Can states ban perversions at the state level?

[WinterBorn]

No it's about equal protection and violation of due process.

Equal protection and violation of due process are part of how the aodomy laws were struck down, and how they were enforced.

 

[Flopper]

This. the law cannot be enforced.

If you're speaking of perversion or sodomy laws you're correct. A cop arrests two men kissing each other at a train station and charges them with sodomy. The judge throws the case out because he doesn't believe it's sodomy. A man and wife discuss having anal sex. A cop hears them and arrests them for sodomy. The judge disagrees. He believes anal sex between two men is sodomy Finally one of these sodomy cases goes to a court of appeals and the court rules Sodomy laws are unconstitutional because they violate the equal the protection clause and also violate due process. States stopped enforcing the laws or the legislatures repealed them.

 

[DGS49]

Laws against sodomy have existed since long before the founding of this country, and certainly before our Constitution was ratified in 1789. Hence, the Founding Fathers saw no contradiction between the Bill of RIghts and those laws prohibiting sodomy.

The "right of privacy" never legitimately existed, and hence the several cases that created derivative rights based on that illusion are on very shaky ground right now. Indeed, if the proper cases made their way up to the Supreme Court, some seriously sacred cows would be slain. Nevertheless...

There will be no serious threat to gay "marriage." Even if this Court completely overturns Overkfell(?), existing gay marriages are safe, and those states that sanction such marriages will continue to sanction them. Any gay couple wanting to tie the knot in a state that outlaws gay marriages will merely travel to a friendly state, get married, and their home state will be obliged under Full Faith & Credit to honor those marriages, even litigating divorce, custody, alimony, inheritance, the whole ball of wax.

Sodomy will not be re-criminalized in any effective way. In the few states that would even try such a thing, law enforcement will decline to enforce such laws. That train has long ago left the station. It might be interesting if it happened. The ACLU would surely contrive for someone to be charged and convicted in such a state, if only for the political points it would win.

Artificial birth control is also safe for the same reason. The percentage of the population that would even contemplate such a law is microscopic. Even Catholic priests recognize that other faiths must be given leeway in that area.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

There was a case in Georgia where to enforce the anti sodomy laws, the cops peeked in the windows of people they suspected of such behavior. Bowers v. Hardwick.

It was overruled in a later Texas case, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

I keep telling you, RuPaul. Nobody gives a shit about how gay you are.

 

[Flopper]

Laws against sodomy have existed since long before the founding of this country, and certainly before our Constitution was ratified in 1789. Hence, the Founding Fathers saw no contradiction between the Bill of RIghts and those laws prohibiting sodomy.

The "right of privacy" never legitimately existed, and hence the several cases that created derivative rights based on that illusion are on very shaky ground right now. Indeed, if the proper cases made their way up to the Supreme Court, some seriously sacred cows would be slain. Nevertheless...

There will be no serious threat to gay "marriage." Even if this Court completely overturns Overkfell(?), existing gay marriages are safe, and those states that sanction such marriages will continue to sanction them. Any gay couple wanting to tie the knot in a state that outlaws gay marriages will merely travel to a friendly state, get married, and their home state will be obliged under Full Faith & Credit to honor those marriages, even litigating divorce, custody, alimony, inheritance, the whole ball of wax.

Sodomy will not be re-criminalized in any effective way. In the few states that would even try such a thing, law enforcement will decline to enforce such laws. That train has long ago left the station. It might be interesting if it happened. The ACLU would surely contrive for someone to be charged and convicted in such a state, if only for the political points it would win.

Artificial birth control is also safe for the same reason. The percentage of the population that would even contemplate such a law is microscopic. Even Catholic priests recognize that other faiths must be given leeway in that area.

5 states have privacy laws that covers just about everything we do. A couple of dozen have privacy laws specific to certain things such as finances or protecting minors.

The Supreme Court used the personal protections expressly stated in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to find that there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution. However, you're correct in that the court does not give a great deal of credence to this right since it is derived and is not specific. Although the Supreme court may not put much stock in it the public sure does because it equates the right to privacy with right to be secure. As a result businesses and government takes it seriously.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

the cops peeked in the windows of people they suspected of such behavior. Bowers v. Hardwick.

To really build up a case, you need to conduct painstaking research involving days upon days cataloguing various perverse sexual acts annotated with great precision, recorded with superior technological skill and annotated with exhaustive references to other similar acts also treated with the same impeccable attention to detail.

 

[BackAgain]

To really build up a case, you need to conduct painstaking research involving days upon days cataloguing various perverse sexual acts annotated with great precision, recorded with superior technological skill and annotated with exhaustive references to other similar acts also treated with the same impeccable attention to detail.

Lol.

I wonder if the cops were as dutiful checking -out married (male and female) couples sharing oral sex as they were checking on gay men or lesbians engaging in oral sex?

