The title of this topic is a bit strange. In order for the Supreme Court to revisit Lawrence v. Texas, there would have to be a case about the topic. In order for there to be a case, there would probably have to be a law. In other words, some state would have to revisit it before the Supreme Court does. So if Texas will revisit it if the Supreme Court does, then they are putting the cart before the horse. They are saying that they will pull the trigger after the bullet fires.
Texas May Revisit Sodomy Laws if The Supreme Court Does
Posts
Total:
56
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Not even close. You're not the only people that are armed in this country.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Now we're talking.
-->
@badger
Talking all that'll happen in America. Unlike Danish women and Polish women who have some self value American women think they're not worth anything as much as they piss and moan.
-->
@Reece101
The Supreme Court will not "revisit" sodomy laws. This is yet another pathetic attempt by the leftist radicals who want to group unlike groups under the same penumbra of "oppression."
The argument that SCOTUS is coming for the gays after they "came for women" (#phrasing lol) is absurd, vapid, senseless and utterly unsupported.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
We're ready for a fight
-->
@zedvictor4
I am a gay person expert
-->
@badger
are you saying it's for all buggerers
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm all for ending abortion, but I'm just about 99% certain that starting a civil war is a bad way to solve problems.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
There's not much to know Doc.
Recreational sex between two men needing to achieve procreational satisfaction.
All summed up in ten words.
-->
@badger
Nobody in my country even knows he said that
What is that old saying? ‘Ignorance is bliss’?
Not sure that they ever said ignorance was a virtue, though
-->
@coal
The Supreme Court will not "revisit" sodomy laws. This is yet another pathetic attempt by the leftist radicals who want to group unlike groups under the same penumbra of "oppression."The argument that SCOTUS is coming for the gays after they "came for women" (#phrasing lol) is absurd, vapid, senseless and utterly unsupported.
Somehow this isn’t slippery slope, yet progressing (or regressing) from ‘it’s what two adults privately do in the bedroom’ to ‘bake me a cake or I’ll sue you’ to ‘not teaching kids below 4th grade about homosexuals is oppressing teachers’ isn’t.
There is some merit to believing more cases will be lost for them, although I don’t think the political capital exists for sodomy laws.
They pushed far too hard and the pendulum will come crashing back. Allowing moderate abortion restrictions and stopping the push after gay marriage would have let them keep the majority of their wins (you’ll notice that gay marriage isn’t even a controversial topic anymore, quickly dropped by most conservatives after SCOTUS ruling on the matter)
-->
@bmdrocks21
There is some merit to believing more cases will be lost for them, although I don’t think the political capital exists for sodomy laws.
Which cases? Because I see no world where the "sincerely held religious beliefs" doctrine gets extended any further than it already has.
-->
@bmdrocks21
What is that old saying? ‘Ignorance is bliss’?Not sure that they ever said ignorance was a virtue, though
That is the most deluded response to what I said. That's irony, I guess.
-->
@coal
Which cases? Because I see no world where the "sincerely held religious beliefs" doctrine gets extended any further than it already has.
I wasn’t referring as much to future cases as the chance to overturn previous decisions, nor that specific doctrine.
A very strong precedent was just overturned, so I wouldn’t be surprised if, say, gay marriage was an issue returned to the states. Or perhaps gay adoption could be treated differently by more than just religious adoption agencies in a state, as a future example case.
-->
@badger
That is the most deluded response to what I said. That's irony, I guess.
How so? You said that nobody knows he said that and nobody talks about guns much, so him saying that doesn’t matter.
Not knowing he said that and discussing guns very little sounds pretty ignorant to me
-->
@bmdrocks21
You have to love the irony of how friendly Coal is to homophobic ideologies and cultures, considering he himself is gay. You are passive-aggressively using his own nonsense against him so fucking well.
This is just stupid, how can he even be blaming the progressive media for this?
-->
@bmdrocks21
A very strong precedent was just overturned, so I wouldn’t be surprised if, say, gay marriage was an issue returned to the states. Or perhaps gay adoption could be treated differently by more than just religious adoption agencies in a state, as a future example case.
Gay marriage/rights have no analogy in abortion. Ogberfell is about as likely to be overturned as Loving. Both are settled law. Abortion never was.
You know what Ogberfell was about. I assume. Loving was a case wherein an interracial couple, the Lovings, married and were charged with violating the state of Virginia's Racial Integrity Act. That "law" criminalized marriage between so-called "white[s]" and so-called "colored[s]." The Lovings were tried and convicted, and their conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Virginia. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding the "Racial Integrity Act" violated the equal protection clause; their conviction was unconstitutional. Thus ended the era of anti-miscegenation laws in this country, along with all other race-based legal restrictions on marriage.
