Can states ban perversions at the state level?

[rupol2000]

Yes, because there is nothing in federal law about the rights of perverts, so these decisions should be delegated to the state level, according to the 10th amendment. Therefore, the states can ban not only same-sex marriage, but the very existence of homosexuals in the state.

This does not contradict the 14th Amendment, because the 14th Amendment only deals with explicit rights, and does not prohibit passing laws that restrict implicit rights (something that is not prohibited, but can be prohibited at any time at any level of lawmaking).

 

[metalwolf]

Yes, because there is nothing in federal law about the rights of perverts, so these decisions should be delegated to the state level, according to the 10th amendment. Therefore, the states can ban not only same-sex marriage, but the very existence of homosexuals in the state.

This does not contradict the 14th Amendment, because the 14th Amendment only deals with explicit rights, and does not prohibit passing laws that restrict implicit rights (something that is not prohibited, but can be prohibited at any time at any level of lawmaking).

That would count as a Ex post facto law, which is prohibited in the US Constitution.

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Article I Section 10 | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

constitution.congress.gov

Article I Legislative Branch​

• Section 10 Powers Denied States​

  • Clause 1 Treaties, Coining Money, Impairing Contracts, etc.
  • No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

 

[rupol2000]

That would count as a Ex post facto law, which is prohibited in the US Constitution.

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Article I Section 10 | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

constitution.congress.gov

Article I Legislative Branch​

• Section 10 Powers Denied States​

  • Clause 1 Treaties, Coining Money, Impairing Contracts, etc.
  • No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

This is irrelevant. If, for example, Texas bans homosexuality, it may not prosecute those who engaged in homosexuality before the ban, then ex post facto is not violated

 

[metalwolf]

This is irrelevant. If, for example, Texas bans homosexuality, it may not prosecute those who engaged in homosexuality before the ban, then ex post facto is not violated

Which is why people should never trust those in power.

Just ask the Native Americans are Native Hawaiians what the Government did to them.

 

[rupol2000]

Which is why people should never trust those in power.

 

[aaronleland]

Why would you want to ban same sex marriage? Is the temptation to blow a dude that high for you?

 

[johngaltshrugged]

No, you cannot legally ban homosexuality. This falls squarely under natural rights of the pursuit of happiness.
Just because we may disagree with it doesn't mean we can ban the behavior between consenting adults.
There is no victim & no crime.

This may upset some of you but do you really want a govt that interferes in private consensual sex between adults?
Even though I believe it is still a mental disorder, I would never presume to tell others how to live their lives if they are neither hurting or exploiting others

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, because there is nothing in federal law about the rights of perverts, so these decisions should be delegated to the state level, according to the 10th amendment. Therefore, the states can ban not only same-sex marriage, but the very existence of homosexuals in the state.

This does not contradict the 14th Amendment, because the 14th Amendment only deals with explicit rights, and does not prohibit passing laws that restrict implicit rights (something that is not prohibited, but can be prohibited at any time at any level of lawmaking).

Lawrence v. Texas struck down all sodomy laws in the US as unconstitutional.

You'll have to go somewhere else to punish gays.

 

[rupol2000]

No, you cannot legally ban homosexuality. This falls squarely under natural rights of the pursuit of happiness.
Just because we may disagree with it doesn't mean we can ban the behavior between consenting adults.
There is no victim & no crime.

This may upset some of you but do you really want a govt that interferes in private consensual sex between adults?
Even though I believe it is still a mental disorder, I would never presume to tell others how to live their lives if they are neither hurting or exploiting others

Nonsense. Even if we consider this a pursuit for happiness, then the law can only protect the pervert's pursuit for perversions, but not the perversions themselves.

 

[rupol2000]

Lawrence v. Texas struck down all sodomy laws in the US as unconstitutional.

You'll have to go somewhere else to punish gays.

It was probably a scam, just like the 14th Amendment scam. I'm not familiar with it

 

[rupol2000]

no crime

This is only as long as there is no ban

 

[Confederate Soldier]

Well define a pervert. Do you mean a pervert who watches a woman undressing, while he's hiding in a tree outside her window?

 

[WinterBorn]

It was probably a scam, just like the 14th Amendment scam. I'm not familiar with it

Look it up.

Banning sodomy is all about control. The gov't has no business sticking its nose into our bedrooms.

 

[WinterBorn]

Well define a pervert. Do you mean a pervert who watches a woman undressing, while he's hiding in a tree outside her window?

That sounds like rupol, doesn't it?

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Nonsense. Even if we consider this a pursuit for happiness, then the law can only protect the pervert's pursuit for perversions, but not the perversions themselves.

Calling it nonsense is just displaying your ignorance.
You obviously understand nothing about actual freedom & are advocating for another form of totalitarianism.
God gave us free will to choose to do right or wrong. Some choose wrong but it's still their choice as long as they aren't harming others.
You sound like you'd be more comfortable in a Sharia type situation where your own preferences take precedence over the lives of others.
That shit don't fly in America.
Live & let live is the conservative/right wing way.
You're a closet lefty in denial

 

[Synthaholic]

Greg Abbott, who is not a stand up guy, said he was going to ban rapes in Texas, the country's #1 state for rapes.

 

[rupol2000]

Well define a pervert. Do you mean a pervert who watches a woman undressing, while he's hiding in a tree outside her window?

It doesn't matter. It usually refers to mentally ill people who put their dick in the wrong places and so on. But in this thread it doesn't matter.

 

[rupol2000]

God gave

discuss it in the religions section

 

[WinterBorn]

It doesn't matter. It usually refers to mentally ill people who put their dick in the wrong places and so on. But in this thread it doesn't matter.

Except the APA and the AMA (the two highest authorities on Psychiatric medicine and Medical doctors) have said it is not a mental illness.

 

[Leo123]

Except the APA and the AMA (the two highest authorities on Psychiatric medicine and Medical doctors) have said it is not a mental illness.

Yes and that is exactly why I have always said mental health professionals are usually mentally ill themselves.