Flashback: Rick Perry Supports Criminalizing Gay Sex

[ScienceRocks]

As long as it is behind closed doors...Then ok, but once they start kissing and doing things in public and trying to get married, maybe perry may have a point. The bible says god hates it too. I can understand why god hates it as it is dishonorable and a sickness on society. God hates anything like this...

More "Small Government" Conservatism.

Think of the Children.

 

[elvis]

As long as it is behind closed doors...Then ok, but once they start kissing and doing things in public and trying to get married, maybe perry may have a point. The bible says god hates it too. I can understand why god hates it as it is dishonorable and a sickness on society. God hates anything like this...

More "Small Government" Conservatism.

Think of the Children.

are you the type that wants to ban Victoria's Secret billboards?

 

[ScienceRocks]

More "Small Government" Conservatism.

Think of the Children.

are you the type that wants to ban Victoria's Secret billboards?

No, but I believe that a man should have a enough honor not to do this stuff. I can't stop them from doing it, but I feel it reduces a man.

I can understand that the resources shouldn't be used to stop it, but it is up to the man.

 

[Modbert]

Think of the Children.

You can't be serious.

 

[JoeB131]

Flashback: Rick Perry Supports Criminalizing Gay Sex | Mother Jones

So what exactly has Perry done? Well, for one, he is (still) a supporter of the Texas "homosexual conduct" statute, an archaic law that made it a crime for two consenting, unrelated adults to have sex if they were of the same gender. The law was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2002 case Lawrence v. Texas, but, despite repeated efforts, Texas has yet to formally repeal the statute. When Perry was asked about the Lawrence case in 2002, he defended the anti-sodomy statute: "I think our law is appropriate that we have on the books." He wrote about the case in his 2011 book Fed Up, too, citing the Lawrence decision as the product of "nine oligarchs in robes" and an example of what's wrong with our judicial system. And last spring, when Perry ran for his third full term as governor, he did so on a state GOP platform that exlicitly stated "we oppose the legalization of sodomy."

That doesn't sound like "Small Government" Conservatism to me.

Sounds to me like a guy who doesn't think the courts should be doing the job of the legislatures.

If you think it's an unreasonable law, petition the Texas State Legisltature to repeal it. THat's how the system works.

Frankly, I have no problem with gays or gay marriage. I think it's probably inevitable and frankly, why should just the straights have to suffer.

But this was a great example of judicial overreach.

Keep in mind, back in 1986, the Courts found in Hardwicke v. Georgia (No, seriously, that was the plaintiff's name!) that the states had the right to regulate sex acts, including oral and anal sex. Might not agree with the laws, but they were enacted, and it was the province of the legistlature to overturn them.

So how could these laws be constitutional in 1986 but not in 2002? Simple. The composition of the court changed, not the wording of the constitution. (1986 was also the height of the AIDS epidemic.)

Now it should be pointed out in the wake of Hardwicke (snicker, snicker) a lot of states were amazed to find these largely unenforced laws were still on their books, and repealed them. A few kept them on, like New York, but only to use as an aggrevating circumstance in a sexual assault case.

On the point, Perry is right. States should have the right to have their own laws if they don't otherwise violate the constitution. They should not be subject to "Well, do we have more liberals or conservatives on the court this year?"

 

[Nosmo King]

I don't. He's wrong. But this issue is not high on my list of priorities.

right. defending civil liberties and personal freedom doesn't rank high on your list of priorities. Why should it? there's no profit in it.

**** off, pissant.

spoken like someone either afraid of confronting the truth or completely indifferent to liberty, freedom and justice.

 

[elvis]

right. defending civil liberties and personal freedom doesn't rank high on your list of priorities. Why should it? there's no profit in it.

**** off, pissant.

spoken like someone either afraid of confronting the truth or completely indifferent to liberty, freedom and justice.

Fine. I guess you support crushing babies' skulls when they're half way through the birth canal...... or allowing babies who survive abortions to suffocate.

Do you see who ignorant you are or do you wanna play some more?

 

[Dr.House]

I know you cant actually defend perry on this.

I don't. He's wrong. But this issue is not high on my list of priorities.

It should. Be.

Why?

 

[rdean]

Just follow the Texas Republican Party State Platform.

