At 11:50 AM 6/26/2003 -0600, Kestrel wrote:
>
>the Supreme Court struck down Texas' sodomy laws (along with the laws in a
>few other states) and while there are probably a lot of opinions on that,
>what I thought was hillarious was the argument Texas used to support the
>laws...

What stunned and astounded me was that it was THIS Court, with its present
makeup, that made such a landmark decision -- and it is a landmark, one
which one commentator put on a par with Brown v. Board of Education.

What had me laughing so hard I almost had a wreck (while I was listening to
"All Things Considered" while on my way to pick Keys up from work) was some
conservative think-tank flack was being interviewed about the decision, and
he was all het up about the Court usurping the prerogative of state
legislatures, yadda yadda yadda.  Yeah, yeah, fellah -- if the Court had
decided the other way, it would have been just hunky dory with you!  
 Frankly, my opinion is that the Court WAS doing its job:  When a state
passes a law that contravenes the Constitution, that law must fall.  That
conservative think-tank flack can take it up with John Marshall!  

>Texas defended its sodomy law as in keeping with the state's interest in
>protecting marriage and child-rearing. Homosexual sodomy, the state argued
>in legal papers, "has nothing to do with marriage or conception or
>parenthood and it is not on a par with these sacred choices."

Yup, that's the religious right party line.

>umm... just how many kids are married couples creating while exercising
>their sacred choice to have anal sex?
>I'm betting that's a really small voting demographic...

  

Veloci--it's a banner day for liberty--raptor
 

--- Rachel's Little NET2FIDO Gate v 0.9.9.8 Alpha