Texas GOP Platform Calls For Imprisonment of Homosexuals

[construct]

^^^

In the same vein, Arkansas' ban on adoption by unmarried couples targets homosexual couples for the same reason. While heterosexual couples can get married, gay couples cannot, creating a specific legal disability which separates out homosexual couples for discrimination.

Perhaps I didn't go far enough. I really was only dealing with the extent of the Texas homosexual conduct law.

Lawrence was not an equal protection case. The right to private sexual expression between consenting adults is itself a liberty protected by the Constitution. Thus a legitimate state interest must be advanced if the government is to limit it. The Court found that there wasn't a legitimate governmental interest and struck the law. The Court did not reach the equal protection claim because the law had already failed the due process analysis.

Justice O'Connor did not believe the law violated due process based on the precedent of Bowers v. Hardwick. She did, however, believe that the law violated the equal protection clause because it discriminated against a specific class of people. Thus she found a way to strike down the law without overturning Hardwick. (O'Connor was among the majority in Hardwick.) Under O'Connor's opinion, state laws that banned both hetero- and homosexual sodomy would pass muster. Some laws struck down by the majority opinion would still be in effect under O'Connor's.

 

[construct]

Yes. Texas Penal Code § 21.06 is titled "Homosexual Conduct" and includes all same-sex sexual contact. Sexual contact, according to the section on definitions (26.01, I believe), includes includes any erotic touching.

Correction:

Section 21.06 does not criminalize all same-sex sexual contact. It criminalizes deviate sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex. The definition is oral/genital, anal/genital, oral/anal, and penetration with an object. It was struck down by Lawrence, so get out your dildos, boys, and find a partner.

Thank you. Carry on.

 

[construct]

That's ridiculous.

Yes, it's ridiculous, but that's what she said. And it's why she could leave Hardwick undisturbed. Remember, Hardwick upheld a law that prohibited both hetero- and homosexual sodomy even though it addressed a much more restricted issue--whether there was a constitutionally protected right to same-sex sodomy. Hardwick said there wasn't. Justice O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence followed Hardwick. As long as both are prohibited, there is no discrimination. Gay couples can be prohibited from having oral sex as long as everyone else is, too (including married couples).

The majority opinion in Lawrence (much more sweeping than O'Connor's) said that Hardwick was wrong when it was drafted and that it's wrong today. Then they overturned it.

 

[MercuryJones]

The Montana Republican Party joins their Texas counterparts in wanting to criminalize homosexuality:

"We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal."

http://www.mtgop.org/platform.aspx

 

[construct]

The Montana Republican Party joins their Texas counterparts in wanting to criminalize homosexuality:

"We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal."

http://www.mtgop.org/platform.aspx

I think that's interesting given that Montana's Supreme Court had struck down that law in 1997 because it violated the state constitution. They're really hanging on to this old chestnut, aren't they?

 

[MercuryJones]

I think that's interesting given that Montana's Supreme Court had struck down that law in 1997 because it violated the state constitution. They're really hanging on to this old chestnut, aren't they?

I wouldn't be surprised to see, in my lifetime, a republican platform include a restoration of slavery or indentured servitude. Of course it would have a nice new name, like "Liberty Commerce Program".

 

[Kulindahr]

Justice O'Connor did not believe the law violated due process based on the precedent of Bowers v. Hardwick. She did, however, believe that the law violated the equal protection clause because it discriminated against a specific class of people. Thus she found a way to strike down the law without overturning Hardwick. (O'Connor was among the majority in Hardwick.) Under O'Connor's opinion, state laws that banned both hetero- and homosexual sodomy would pass muster. Some laws struck down by the majority opinion would still be in effect under O'Connor's.

O'Connor is a statist; she effectively does not believe that rights reside with individuals, a position that can only be justified by holding the individuals are inherently the property of the State -- the only basis for that farcical position she took.

Yes, it's ridiculous, but that's what she said. And it's why she could leave Hardwick undisturbed. Remember, Hardwick upheld a law that prohibited both hetero- and homosexual sodomy even though it addressed a much more restricted issue--whether there was a constitutionally protected right to same-sex sodomy. Hardwick said there wasn't. Justice O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence followed Hardwick. As long as both are prohibited, there is no discrimination. Gay couples can be prohibited from having oral sex as long as everyone else is, too (including married couples).

The majority opinion in Lawrence (much more sweeping than O'Connor's) said that Hardwick was wrong when it was drafted and that it's wrong today. Then they overturned it.

So under her view, as long as everyone was prohibited from eating candy, there would be no problem.

Idiotic.

I wouldn't be surprised to see, in my lifetime, a republican platform include a restoration of slavery or indentured servitude. Of course it would have a nice new name, like "Liberty Commerce Program".

