...

it's clear to me that the neocons want to overturn roe v. wade. what's the easiest way to do that?

wsteineker
Jun 28, 2003, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
if bush can get 2 justices appointed in his term(s), or maybe even just 1, i believe roe v. wade will be overturned.
Absolutely horrifying. I'm from the heart of the Southern Baptist Bible Belt (Montgomery, AL), and even I don't know that many people outside of the given ultra-conservative churches and religious groups (not as many people as you'd think) who genuinely believe that Roe should be overturned. Not to turn this into an overly political thread, but I honestly believe that Bush is going too far with this one. As if Patriot and Patriot II weren't enough. :rolleyes:

tazo
Jun 28, 2003, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by zimv20

well, bush undid 200+ years of non-aggression pretty easily...



If you crossed my path and said that to my face I don't know what I would have done :rolleyes:

What Bush did was set the US apart from countries that are walked all over. Maybe you would like to go to Switzerland, land of no aggression :rolleyes:

zimv20
Jun 28, 2003, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by tazo
If you crossed my path and said that to my face I don't know what I would have done :rolleyes:


you made me cry

pseudobrit
Jun 28, 2003, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by tazo
If you crossed my path and said that to my face I don't know what I would have done :rolleyes:

Did I hear you right? Was that a physical threat?

Ugg
Jun 28, 2003, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by tazo
What Bush did was set the US apart from countries that are walked all over. Maybe you would like to go to Switzerland, land of no aggression :rolleyes:

tazo, what countries are being "walked all over"? and Switzerland is hardly a land of no aggression. They are neutral, yes, but Swiss banks are known to be some of the most aggressive in the world. Do you mean military aggression?

FatTony
Jun 29, 2003, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by tazo
If you crossed my path and said that to my face I don't know what I would have done :rolleyes:

What town do you live in? I'll come there, say it to your face, insult your mother, kick your dog, put sugar in your gas tank, egg your house, besmirch your sister's good name and call you a sissy for good measure.

What would you do to me?

Stop being a punk.

Rower_CPU
Jun 30, 2003, 12:40 AM
This is out of hand, folks. Personal threats are not to be tolerated at all.

Further infractions will result in banning.