Here, let me help:

http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/FINAL_2010_STATE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_PLATFORM.pdf

Page 7 is really interesting, but all of it is a good read. Tells us a lot about Republicans.

 

[FactFinder]

Who is Rick Perry?

 

[FactFinder]

spoken like someone either afraid of confronting the truth or completely indifferent to liberty, freedom and justice.

Fine. I guess you support crushing babies' skulls when they're half way through the birth canal...... or allowing babies who survive abortions to suffocate.

Do you see who ignorant you are or do you wanna play some more?

I know i support it, but am willing to compromise on the issue. It being "genocide" is all relative anyways.

Does Rick Perry crush baby skulls?

 

[elvis]

Who is Rick Perry?

Matthew Perry's brother.

 

[FactFinder]

Who is Rick Perry?

Matthew Perry's brother.

Alright! poor fella, Maybe I'll vote for the bloke out of sympathy.

 

[Full-Auto]

I know you cant actually defend perry on this.

I don't. He's wrong. But this issue is not high on my list of priorities.

It should. Be.

Just take it baby

 

[Missourian]

Flashback: Rick Perry Supports Criminalizing Gay Sex | Mother Jones

So what exactly has Perry done? Well, for one, he is (still) a supporter of the Texas "homosexual conduct" statute, an archaic law that made it a crime for two consenting, unrelated adults to have sex if they were of the same gender. The law was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2002 case Lawrence v. Texas, but, despite repeated efforts, Texas has yet to formally repeal the statute. When Perry was asked about the Lawrence case in 2002, he defended the anti-sodomy statute: "I think our law is appropriate that we have on the books." He wrote about the case in his 2011 book Fed Up, too, citing the Lawrence decision as the product of "nine oligarchs in robes" and an example of what's wrong with our judicial system. And last spring, when Perry ran for his third full term as governor, he did so on a state GOP platform that exlicitly stated "we oppose the legalization of sodomy."

That doesn't sound like "Small Government" Conservatism to me.

Sounds to me like a guy who doesn't think the courts should be doing the job of the legislatures.

If you think it's an unreasonable law, petition the Texas State Legisltature to repeal it. THat's how the system works.

Frankly, I have no problem with gays or gay marriage. I think it's probably inevitable and frankly, why should just the straights have to suffer.

But this was a great example of judicial overreach.

Keep in mind, back in 1986, the Courts found in Hardwicke v. Georgia (No, seriously, that was the plaintiff's name!) that the states had the right to regulate sex acts, including oral and anal sex. Might not agree with the laws, but they were enacted, and it was the province of the legistlature to overturn them.

So how could these laws be constitutional in 1986 but not in 2002? Simple. The composition of the court changed, not the wording of the constitution. (1986 was also the height of the AIDS epidemic.)

Now it should be pointed out in the wake of Hardwicke (snicker, snicker) a lot of states were amazed to find these largely unenforced laws were still on their books, and repealed them. A few kept them on, like New York, but only to use as an aggrevating circumstance in a sexual assault case.

On the point, Perry is right. States should have the right to have their own laws if they don't otherwise violate the constitution. They should not be subject to "Well, do we have more liberals or conservatives on the court this year?"

^^^This.

 

[whitehall]

The left isn't wasting much time trying to smear Perry so he must be a winner. We have someone named Chris Moody of Yahoo news trying to tell us that Perry wants to change the Constitution and an opinion by left wing Ma Jones complaining that Perry might not approve of homosexual sodomy. Sissies and mind readers seem to be coming out of the closet to criticize republican candidates these days.

 

[MeBelle]

well, were you as outraged at obama's stance on abortion as you are at Perry's alleged stance on gays?

Well I was about 12 when just about both events occurred, so I was probably more outraged about Jar-Jar Binks in the Star Wars prequels.

I recall the Born Alive bill from the 2008 election but don't remember much about it. Got a good link that clarifies the details? From what I recall, the bills they proposed in 2001 and 2002 were pretty much a backdoor way to try and challenge Roe V. Wade. While the 2003 bill had language similar to the Federal bill that President Obama said he would support if it did.

Here ya go!!

Even has REAL links in the article.

Your welcome!

