wood burning stoves*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes US court lifts ban on gay sex in Texas Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Murach's Java Servlets and JSP this week in the Servlets forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "US court lifts ban on gay sex in Texas" Watch "US court lifts ban on gay sex in Texas" New topic
Author

US court lifts ban on gay sex in Texas

Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,985922,00.html
Blimey!
(there was a thread about this somewhere but I couldn't find it)
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Can I have sex with my cat in Texas legally .. :roll:
Randall Twede
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 21, 2000
Posts: 4340
    
    2

did i miss something? i mean...why do i care?


SCJP
Visit my download page
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Can I have sex with my cat in Texas legally .. :roll:
It has to be a consenting, adult cat
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
It has to be a consenting, adult cat[/QB]

Obviously with her consent.. and never with minor one
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Obviously with her consent.. and never with minor one
and in the privacy of your own bedroom, cat basket or menagerie
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
and in the privacy of your own bedroom, cat basket or menagerie[/QB]

What do you think .. will I do in public place ?
So its legal to have sex with cat with her consent and if she is not minor and in the privacy of mine/her.
Thanks for you input
John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
did i miss something? i mean...why do i care?
What you missed is that up until now, your government was in the business of regulating the sexual behaiviour between the consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes. If you don't care or pay attention, you may wake up one day and read in the newspaper that the government outlawed all non-missionary sex positions in the heterosexual marriage. Would you care then? -- It wouldn't matter, because you would have a Taliban government run by the Christian fundamentalists by then.
[ June 27, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
did i miss something? i mean...why do i care?
What you missed is that your government was regulating the sexual behaiviour. If you don't care or pay attention, you may wake up one day and read in the newspaper that the government outlawed all non-missionary sex positions in the heterosexual marriage. Would you care then?

Which is the more likely future scenario; the outlawing of specifc sexual positions, or the near total abandonment of all traditional norms of sexual behavior; more restriction or less?
I think its quite clear that the general trend for the past several hundred years has been the steady erosion of what were once traditional standards of sexaul conduct. From the hugely successful Howard Stern on prime time radio in the morning discussing 3 way sex, animal sex, replaying porno sound bites, etc, etc on a daily basis; to the 24 hour sex channels on TV, to mass gay sex orgies (here in South Florida); to 1 in 3 children having sex before 15; to the entire sex industry itself (do we dare include pedophilia in this discussion?); etc, etc, should give anyone with their head not stuck in the, sand, what the likely progression of the trend will be. To fear that some future Bill Clinton will propose outlawing a pet position of mine is ludicrous.
John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
I think its quite clear that the general trend for the past several hundred years has been the steady erosion of what were once traditional standards of sexaul conduct. ... To fear that some future Bill Clinton will propose outlawing a pet position of mine is ludicrous.
Thanks for your comment, Herb, -- the truth is usually born in our arguments. Two things:
1. You assume that the "traditional standards of sexual conduct" are the moral standards that need to be preserved. Once upon a time, we had slaves and men-only voters in this country, and that was considered the "traditional standard". The woman suffrage and civil rights movement were considered by many as an "erosion of values", most notably by that 100-year-old fellow who passed away yesterday.
2. I know that you are my fellow libertarian, so what I don't understand is how you reconcile the libertarian belief in the liberty above all with the national-socislist idea of the sex-regulating government. Maybe I am loading your words with more meaning, so what exactly is your position on the Supreme Court ruling in question?
Eugene.
Michael Morris
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2002
Posts: 3451
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Can I have sex with my cat in Texas legally .. :roll:

There's never been a ban on gettin' a little pussy in Texas.


Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction. - Ernst F. Schumacher
Michael Morris
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2002
Posts: 3451
To fear that some future Bill Clinton will propose outlawing a pet position of mine is ludicrous.
Don't be so sure Herb. What you may not realize is the depth of these absurd laws (yes plural) in Texas. It is illegal to fondle your wife (no foreplay bummer), it is illegal to engage in any sexual contact other than that which involves a penis being inserted in a vagina. The government has no business snooping around in my bedroom and telling me how to properly perform coitus.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
I think its quite clear that the general trend for the past several hundred years has been the steady erosion of what were once traditional standards of sexaul conduct. ... To fear that some future Bill Clinton will propose outlawing a pet position of mine is ludicrous.
Thanks for your comment, Herb, -- the truth is usually born in our arguments. Two things:
1. You assume that the "traditional standards of sexual conduct" are the moral standards that need to be preserved. Once upon a time, we had slaves and men-only voters in this country, and that was considered the "traditional standard". The woman suffrage and civil rights movement were considered by many as an "erosion of values", most notably by that 100-year-old fellow who passed away yesterday.
2. I know that you are my fellow libertarian, so what I don't understand is how you reconcile the libertarian belief in the liberty above all with the national-socislist idea of the sex-regulating government. Maybe I am loading your words with more meaning, so what exactly is your position on the Supreme Court ruling in question?
Eugene.

