McCain Would Criminalize Gays

[Kulindahr]

I especially liked this article:

The GOP's crowded closet

That was a good read. It's pretty powerful having all that packed together.

 

[LaloGS]

[F Sans MS]^ The trouble is that no writing exists in a vacuum. There are always at least two sides to interpreting any text, the writer, the reader, the opinions of other readers, historians, biographers, etc., etc.

Yes Spensed, you are right, but my point was; in regard to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that interpretation should be made by law scholars and not politically biased people with an agenda. I don't think the founding fathers ever envisioned a Supreme Court stacked with so many biased people as to cause justice to become as lopsided as it has become. It is people of such small mindedness that are destroying our democracy for short term gains in their way of thinking.

We live in different times than the founding fathers lived in, and the Repugs of today have shown a willingness to take away our rights as citizens by what ever means at hand. When a Supreme court is biased in favor of ignoring our Constitutionally guaranteed rights in favor of a biased sitting president, then it is wrong. The time has come to look at the premise that a Supreme Court Justice sits for life. If bias is present in a Justice's opinions, there should be a way for impeachment. Maybe by popular vote of the citizenry.

The fact that both Repuglicans and Democrats have used every opportunity to nominate biased judges, is not as it should be. It only has contributed to the division in the country. And the fact that the SCOTUS has yet to weigh in on the separation of church and state, and the introduction of religion into our political process is the best example of why we are having the problems the biased Supreme Court creates. We are guaranteed a separation of church and state, and yet nothing has been done to stop this evil mixture by the only entity we have that could do something about it. In my view, the SCOTUS is not doing its job.

Further, it has allowed the IRS to punish left leaning churches for political rhetoric in sermons but has yet to allow punishment of right leaning churches for political rhetoric. Therefore, it exhibits it's right leaning bias.

The only fair thing would be to disallow all church's their non-taxable status. But SCOTUS won't do that because the majority status quo of the right's bias is supported by churches of like bias.

Repugs are intent on destroying our freedoms and imposing their twisted ideas on all of us, and we apparently can do nothing to stop it. Short of, as Kulindahar has suggested, to lock and load and fight another revolution against tyranny. Sort of as Pogo once noted; "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

 

[Spensed]

......my point was; in regard to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that interpretation should be made by law scholars and not politically biased people with an agenda....

I don't disagree with what you're saying about the Supreme Court being overly politicized and stacked in favor of one side or the other.

But, like it or not, it's inevitable because you can't really have a neutral reading.

An interpretation by law scholars isn't objective. The political and social inclinations of the scholars influence what they focus on, etc. Traditionally, one would expect an interpretation by law scholars to be conservative and right wing, although admittedly there are some judges that compensate for that.

But the days when a Supreme Court judge might rule against his own political preference have IMHO long gone. If you look at the Gore election dispute, Scalia & Co, who were heavy proponents of State's rights, etc, didn't let their principles stop them from giving the Presidency to Bush. Very few people believe the judgement would have gone in favor of Gore, if he had been in Bush's shoes.

That's why it's more important than ever to make sure that the deck is stacked in favor of, in this context, gay rights. Otherwise, an anti-gay majority will just rationalize them away.

 

[koontzfanwv]

The whole premise of this thread would make me smile if it wasn't so pathetic. First of all making homosexuality a crime would be impossible. I'd like to see how they would enforce that law. You need to stop your scare tactics because your paranoia sounds very much like J Edgar Hoover accusing people he disagreed with as being Communist sympathizers.

 

[Spensed]

^ Until the Supreme Court struck down anti-homosexual-sodomy laws in 2003, homosexual sodomy was still a crime in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Lousiana, Mississippi. Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia.

The 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas, involved the police catching the guys in a private bedroom so, not only were the laws still on the books, they were enforced like any other sex crimes, when it suited an aggressive prosecutor or politician.

More importantly the stigma of the laws was used as a mechanism of fighting against gay equality and civil rights. You only have to read Scalia's homophobic dissent in the Lawrence case to appreciate what the cultural and moral point of the laws was. In racial terms, they were like allowing a dozen or so States to keep pro-slavery laws on their books to be enforced when they felt like it. No one should be expected to tolerate that situation.

Lawrence was by no means a foregone conclusion and only got through on a 6-3 majority. Roberts and Alito were appointed after the Lawrence case and were opposed by virtually every gay rights organization, who had looked at their record and concluded they would join Scalia & Co in opposing pro-sexual-privacy-judgements like Lawrence.