Note the parallels, legally. In Loving, the State of Virginia argued its anti-miscegenation law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the punishment was the same regardless of the offender's race, and thus it "equally burdened" both whites and non-whites. The same arguments were made with respect to gay rights. According to the social conservatives of something like 20 years ago, banning gay marriage/denying equal protection did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the burden is the same regardless of a person's sex/gender, and thus applies equally to all.
In Loving, the Supreme Court found that Virginia's anti-miscegenation law violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was based solely on "distinctions drawn according to race" and outlawed conduct --- namely, getting married --- that was otherwise generally accepted and which free people were endowed with the liberty to engage in; and were endowed by God with the right to engage in; the right to get married. The same applies to gay rights. According to the majority of literally everyone, banning gay marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause because it too is based solely on distinctions according to sexual orientation and outlaws conduct --- namely, again, marrying.
So, if there is an analogy to draw between gay rights and some other historical/landmark line of judicial civil rights precedent, it's to race-based discrimination . . . and specifically, it's an equal protection analogy to anti-miscegenation laws which, as I just noted, are unconstitutional. The reason is because both directly implicate rights that are enumerated by the Bill of Rights. Abortion does no such thing. Gay rights are about as likely to drop as segregation is to return; the latter of which being the more proper comparison, historically speaking. Both are settled law. Roe never was, even by the plain text of the opinion when it came out. So called "trans" rights are another matter, though.
Unlike gay marriage, which involves clear question of enumerated/fundamental rights at numerous constitutional levels, abortion is a judicial creation by an activist court that willed a constitutional right into existence by sheer force from the bench. Most folks just have no idea how legally controversial Roe was when it was handed down, regardless of their familiarity with how that controversy appears to manifest in pop culture. Many have this misguided idea that, somehow, there was a constitutional right to abortion when, in fact, any lucid reading of American legal history on this subject reveals plainly that (a) abortion has always been regulated by the states (b) as a matter of policy. The right to abortion has no treatment similar to any right enumerated in the Bill of Rights or otherwise recognized as fundamental by American courts (e.g., interstate travel, the right to parent one's children, privacy as such, marriage or self defense).
If you had any doubt, note the split between high-volume GOP donors on abortion and gay rights. They're on the fence about abortion and have been since before Roe even came on the scene. They never supported it by a clear majority and those who do are still sympathetic to the fact that this is a matter of policy before anything else. The Republican elites on all camps have normalized homosexuality and gay marriage, with now only a very select few holdouts objecting. They are few and far between. The needle began to move when Dick Cheney's daughter came out. If you want some metric for just where the ball is among the folks that decide these things, David Boise has been lead counsel in favor of recognizing gay marriage/rights.
-->
@bmdrocks21
@RM: How dare you even reference my username. I am sure there is some pile of shit you need to swarm around. Get on with it then.
@bmdrocks21: If ever I was in need of a quick tl;dr for what the low-information illiterate left thinks, I'd need look no further than RM's commentary. This comment, though not yours, is perhaps the most vapid in this thread so far:
You have to love the irony of how friendly Coal is to homophobic ideologies and cultures, considering he himself is gay. You are passive-aggressively using his own nonsense against him so fucking well.This is just stupid, how can he even be blaming the progressive media for this?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you both (a) did not "like" RM's comment and (b) recognize it for the stupidity that it is. However, if you unfortunately did "like" RM's comment, let us undertake a salutary learning exercise together.
- "the irony of how friendly Coal is to homophobic ideologies and cultures." A non sequitur is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement; something said that, because of its apparent lack of meaning relative to what preceded it, seems absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing. Here, we see several examples. There is no such "irony," because I have said nothing indicating or implying any such "friendl[iness]" to any "ideology[]" or "culture[]," whether "homophobic" or otherwise. One may only suppose that to whatever extent RM incorrectly assumed otherwise, he based that assumption on what I said about abortion. The last time I (or anyone else with neurons connecting between their ears) checked, abortion and gay anything have nothing to do with each other. On every level that matters, they're incongruous. Conceptually, biologically, existentially, practically, sexually or consequentially. Incongruous. The fool.
