Last Thursday's US Supreme Court ruling (Lawrence vs. Texas) striking
down a Texas anti-sodomy law is creating a storm of anger among those
who feel the court has inserted itself into "states' rights." Some
have already claimed the Court has taken side in "the culture wars" by
preventing the state of Texas--and by extension, other states--from
arresting "sodomites."

The Supreme Court did not either endorse or condemn any lifestyle or
sexual orientation. It simply ruled that police, courts, and other
agents of government have no right to invade people's homes to arrest
them for private acts among consenting adults. The same legislative
and police power that Texas used to arrest two gay men has been used
to enforce human slavery, discriminatory "Jim Crow" laws,
sterilization of the mentally retarded, and sex between unmarried
couples, or lovemaking between husband and wife which wasn't the
"missionary position" or didn't fit the Procrustean Bed of whatever
majority opinion held sway at the time.

Do you think it is right that your state government has the power to
barge into your bedroom, put you and your wife in handcuffs, and haul
you off to jail if your preference in making love does not fit that of
the "Moral Majority" or your state legislature? Unless you strictly
limit yourself to making love to your spouse in the "missionary
position," or have sex with someone to whom you're not married, you
could be defined as a "sodomite" and be subject to arrest and jail!

The Bill of Rights, added to the US Constitution at the insistence of
some states fearful of excessive government power, including North
Carolina, protects the rights of individuals, not the power of states
to oppress their citizens. The right to freedom of speech, to peaceful
assembly, to petition the government for a redress of grievances, to
bear arms, to worship or not worship freely, to be safe from
unreasonable search and seizure....these are precious rights which
many in other lands are unable to exercise without threat of jail, or
even death, from their governments. Brave American men and women have
fought, bled, and died to protect these freedoms.

It has been said that "constant vigilance is the price of liberty." We
should respect and vigorously defend the rights of others, regardless
of whether we personally agree with their choices, or we could all
lose our freedoms. There should be "liberty and justice for all."

Sincerely,

Gary James Minter
3812-1 Colby Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609

garyjminter@alumni.duke.edu

919-876-3687 home
919-715-4561 office

"Gary J. Minter" wrote:
What's amusing is Scalia's further comment about "social disruption." I
suppose he would have upheld the previous ruling ("stare decisis," aka
"precedent") that Brown v. Board of Education was based on because
integration in the public schools would cause "social disruption."

And Tom DeLay thundering about "this nation is founded on a rule of law"
when the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court STATES what the
law is!! Part of the test that kids in junior high have to take here in
California to get into high school.... simple Poly Sci 101.

B/

"Gary J. Minter" wrote in message...
Why I personally support the right to sexual freedom upheld by the
Supreme Court, I am distressed that the last tool that could be
used to fight AIDS transmission has been taken away. The states
have been unwilling to charge HIV predators for transmitting their
deadly virus. The sodomy laws could have been used to prosecute
them instead. But it seems that the very height of the AIDS
epidemic was the exact same time that the majority of states
repealed their sodomy laws. My brother and his transexual nigger
from hell infected god-knows-how many people, yet not only were
they not prosecuted after testing HIV+ when sodomy was still a
felony offense in the state of Nevada, Nevada repealed its
sodomy law just a year later making any future prosecution
impossible. Now both are permanent fixtures at the nearest gay
bar, picking up unsuspecting victims for deadly sexual encounters.

BTW, the transexual nigger's name is Merrill Crump and when he's
not dressing as a woman in order to pass hot checks, he works as
a massage therapist. He is currently infesting Las Vegas, NV and
the state of California. If you run into this circus sideshow
freak run away as fast as you can!

Poop Dogg wrote:

No, has nothing to do with any supposed rights in that area. The
decision is broader than that. It's about the people being able to live
their lives without government interference.

In short, the actual *conservative* position of limited government.

B/