With additional appointees like Roberts and Alito, and Scalia still very aggressively opposed to gay rights, there would be no reason to uphold Lawrence against the next challenge.

Lawrence would be reversed in favor of the earlier case, Bowers v. Hardwick, which had held that sexual privacy wasn't constitutionally protected.

So the concern about McCain's Supreme Court nominees has a solid foundation in fact. By his judicial appointments, McCain would not only allow gay sex to be criminalized, he would also set gay rights back a generation or more.

If you disagree with that, let me know where what I've said is wrong. Don't just stay in denial about it.

 

[construct]

Spensed is right about this. John Paul Stevens is not going to serve on the bench forever. He's 87 years old now. I suspect he'll probably want to retire sometime before he dies.

The Lawrence case isn't alone. Hardwick had exceedingly similar facts. In each case police were investigating a bogus complaint. A guest allowed the police into the house. The police discovered the residents engaged in sex in their own bedroom. The police hawled the residents off to jail. Litigation ensued.

The Texas statute criminalizing homosexual conduct has not been repealed. That means that if Lawrence were overturned, the Texas legislature would not even have to pass a new sodomy law. We've still got one, rendered unenforceable only by Lawrence.

 

[Spensed]

^ I still don't understand why so many pro-McCain gays don't know this stuff or are in denial about it or think they have to sacrifice advancing gay civil rights in the interests of other issues.

 

[spiderhead]

^ I still don't understand why so many pro-McCain gays don't know this stuff or are in denial about it or think they have to sacrifice advancing gay civil rights in the interests of other issues.

I agree......It's strange to say the least. It's ignorant and just plain stupid to say the obvious.

 

[Spensed]

^ Just to resurrect this thread because it's an important issue.

I'm not sure many pro-McCain gays are ignorant and stupid.

But they are in denial or they prioritize economic issues ahead of civil rights, which is what Republicans do.

 

[construct]

What exactly, in the Constitution, do you think the Supreme Court could intrepret to criminalize gays? I understand your concern but am not convinced by your claim.

Well, it would happen in a due process and/or equal protection case arising out of a criminal conviction under a state sodomy law that remains on the books--maybe out of Texas. In this expected case, one argument would be that the right to consensual homosexual sodomy is not a liberty deeply rooted in American culture and tradition protected by the due process right to privacy. The second argument would be that homosexuals are not a discreet and insular minority lacking political power deserving heightened protection under the equal protection clause. With those protections denied, the states would then have the right to criminalize homosexual sodomy for the protection of public morals under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Take a look at Bowers v. Hardwick and the dissenting opinions in Lawrence v. Texas to see how it works.

 

[NickCole]

Scare tactics.

The politics of fear.

Both sides do it.

And everybody thinks the fear they're mongering is so obviously real that anybody who doesn't see it is obviously in denial.

 

[construct]

Scare tactics.

The politics of fear.

Both sides do it.

And everybody thinks the fear they're mongering is so obviously real that anybody who doesn't see it is obviously in denial.

Lawrence was only five years ago. How quickly we forget!

 

[opinterph]

… If you are implying bigotry toward gays by Huckabee I'd like to see proof of the latter. And what year was this? When AIDS surfaced there was hysteria, understandably so.

The year was 1992, long after it was scientifically established and commonly understood that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact …

I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk. – Mike Huckabee (AP Questionaire) [Link]

 

[NickCole]

I've forgotten nothing of what it was like.

My memory stretches back a lot farther than five years, back before a lot of the guys here were born, before Stonewall.

It's not that there's nothing to be concerned about, for gay rights, for national security, for the economy, for a lot of things.

Fear mongering is something else, not rational concern, and this thread is the politics of fear.

 

[construct]

This would be true is Obama or Biden were preaching that McCain wanted to criminalize gays.

McCain said in the Saddleback forum that he would not have appointed Stevens, Breyer Ginsburg, or Souter to the Supreme Court. They were with Kennedy as the majority in Lawrence. One McCain appointment to the Supreme Court would shift the majority and leave Lawrence vulnerable to attack. Regardless of whether McCain conscously wants to criminalize homosexual sodomy, it would be the reasonably expected result of that appointment.

 

[NickCole]

It seems like you might have. You do spend a good amount of time on here bashing the pro-gay ticket. The only other option is two homophobes.

It's not a pro-gay ticket.

They're both opposed to same sex marriage.

Nobody's "pro-gay" if they're cherry picking which rights we're entitled to and which they think we're not.

They're entitled to their opinion but it's a fantasy to believe Obama/Biden is a pro-gay ticket.