1. No, I didn't assume that traditional standards of sexual conduct should be preserved in their entirity. Obviously, unduly restrictive standards or prohibitions are unnatural and can cause unhappiness, misery, or even mental health problems resulting from repression (note that repression, as classicaly defined, cannot exist in mainstream American society).
Yet, on the other hand, maybe these standards, maybe some of them, which evolved over thousands of years, have some value. Many of these values are cross cultural. For example, what societies condone having sex openly on a public street? Why does everyone prohibit this? Maybe it would be good thing, I don't really know, but I think the question needs to be asked whether the destruction of every single standard of sexual conduct is a good thing. Does anyone openly advocate the destruction of all other standards of conduct (this is happening also, but thats another post)?
We know that humans, like all animals, are powerfully driven by sex. We know that powerful emotions are assoiciated with sex. We know that sometimes these emotions can lead to destruction, death (for example jealous rages), exploitation, etc, etc. Some commonly agreed upon standards (which even animal societies have) can make society more stable, maybe even more "human", and less animal. Maybe sublimation of sexual energies can be channeled into other productive areas benefitting all, so some restriction is not bad. I don't assume society will be better with the complete destruction of all sexual standards.
2. I was rather indifferent to the Supreme Court ruling since I don't live in Texas, don't practice sodomy, nor do I believe these laws are enforced either in Texas or anywhere else (don't cite exceptions, it will only prove the rule.) On another level, consistent with the observations made above, the Court ruling was inevitable. Maybe not inevitable this decade, but in the next few at least. On the legal/political level, States have always had broad jurisdiction to regulate crimes and define them. This is the basis of our Federal system. Every State has different laws regulating sex : incest, pedophilia, rape, prostitution, age of minors to marry, etc,etc. Especially compelling in this day of the AIDS epidemic is the fact that AIDS is still primarily transmitted through sodomy. Don't we allow restrctive measures when other types of epidemics break out? (Yes, we do. Forced quarintine happens.) So why can't the State take some measures to stem the epidemic?
Why does the Court single out this one area of sex that States cannot regulate? Is there a national, federal, or consitutional right to sodomy? If not, each State should be free to do as it sees fit.
However, it was a good ruling since what consenting adults do in privay is nobody's business unless a very compelling and immediate danger is shown (happy now, Eugene?). This would fall under the Privacy thing in the Bill of Rights. But, due to the vast verbiage above, I was not dancing in the streets celebrating the decision.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Michael Morris:
The government has no business snooping around in my bedroom and telling me how to properly perform coitus.

Maybe you need a little help in proper coitus
technique? Maybe an instructional video performed by Sandra O'Conner and Scalia could help? Don't be too proud to ask for help.
Michael Morris
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2002
Posts: 3451
Originally posted by herb slocomb:

Maybe you need a little help in proper coitus
technique? Maybe an instructional video performed by Sandra O'Conner and Scalia could help? Don't be too proud to ask for help.

Well since you put it that way, I'm never too old to learn something new. But it would seem more appropriate to use a couple of US Senators for the video, after all they are experts at fucking people.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Michael Morris:

Well since you put it that way, I'm never too old to learn something new. But it would seem more appropriate to use a couple of US Senators for the video, after all they are experts at fucking people.

John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
Maybe an instructional video performed by Sandra O'Conner and Scalia could help?
I can see a caricature of Justice Antonin Scalia writing his dissented opinion while Rev. Jerry Falwell being sexually aroused by looking at it. Maybe Larry Flynt will adapt the idea.
[ June 27, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]
Michael Morris
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2002
Posts: 3451
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
Maybe an instructional video performed by Sandra O'Conner and Scalia could help?
I can see a caricature of Justice Antonin Scalia writing his dissented opinion while Rev. Jerry Falwell being sexually aroused by looking at it. Maybe Larry Flynt will adapt the idea.
[ June 27, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

Sounds like a great idea for a Viagra commercial.
Randall Twede
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 21, 2000
Posts: 4340
    
    2


did i miss something? i mean...why do i care?

i agree completely that the government (society) have no jurisdiction in controling our personal lives. i just said that cause i dont live in texas and im not gay.
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
EK: up until now, your government was in the business of regulating the sexual behaiviour between the consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes.
IMHO, I think those laws were originally meant to protect woman. I don't think there was enough homosexuality to even warrant them in those days. I ~imagine~ they were so rapists could be charged for multiple felonies. Remember that an individual cannot be rape charges against someone. Rape is a crime against the State. I think these laws, like many others, got twisted to then attack gays as they became more openly gay.


