Supreme Court Ruling on Sodomy
ol...@ucla-cs.uucp
>>>I never said it would stop homosexual activity. But maybe it'll make them
>>>think about it a little more. Maybe it'll serve as a guideline for those
>>>youngsters in society and make them turn away from homosexual activities.
Can you make fish swim in the air by outlawing swimming in water? How can
you make a man who is sexually interested ONLY in other men NOT want to
have sex with other men? What the anti-sodomy law will do is to push gay
men back into oscurity, make them less willing to come out and indirectly
promote the spread of AIDS by making people be afraid of seeking help and
advice.
In article <8...@unirot.UUCP> oob...@unirot.UUCP (Mikki Barry) writes:
>I, for one, resent the government telling me and my husband what we can
>and can't do in bed. Does anyone else think sexual freedom is an
>unreasonable wish?
I am just wondering: don't heterosexual Georgians ever have oral and anal
sex? I am heterosexual and according to the Georgia's anti-sodomy law, I am
a hardened sodomite! Seriously, folks, the line HAS to be drawn somewhere.
I think that line should be the "bedroom door" (figuratively speaking). It
is NOBODY's business what I do with another conscenting adult of any sex
as long as no lasting physical harm is done (yes, altho' I do not practice
and am not at all thrilled by S&M and B&D, I think people who like that
kind of stuff should be allowed to practice it -- with conscenting partners).
Another thought. What if Gov't decided to outlaw sex et al, or restrict sexual
practices to exclusively homosexual ones. How would all of you, pro-anti-sodomy
law people, feel about THAT?
--
"Eggs can't walk. You know that!" Oleg Kiselev
oleg%OACVAX.BITNET
c23...@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
Mark E. Sunderlin
>.................... Seriously, folks, the line HAS to be drawn somewhere.
>I think that line should be the "bedroom door" (figuratively speaking). It
>is NOBODY's business what I do with another conscenting adult of any sex
>as long as no lasting physical harm is done
Oleg has a good point there. As I am prone to say: "Everyone should have the
righ to do anything they want with anyone else BUT, Your right to swing your
fist ends where my face starts"
--
_________________________________________________________________________
UUCP: (1) seismo!why_not!scsnet!sunder Mark E. Sunderlin
(2) ihnp4!chinet!megabyte aka Dr. Megabyte
CIS: 74026,3235 (202) 634-2529
Quote: "I drank what? " - Socrates (9-4 EDT)
Mail: IRS PM:PFR:D:NO 1111 Constitution Ave. NW Washington,DC 20224
Clayton Cramer
> >>>I never said it would stop homosexual activity. But maybe it'll make them
> >>>think about it a little more. Maybe it'll serve as a guideline for those
> >>>youngsters in society and make them turn away from homosexual activities.
>
> Can you make fish swim in the air by outlawing swimming in water? How can
> you make a man who is sexually interested ONLY in other men NOT want to
> have sex with other men? What the anti-sodomy law will do is to push gay
> men back into oscurity, make them less willing to come out and indirectly
> promote the spread of AIDS by making people be afraid of seeking help and
> advice.
>
No, anti-sodomy laws will push gay men into prison, locked up with THOUSANDS
OF HORNY MEN. This is a way to discourage homosexuality?
Clayton E. Cramer
"Capitalism: a private act between consenting adults"
Linda Seltzer
> >I, for one, resent the government telling me and my husband what we can
> >and can't do in bed. Does anyone else think sexual freedom is an
> >unreasonable wish?
>
> I am just wondering: don't heterosexual Georgians ever have oral and anal
> sex?
I remember reading in the newspaper that a heterosexual couple had
originally participated in the challenge to the sodomy law. Their
complaint was thrown out by the court, because it was determined that
there was virtually no chance they would ever be prosecuted for sodomy.
This raised the question of equal protection under the law.
Did anyone else read the same thing?
Paul R Markowitz
>I remember reading in the newspaper that a heterosexual couple had
>originally participated in the challenge to the sodomy law. Their
>complaint was thrown out by the court, because it was determined that
>there was virtually no chance they would ever be prosecuted for sodomy.
>This raised the question of equal protection under the law.
>
>Did anyone else read the same thing?
This doesn't raise the question of equal protection because the homosexuals
involved in the Hardwick case were NOT prosecuted. The charges against
them involving sodomy were DROPPED before they ever got to the police
station.... They took the case to court anyway. The basis for the swing
vote on teh Supreme Court (I don't remember which judge) was that the
law has never been and will never be prosecuted.
Paul
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Markowitz
"A pessimist is someone who won't call on G-d because he is certain he will
get an answering machine."
seismo!umcp-cs!jhunix!ins_aprm
bitnet: ins_aprm at jhuvms
arpanet: ins_aprm%jhunix...@wiscvm.ARPA
Robert C Sanders
>[...] The basis for the swing
>vote on teh Supreme Court (I don't remember which judge) was that the
>law has never been and will never be prosecuted.
>
You ever hear about the judge in Alabama that was just procesuuted for
child molestation, AND COMMITTING SODOMY?! The law is used; even though
in this case it was a minor charge compared to the others.
--
Continuing Engineering Education Telecommunications
Purdue University ...!ihnp4!pur-ee!pc-ecn!sandersr
Let's make like a BSD process, and go FORK-OFF !! -- bob
(and "make" a few children while we're at it ...)
Bruce T. Lowerre
> In article <12...@amdcad.UUCP> li...@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) writes:
> The charges against
> them involving sodomy were DROPPED before they ever got to the police
> station.... They took the case to court anyway. The basis for the swing
Thank you, now I understand. Because the law was not prosecuted the
S.C. says it is NOT unconstitutional. If the law had been prosecuted
then the law WOULD have been unconstitutional. Makes perfect sense,
thanks for clearing it up.
Timothy Lee
Actually the swing justice (I think it was the Chief Justice, but not sure)
said that the court can only rule on the constitutionality if there was
actually a case where the law was used to prosecute. Since no prosecution
came from this, the justice ruled that it wasn't the court's business at this
time (maybe later... when a sodomy case was actually prosecuted). Still
sounds fuzzy, though. The other 8 justices, of course, treated it like a
regular case.
m.terribile
> > them involving sodomy were DROPPED before they ever got to the police
> > station.... They took the case to court anyway. The basis for the swing
> > vote on the Supreme Court (I don't remember which judge) was that the
> > law has never been and will never be prosecuted.
>
> Thank you, now I understand. Because the law was not prosecuted the
> S.C. says it is NOT unconstitutional. If the law had been prosecuted
> then the law WOULD have been unconstitutional. Makes perfect sense,
> thanks for clearing it up.
Bull. The Court did not find that the law is constitutional; it found that
the challenge was insufficient to declare the law unconstitutional on.
The Supreme Court is not an expert witness; the Constition is not an
encyclopedia. Both involve processes, not simply facts and opinions.
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat
(Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a!
mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat)
(mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me)
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.