Links to Barack Obama's votes on IL's Born Alive Infant Protection Act by Jill Stanek

 

[Trajan]

Flashback: Rick Perry Supports Criminalizing Gay Sex | Mother Jones

So what exactly has Perry done? Well, for one, he is (still) a supporter of the Texas "homosexual conduct" statute, an archaic law that made it a crime for two consenting, unrelated adults to have sex if they were of the same gender. The law was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2002 case Lawrence v. Texas, but, despite repeated efforts, Texas has yet to formally repeal the statute. When Perry was asked about the Lawrence case in 2002, he defended the anti-sodomy statute: "I think our law is appropriate that we have on the books." He wrote about the case in his 2011 book Fed Up, too, citing the Lawrence decision as the product of "nine oligarchs in robes" and an example of what's wrong with our judicial system. And last spring, when Perry ran for his third full term as governor, he did so on a state GOP platform that exlicitly stated "we oppose the legalization of sodomy."

That doesn't sound like "Small Government" Conservatism to me.

Santorum is upset, or at least pretend campaign-upset, that Perry told Colorado GOPers in July that New York's decision to legalize gay marriage was their right. "That's New York, and that's their business, and that's fine with me.”


sounds like small gov. to me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So what exactly has Perry done? Well, for one, he is (still) a supporter of the Texas "homosexual conduct" statute, an archaic law that made it a crime for two consenting, unrelated adults to have sex if they were of the same gender. The law was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2002 case Lawrence v. Texas, but, despite repeated efforts, Texas has yet to formally repeal the statute. When Perry was asked about the Lawrence case in 2002, he defended the anti-sodomy statute: "I think our law is appropriate that we have on the books." He wrote about the case in his 2011 book Fed Up, too, citing the Lawrence decision as the product of "nine oligarchs in robes" and an example of what's wrong with our judicial system. And last spring, when Perry ran for his third full term as governor, he did so on a state GOP platform that exlicitly stated "we oppose the legalization of sodomy."

Imagine one’s surprise – Perry’s contempt for the rule of law and judicial review. He’s no better than Bachmann or Palin, perhaps even worse.

See, no... how it works is this. What is true is the actual Lawrence v Texas facts, a bunch of bullshit picked up from one site to another, rewritten and spun is not 'true'. You really, really, really need to learn to think.

Then explain it to us all, what are the ‘actual facts’ of Lawrence?

From the ruling:

The State cannot demean [homosexuals’] existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

It is very clear: Perry’s rejection of the ruling is a rejection of the Due Process Clause, the right to privacy, the right to be free from government intrusion.

The ruling is linked below. Review the case and explain to us all the ‘actual facts,’ free of rewrite, spin, and BS.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

So how could these laws be constitutional in 1986 but not in 2002? Simple. The composition of the court changed, not the wording of the constitution.

What did composition of the court have to do with anything? It was a 6 to 3 ruling, the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, joined by Justice O’Connor, also a Reagan appointee, and Justice Souter, a GHWB appointee. So it can’t be political composition. Indeed, Justice O’Connor, who participated in both cases, changed her opinion with regard to Lawrence, voting with the majority again, overturning Bowers.

No, what changed was a more comprehensive understanding of the Constitution by the Court as it explored the right to privacy, the appropriate role of government in our lives, and the intent of the Framers of the 14th Amendment. Also, since Bowers, the Court was already developing a more refined judicial understanding of the 14th Amendment in Casey (1992) and the right to privacy with regard to abortion and Romer (1996) with regard to homosexuals’ right to equal access of the laws.

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

States should have the right to have their own laws if they don't otherwise violate the constitution

That’s the snag: states invariably enact laws that violate the Constitution, or violate the Constitution by not allowing equal access to the state’s laws.

 

[Patrick2]

What did composition of the court have to do with anything? It was a 6 to 3 ruling, the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, joined by Justice O’Connor, also a Reagan appointee, and Justice Souter, a GHWB appointee.

I agree with the ruling - let gays screw themselves blind for all I care. But don't try to give a phoney argument about the court composition - republicans have been notoriously bad with their USSC appointments. Souter was a leftwing judge and one of Bush 1's more colossal mistakes. O'Connor was a lib that arizona republicans warned Reagan about, but he didn't listen to because he was determined to appoint the first woman to the court - "affirmative action" once again rearing its ugly head.