Most of what I've seen presented are facts, specific court cases, names, etc...

McCain has not said, or in any way indicated, he wants anti-sodomy laws brought back.

This is political fear mongering, nothing else.

 

[construct]

Thanks for replying. So if everything was interpreted as you describe, and Im not an attourney so Ill have to take your word for it , the 50 states would then be able to decide for themselves if sodomy is legal?

Yes.

So California could allow sodomy but perhaps Texas would not?

Yes.

Forgive me, does the federal gov't currently consider gay people who perform sodomy an "insular minority lacking political power deserving heightened protection under the equal protection clause"

No. Lawrence addressed only the due process argument and held that non-commercial, consensual sexual intimacy among adults is so integral to human society that it could not be prohibited without violating the due process right to privacy. It thereby avoided the distinction between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy.

Hardwick upheld Georgia's sodomy without addressing heterosexual sodomy. It simply ignored that aspect of the Georgia law. Thus, Lawrence could be overturned in such a way that it applies to all sodomy, or it could be overturned in such a way that it might make a distinction between homosexual and heterosexual sodomy.

And back to my original question, is their anything in the constitution that would allow for a federal ban on homosexuality? Or just sodomy? And has McCain made any documented statements that he wants to federally criminalize gays or sodomy? THANKS!

No, no, and no. But see my reply to gc64s1 above.

 

[Spensed]

....it's a fantasy to believe Obama/Biden is a pro-gay ticket.

That's simply untrue.

http://obama.3cdn.net/a059503ce1353cb3e5_szbmvyes6.pdf

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

http://www.hrc.org/equality08/mccain.htm

http://www.hrc.org/11140.htm

McCain has not said, or in any way indicated, he wants anti-sodomy laws brought back.

This is political fear mongering, nothing else.

As repeatedly explained above, it's a rational concern that McCain's Supreme Court nominees will join the existing anti-gay judges in reversing the 2003 case that decriminalized gays. See, for example:

McCain said in the Saddleback forum that he would not have appointed Stevens, Breyer Ginsburg, or Souter to the Supreme Court. They were with Kennedy as the majority in Lawrence. One McCain appointment to the Supreme Court would shift the majority and leave Lawrence vulnerable to attack. Regardless of whether McCain conscously wants to criminalize homosexual sodomy, it would be the reasonably expected result of that appointment.

 

[NickCole]

I agre 95% with you. Yet is it fair to blame either Obama or McCain for representing the people? Won't there have to be a change in the people's minds and hearts about gay rights b4 we see that represented in gov't? Passing civil rights legislation of the 1960s style right after the civil war would have been unrealistic. The country had to get to a social place first and it still has taken 40 yrs since to put a real dent in racial discrimination. I am fine with anyone disagreeing with my lifestyle. I say f*** em. But people must adopt that idea that everyone should have equal protection under the law regardless of our social disagreements. More postive gay role models in the media!

I don't blame Obama or Biden for not being fully pro-gay rights. What you appear to be saying seems accurate: Presidential candidates really can't be fully pro-gay rights and win. My only point is that calling them pro-gay is an Obama-supporter delusion.

Yah, I have never gotten an anti-gay vibe fom McCain or Palin at all. The only one I got a vibe like that from was Biden in the debate (perhaps closet issues?)

The only one I've got an anti-gay vibe from is Obama because he refused to have his picture taken with Gavin Newsom when Mayor Newsom tried to make same sex marriage legal in San Francisco, and because Obama refused to do any interviews with gay media until he was cornered into it.

 

[opinterph]

Is there an article about this?

There are many articles about Reverend Huckabee’s early political career and his stance toward gay people. The impetus of his more recent chastisement (relative to PWAs in 1992) seems to primarily involve his answers to the AP Questionaire submitted when he initially ran for public office. I recommend Google.

… do you know if he only wanted to quarantine gay people with AIDS or all people with AIDS?

It is my impression that his suggestion for quarantine involved ALL PWAs.

I have read on AIDS education blogs that it is possible for AIDS to be spread thru casual contact though it is "highly unlikely" (i.e. two people with cuts on their hands, shake hands, one has AIDS, ...)

HIV is one of the least durable viruses, when outside the host. I think it would depend on the severity of the “cuts.” Absent bodily fluids (think wet), I concur with the “highly unlikely” scenario – perhaps impossible is a better descriptor.

Do you think fear of AIDS is why some people want sodomy banned?

“Some people” is an almost limitless qualifier. Speaking of people in general, my personal opinion is no – most people are not fearful of AIDS in today’s world – it is something that only happens to “them.”