- "considering he himself is gay." Only the most supremely pig-headed leftist troglodyte would have the unmitigated audacity to claim that people must belong to some certain political "tribe" simply based on a purported identity-claim. This will be shocking to the low-information illiterate left, but sexual orientation does not dictate policy, values or political alignment. As luck may have it, not all gay people think alike. It is incredibly homophobic, bigoted and air-headedly stupid to think you or anyone could ever lasso all gay people (much less lesbians, bisexuals or "trans") under one political cause, much less presume to infer what they think about things outside of LGBT related issues. Which abortion is not. And never was. As I have said above. People should try to be better than the mouth-breathing dipshits that would call Larry Elder the black face of white supremacy. But that's basically what RM tried to pull here, against me. Pathetic.
- "You are passive-aggressively using his own nonsense against him so fucking well." If you have been passive aggressive, you get a pass solely because arguing with me is a lot like taking a beating. Or so I'm told. But you are not "using" anything I have said "against [me]," in any way . . . "so fucking well" or otherwise. As I am sure you are aware. RM has these little temper fits whenever he feels the need to get down on his knees and blow anyone he feels argumentatively cucked by, against someone he perceives as a common enemy. Here, RM feels like he needs to get on his knees (see post #47) and blow you because you're argumentatively cucking him by actually responding to me, someone he perceives as his common enemy. What you should do is put a ball-gag in his mouth, tie him in a leather hooded suit and lock him in a cage in some kind of dungeon. Realize that RM is basically DArt's gimp. That is not to imply I'm Marsellus Wallace, but some have compared the experience to facing "a couple of hard pipin' [n-word] to go to work . . . with a pair of pliers and a blow torch" and "get[ing] medieval on yo' ass." Now he can go back to the box he was formerly locked in.
- "This is just stupid, how can he even be blaming the progressive media for this?" What's stupid is saying things things like Nos. 1-3. I also don't think I used the word "progressive" or "media." Since RM seems to struggle with basic comprehension, I'll repeat. What I said was that the Supreme Court will not "revisit" sodomy laws. I explained that any such argument is nothing more than another pathetic attempt by the leftist radicals who want to group unlike groups under the same penumbra of "oppression." So, the argument that SCOTUS is coming for the gays after they "came for women" is absurd, vapid, senseless and utterly unsupported. I elaborated more on this subject in post #48, if there was any confusion.
-->
@coal
The Supreme Court will not "revisit" sodomy laws. This is yet another pathetic attempt by the leftist radicals who want to group unlike groups under the same penumbra of "oppression."The argument that SCOTUS is coming for the gays after they "came for women" (#phrasing lol) is absurd, vapid, senseless and utterly unsupported.
Never underestimate stupidity.
-->
@coal
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you both (a) did not "like" RM's comment and (b) recognize it for the stupidity that it is. However, if you unfortunately did "like" RM's comment, let us undertake a salutary learning exercise together.
I didn’t like the comment. I thought that maybe he meant to send it to someone else because I didn’t think I was being passive aggressive, nor was I trying to throw any “gotcha” comments in there. I was just stating that I think it is possible to revisit these other laws.
Now while I think you do make a pretty good argument as to the parallels between a less controversial, more recent case and Loving, that doesn’t mean that gay marriage won’t be overturned.
I don’t think the votes are there to do it, but I wouldn’t be entirely shocked if they did. The Roe v Wade case showed that the originalist judges are fairly opposed to substantive due process, which is what upheld Roe from government regulation. It was a right never mentioned in the Constitution that received Constitutional protections. Now, the same type of argument could be used regarding gay marriage since that right also isn’t specifically listed anywhere. New judges means that new rules could be applied.
That could definitely lead to also overturning Loving, but the main limitation on that would be finding a state that is willing to ban interracial marriage, which would be political suicide everywhere
-->
@zedvictor4
ewwwww
-->
@SirAnonymous
There is no ACTUAL, DEFINABLE civil war coming. The best thing close to it would be the Troubles or the Years of Lead in Italy. So underground Militant groups fighting, not two major sides to a sprawling conflict.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm kind of curious about how you know that.
Did one of my Illuminati brethren accidentally leak our plan?
-->
@SirAnonymous
No but it's just what seems that is goping to happemnjrobwadfobq
Lmao I just saw how mad Coal is about me, instead of replying to what I say coherently he has to rant about his insecurities and project them onto me. Maybe somewhere between that was some kind of argument? I don't know.
Enjoy the sodomy laws then, move to a Sharia nation while you're at it and be gay there Coal, move to your beloved Russia which has hated LGBT for centuries, I don't know what your issue is other than a fragile ego. You are only angry at me because I noticed a deep hypocrisy between the cultures you glorify and the sexuality and way that you live your life true to.
I don't have to feign respect for a homosexual that keeps hating the people and cause(s) defending his rights, it's pathetic and I'll call it out no matter what salt comes in reply to me.