Frankly, I’d have to assume the cops peering in windows to watch either hetero sex or homosexual sex would have to feel pretty damn pervy. Justifiably so. It isn’t my business what any consenting adult couples do behind close doors as long as nobody is getting injured. Therefore, in my estimation, it also isn’t the government’s business. It’s just that simple.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Lol.

I wonder if the cops were as dutiful checking -out married (male and female) couples sharing oral sex as they were checking on gay men or lesbians engaging in oral sex?

Frankly, I’d have to assume the cops peering in windows to watch either hetero sex or homosexual sex would have to feel pretty damn pervy. Justifiably so. It isn’t my business what any consenting adult couples do behind close doors as long as nobody is getting injured. Therefore, in my estimation, it also isn’t the government’s business. It’s just that simple.

You dont know HOW many times I had to use my trusty windex when a young man in order to clean off all those nose prints.

 

[rupol2000]

The constitution applies to everyone in the country including perverts. Whether your "Pervert Law" violates the constitution depends on what it say. And yes, your "Pervert Law" can not violate the equal protection clause nor the due process.

this nonsense has already been discussed

 

[rupol2000]

Rights are not absolute. Everyone has right to privacy even a murder. However as explained in 14th amendment rights can be violated provide due process is followed, warrants issued by judge or wording in the law that allows investigators to conduct an investigation of a crime scene.

The 14th amendment can only apply to explicit rights

 

[WinterBorn]

Lol.

I wonder if the cops were as dutiful checking -out married (male and female) couples sharing oral sex as they were checking on gay men or lesbians engaging in oral sex?

Frankly, I’d have to assume the cops peering in windows to watch either hetero sex or homosexual sex would have to feel pretty damn pervy. Justifiably so. It isn’t my business what any consenting adult couples do behind close doors as long as nobody is getting injured. Therefore, in my estimation, it also isn’t the government’s business. It’s just that simple.

At least in Texas, the sodomy laws were enforced almost exclusively against gay men.

 

[WinterBorn]

The 14th amendment can only apply to explicit rights

The 14th amendment does one thing. It makes sure all citizens enjoy equal protection.

If you want to "ban perversions" by banning sodomy for gays and straights you might have a point.

 

[WinterBorn]

this nonsense has already been discussed

The nonsense is that you want to ban what 70% of the US population has no problem with.

 

[rupol2000]

The 14th amendment does one thing. It makes sure all citizens enjoy equal protection.

this nonsense has already been discussed

 

[WinterBorn]

this nonsense has already been discussed

And yet, you are still arguing about it.

 

[BackAgain]

The 14th amendment does one thing. It makes sure all citizens enjoy equal protection.

If you want to "ban perversions" by banning sodomy for gays and straights you might have a point.

That’s the point. If a state’s legislature wanted to go back in time and deny its people or residents the legal right to have oral sex, it would be a denial of equal protection if it only applies to lesbians and gay men. But if the state is unable to enforce the law either way without violating the right to privacy we have in our own homes, then the law would be smacked down on that basis, too.

Until I saw that I had been relying on a mistaken memory of the precise words of the 14th Amendment, I thought it dealt only with equal protection related to race issue. I belatedly recognized that guys like Flopper were right and that I was wrong. Therefore, I now see that anti sodomy laws are covered by the 14th A., too.

 

[WinterBorn]

That’s the point. If a state’s legislature wanted to go back in time and deny its people or residents the legal right to have oral sex, it would be a denial of equal protection if it only applies to lesbians and gay men. But if the state is unable to enforce the law either way without violating the right to privacy we have in our own homes, then the law would be smacked down on that basis, too.

Until I saw that I had been relying on a mistaken memory of the precise words of the 14th Amendment, I thought it dealt only with equal protection related to race issue. I belatedly recognized that guys like Flopper were right and that I was wrong. Therefore, I now see that anti sodomy laws are covered by the 14th A., too.

Lots of respect for someone who sees their mistake and corrects it. This place is full of people who are never wrong.

 

[Flopper]

The 14th amendment can only apply to explicit rights

No. The supreme court has recognized that the Privileges and Immunities Clause extends not to all commercial activity, but only to fundamental rights which includes but not limited to:

• marriage
• privacy
• contraception
• interstate travel.
• procreation
• custody of one's child(ren)
• voting

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

fundamental right

www.law.cornell.edu

Privileges and Immunities Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Flopper]

At least in Texas, the sodomy laws were enforced almost exclusively against gay men.

When the Sodomy law in Texas was enforced which was mostly in the 20th century, the great majority of enforcers where men who viewed sex between men far more repulsive than sex between women. In the porno industry men bought far more lesbian sex material than women.

 

[Bezukhov]

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

Prosecute? A homosexual is prosecuted and found guilty. The punishment? Time in prison? Maybe that's why they got rid of anti sodomy laws.