Gay rights?

[MMandM]

The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.

 

An interesting read.

 

Lawrence v. Texas

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102

Edited June 1, 2007 by MarkInAlisoViejo

[Graeme]

It was interesting reading, though I had to skim it so I may not have fully appreciated the fine detail. What I found most interesting were the dissenting opinions. It makes it clear that the philosophy of the Supreme Court Justices plays a major part in the way decisions are made. Justice Thomas expresses that he thinks that the original law should be repealed because it was wrong, BUT that he didn't find it to be illegal. Justice Scalia's comments were not unreasonable and the link he made to Roe vs Ward must have worried and encouraged the two sides in that debate.

 

I've read a couple of recent Supreme Court rulings and I find the logic they use in their opinions to be interesting. It is immediately obvious that interpreting the constitution (and that's what they are are doing -- even if some might claim that they are just reading what's in the consitution) is not a simple task. There are many conflicting and intriguing fine detail questions arise with each issue.

[GaryKelly]

If laws prohibiting anything at all were effective there'd be no prisons. I also wonder about the term 'rights'...human rights, gay rights, women's rights, animal rights and whatever else. So who is the divine giver of these rights? Let's do a survey of lions and tigers to see what they have to say about zebra rights.

[Razor]

I found it kind of funny. I'll have sex with whoever I damn well please, regardless of any law. There's just no way someone's going to tell me what I can and cannot do on my own property in privacy so long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

[MMandM]

I've read a couple of recent Supreme Court rulings and I find the logic they use in their opinions to be interesting. It is immediately obvious that interpreting the constitution (and that's what they are are doing -- even if some might claim that they are just reading what's in the consitution) is not a simple task. There are many conflicting and intriguing fine detail questions arise with each issue.

 

Indeed Graeme , the constitution only provides a general framework for government; each generation is forced to reinterpret it.

 

Our views regarding these constitutional concepts mature over time, and must accommodate societal changes.

 

Our founding fathers were heavily influenced by the writings of John Locke with respect to natural rights and liberty.

 

People were accustomed to being ruled by Kings and Kings claimed that they ruled by Devine Right. The King could do no wrong. In the mid-seventeenth century, it was certainly a radical and dangerous thing to preach that all men were created equal and that all men were born with inalienable rights (among those rights are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

 

So what makes a "right" inalienable? You have to simply recognize that individuals ought to have the right to freely do whatever makes them happy so long as they do not injure others (or infringe on other people's individual rights).

 

A lot of people get caught up in specifics and semantics. As an example, some people might argue that the constitution does not specifically say that a man has the right to spit, so spitting is not a protected activity. Another example: Some people might argue that the constitution does not specifically say that an adult male has the right to engage in consensual sex with another adult male, therefore consensual sexual conduct between two adult males is not a protected activity. We can go on and on and on with examples, but that simply ignores the fact that the concept of "liberty" encompasses all human activity.

 

Our government was formed to protect people, to secure their individual inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Government is not allowed to intrude into the private lives of its citizens because doing so chips away at their liberty interests. Government is not allowed to penalize individual conduct unless that conduct injures other people.

 

Government does not GRANT rights, its purpose is to protect and secure the rights that all individuals possess by the simple virtue of being born. Government serves the people, not the other way around.

 

Freedom of speech, especially political speech, is considered a "fundamental right." Nevertheless, the government can impose reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions on the right to speak. But, whenever the government restricts individual LIBERTY, the government must have a compelling interest in doing so and the means used must be necessary and narrowly tailored to serve that compelling interest.

 

Throughout the existence of our country, our government has often crossed the line and has regulated and punished individual exercises of fundamental liberty interests. As we become more enlightened and advanced as a people, the errors are corrected. Sometimes it takes decades, even centuries, to correct errors.

Edited June 2, 2007 by MarkInAlisoViejo

[Graeme]

A lot of people get caught up in specifics and semantics. As an example, some people might argue that the constitution does not specifically say that a man has the right to spit, so spitting is not a protected activity. Another example: Some people might argue that the constitution does not specifically say that an adult male has the right to engage in consensual sex with another adult male, therefore consensual sexual conduct between two adult males is not a protected activity. We can go on and on and on with examples, but that simply ignores the fact that the concept of "liberty" encompasses all human activity.

I seem to recall that one of the amendments to the USA constitution states that just because a right is not explicitly listed, that does not mean it isn't a right that is protected.

 

I also read that some people view this as meaningless and hence should not have an influence on Supreme Court deliberations. It is an interesting topic, because who determines what is a right? Is marriage (taking a volatile issue) a right, or a social convention that grants selected privileges to those who undertake it? It is generally accepted that there are classes of people who are not permitted to marry (eg. siblings, children, those already married), so if you consider marriage a right, where do you draw the line?

 

I have heard it argued that most of the contentious "rights" derive from an implied right to privacy. I can see problems with the wording, but some commentators have suggested that a new constitutional amendment that explicitly grants a right of privacy (subject to revocation in select situations such as security or police investigations) would solve the issue. I haven't heard of many people picking up on this, and I'm curious about why. Is it too contentious an issue?

[JamesSavik]

Two groups have traditionally been against gay rights: fundamentalists and conservatives.

 

Fundamentalists because of their religious dogma and Conservatives because they are opposed to reform on general principles (and because they kiss fundamentalist ass).

 

The reason that it took so long is that after granting rights to all the other minorities, who else could they claim moral superiority over?

 

Now that fundamentalists preachers can't rail against the evils of blacks, foreigners, Asians, Muslims or homosexuals without looking like total bigots and to prove how superior their little religious cult/clan is. In the absence of a straw man to scapegoat all their problems, they'll have to look at themselves, their own actions and motives. Once they do that, I doubt they'll last a decade.