Kevin Gowen wrote:

> Michael Cash wrote:
> > On 26 Jun 2003 19:07:12 -0700, worthj1970@yahoo.com (John W.) belched
> > the alphabet and kept on going with:
> >
> >> Michael Cash <mikecash@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote in message
> >> news:<bfjmfvst2d6gcsfjcp40uei14670oulb5g@4ax.com>...
> >>> On 26 Jun 2003 12:09:10 -0700, worthj1970@yahoo.com (John W.)
> >>> belched
> >>> the alphabet and kept on going with:
> >>>
> >>>> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:<bdf175$shppc$1@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de>...
> >>>>
> >>>>> action and today it struck down a law banning gay sex.
> >>>>>
> >>>> And the problem is....
> >>>
> >>> Not "problem". "Point".
> >>>
> >> It's not polite to point.
> >
> > Good thing. I'm not polite.
>
> Neither am I.
>
>    To answer John's question, there are problems with this decision,

Never mind your arguments below. The decision was the decision. Do you accept
it as law or not?

> although that was not the point I was making with my original post. I'm
> still reading and digesting it but some things have stuck out so far. First,
> I don't think certiorari should have even been granted. I think that this
> case did not raise a federal question and that the two men involved should
> have used the legislative process of Texas to right what they felt was an
> unjust law. I hasten to add that this issue is one that has been dying on
> the vine for years. Before 1961, all states and D.C. had sodomy statutes. By
> _Bowers_ in 1986, they were only in 24 states and D.C., and only 13 states
> at the time this case was filed. This was all accomplished through state
> legislatures and courts.
>    First, I think it should be noted that O'Connor, while concurring, does
> not join the majority in overturning _Bowers_, thus _Bowers_ was overturned
> by 5-4 rather than 6-3 as been reported.
>    As far as Scalia's dissenting opinion is concerned, it rightly points out
> that the overturning of _Bowers_ is ludicrous. I quote:
> "Though there is discussion of “fundamental proposition[s],” ante, at 4,
> and “fundamental decisions,” ibid. nowhere does the Court’s opinion
> declare that homosexual sodomy is a “fundamental right” under the Due
> Process Clause; nor does it subject the Texas law to the standard of review
> that would be appropriate (strict scrutiny) if homosexual sodomy were a
> “fundamental right.” Thus, while overruling the outcome of _Bowers_, the
> Court leaves strangely untouched its central legal conclusion:
> “[R]espondent would have us announce . . . a fundamental right to en-gage
> in homosexual sodomy. This we are quite unwilling to do.” 478 U. S., at
> 191. Instead the Court simply describes petitioners’ conduct as “an
> exercise of their liberty”?which it undoubtedly is?and proceeds to apply an
> unheard-of form of rational-basis review that will have far-reaching
> implications beyond this case."
>    Since the majority cannot overturn _Bowers_ on legal grounds, it has to
> turn to public opinion. The majority makes an appeal to the widespread
> public criticism of _Bowers_ as a reason for overruling it, yet in the
> abortion case of _Planned Parenthood v. Casey_, the widespread public
> criticism of _Roe v. Wade_ is cited as a reason for upholding that case. A
> results-oriented approach to stare decisis has been set forth.
>    I'm with Scalia on this one. The majority talks about liberty, but there
> is no right to liberty, and even the majority agrees that no fundamental
> right was violated in this case i.e. a right to commit sodomy. I think this
> excerpt from the dissent sums up my thoughts rather well:
> "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other
> group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social
> perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group
> has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters
> is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise
> is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States
> that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s
> fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of
> democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State
> to criminalize homosexual acts?or, for that matter, display any moral
> disapprobation of them?than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has
> chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and
> its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new
> “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change.
> It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought
> necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” ante, at 18; and when
> that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise
> of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not
> imposed by a governing caste that knows best.
>    The opinions can be viewed in PDF format at
> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02slipopinion.html
>    The sodomy case is _Lawrence v. Texas_, and the two affirmative action
> cases are _Gratz_ and _Grutter_.
>
> --
> Kevin Gowen
> "When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong
> thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day." Dick Gephardt
> (D-MO), presidential candidate