Indentured servitude is already in some local and possibly state Republican platforms. Of course they don't call it that, they call it "administered restitution" or some such thing, but it effectively makes the person the state orders to make restitution the slave of the other.

And a prominent local Republican supports it from the Bible!

 

[laikaNYC]

I wouldn't be surprised to see, in my lifetime, a republican platform include a restoration of slavery.

Wow, even some of the biggest loons on the far-left haven't said anything that crazy

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Wow, even some of the biggest loons on the far-left haven't said anything that crazy

Oh but YOU don't name-call do you?

(you do realize that I'm saving all your posts to use against you later on, right? Just so there are no surprises when you put yourself up on a pedestal again and play the poor wounded bird?)

Now tell me...

do they say anything THIS crazy?

"We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal."

 

[opinterph]

(you do realize that I'm saving all your posts to use against you later on, right? Just so there are no surprises when you put yourself up on a pedestal again and play the poor wounded bird?)

Eh, don’t bother with that.

Consistency is certainly not a requirement to participate in the various discussions here in CE&P. Contribute whatever relevant point(s) you may wish to add to each respective thread and …

Do not disrupt the flow of conversation by making statements or insinuations … which expand a disagreement from one discussion to another.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Eh, don’t bother with that.

Consistency is certainly not a requirement to participate in the various discussions here in CE&P. Contribute whatever relevant point(s) you may wish to add to each respective thread and …

If I don't I shall wither and die.

 

[MercuryJones]

Just a thought, Jasun, but for showing someone their inaccuracies or inconsistencies will only have any effect if the person in question cared about accuracy or consistency to begin with.

 

[construct]

Just a thought, Jasun, but for showing someone their inaccuracies or inconsistencies will only have any effect if the person in question cared about accuracy or consistency to begin with.

True. So true.

 

[laikaNYC]

Just a thought, Jasun, but for showing someone their inaccuracies or inconsistencies will only have any effect if the person in question cared about accuracy or consistency to begin with.

Still sticking with that insane "they'll bring back slavery" notion? Or do you want to continue disparaging me? Because I know you're all about accuracy

 

[CowboyBob]

As others have mentioned before in other threads, I've come to the conclusion that ^^^ is nothing more than a summer school Sociology class assignment. Something like "join an internet forum and be as argumentative as possible. Write a final paper on your experience."

As others have mentioned before in other threads. Nobody, but nobody could be that out of touch. That consistently wrong.

I actually have more respect for Justapixel, and I hate myself for that. Damn.

 

[MystikWizard]

Texas GOP Platform Calls For Imprisonment of Homosexuals

http://jaysays.com/2010/06/texas-go...-of-homosexuals-and-supportive-heterosexuals/

Just curious if you just read the title or if you read the actual blog?

They are not calling for the imprisonment of Homosexuals. In other words, if you are Gay, they aren't saying you should be thrown in jail. They want to make it illegal for Gays to get married and for anyone to declare Gays as a married couple.

Not that I agree with that position, but bullshit like this in which everyone twists the opposite political party's words and posting stuff every time some far right or far left extremist picks their nose, and portraying it as the whole party's fault, needs to stop.

 

[laikaNYC]

As others have mentioned before in other threads, I've come to the conclusion that ^^^ is nothing more than a summer school Sociology class assignment. Something like "join an internet forum and be as argumentative as possible. Write a final paper on your experience."

As others have mentioned before in other threads. Nobody, but nobody could be that out of touch. That consistently wrong.

I actually have more respect for Justapixel, and I hate myself for that. Damn.

Bob, why do you act like you aren't partisan?

I'm guessing you don't think Jones' "they'll bring back slavery" statement is out of touch. Oh no, of course you don't.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

As others have mentioned before in other threads, I've come to the conclusion that ^^^ is nothing more than a summer school Sociology class assignment. Something like "join an internet forum and be as argumentative as possible. Write a final paper on your experience."

ugh... of course...

Fuck, it's not even the first time this has happened and yes.. it's JUST the time of year it happens, too.

OK, back on the ignore list.

 

[JayHawk]

Just curious if you just read the title or if you read the actual blog?

They are not calling for the imprisonment of Homosexuals. In other words, if you are Gay, they aren't saying you should be thrown in jail. They want to make it illegal for Gays to get married and for anyone to declare Gays as a married couple.

Not that I agree with that position, but bullshit like this in which everyone twists the opposite political party's words and posting stuff every time some far right or far left extremist picks their nose, and portraying it as the whole party's fault, needs to stop.

I said this... and I think you did also earlier....

 

[CowboyBob]

ugh... of course...

Fuck, it's not even the first time this has happened and yes.. it's JUST the time of year it happens, too.

OK, back on the ignore list.

I had another member informing me what a nicer place this forum is when you use the ignore feature and I took that advice. The place just got a lot better.