"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Originally posted by Randall Twede:

i agree completely that the government (society) have no jurisdiction in controling our personal lives. i just said that cause i dont live in texas and im not gay.

The ruling isn't limited to Texas.
Randall Twede
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 21, 2000
Posts: 4340
    
    2

about time that individual freedom won a round.
Andrew Monkhouse
author and jackaroo
Marshal Commander

Joined: Mar 28, 2003
Posts: 11404
    
  81


Herb: nor do I believe these laws are enforced either in Texas or anywhere else (don't cite exceptions, it will only prove the rule.)

From the article posted by Richard:

The case stemmed from the prosecution of two men, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, who were briefly jailed and fined $200 in 1998 after police found them having sex in their own apartment. The police had entered their home on a false report that a man with a gun was "going crazy".

I am ignoring your request not to cite examples. Declaring all examples to be "exceptions proving the rule" is not a valid way of determining whether the laws are enforced or not.
Also, regardless of whether the law is enforced or not now, the fact that a law exists could mean that it could be enforced in the future. Just ignoring it now could cause major problems later.
Randall: i just said that cause i dont live in texas and im not gay

Ahh, but depending on where you live, there may be other laws that you are breaking. Just in America alone (from the same article):
Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four - Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri - prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

The problem is (as mentioned by Eugene) that the "government was in the business of regulating the sexual behaiviour between the consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes.".
The fact that the individual law does not apply to you, is irrelevant - the fact that the government believed that it could make such laws is the concern.
I was curious though. I am not American, so I do not understand many parts of American law, but I think that if you commit a crime in more than one state, it becomes a federal crime automatically. So if my girlfriend and I were arrested in Texas for having oral sex, could we get bailed out, go to Oklahoma and cause ourselves to get arrested for having oral sex, thereby bumping it to federal level, which would get it thrown out of court?
Or if we were having oral sex in a train, will the sherrifs break down the door of our compartment when we cross the state line?
In other news, New Zealand has decrimilised prostitution ... "The bill's author, Labour MP Tim Barnett, said MPs had made the most vital moral judgment since New Zealand's reforms on homosexuality 17 years ago." (from this Sydney Morning Herald article).
Regards, Andrew
[ June 27, 2003: Message edited by: Andrew Monkhouse ]

The Sun Certified Java Developer Exam with J2SE 5: paper version from Amazon, PDF from Apress, Online reference: Books 24x7 Personal blog
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Herb,
I have noticed that for all your libertarian rants / posts, you are indeed very conservative in your outlook. Ofcourse you may counter that with a libertarian rant that its your wish and it certainly is. But I think you have crossed the line between a libertarian and that of a conservative. Who draws these lines? Nobody and everybody.. but your outlook seems more in line with people who call themselves conservatives.


Commentary From the Sidelines of history
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
originally posted by me:
IMHO, I think those laws were originally meant to protect woman. I don't think there was enough homosexuality to even warrant them in those days. I ~imagine~ they were so rapists could be charged for multiple felonies. Remember that an individual cannot be rape charges against someone. Rape is a crime against the State. I think these laws, like many others, got twisted to then attack gays as they became more openly gay.

I actually looked for more proof on this and found this for
History of Hawaii's Sodomy Laws I stand corrected, before myself, it seems that these laws were made specifically for homosexual acts, and then migrated to hetrosexual as well.
Get this: Age of consent in Hawaii is 14!! (seventh or eighth grade here). You could legitimately pick your girlfriend up from elementary school for a quickie, IF they let her leave school at lunch time!!
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:
Herb,
I have noticed that for all your libertarian rants / posts, you are indeed very conservative in your outlook.

What, 50 libertarian rants and one conservative rant makes me a conservative??
(By the way, it seems my last rant on the Rascism issue was deleted. Too bad, it raised some big issues that hadn't been said before)
I'll admit that my last post in this thread (not really a rant was it?) summed up the essense of conservatism which is conserving traditions. This viewpoint seems underrepresnted on the internet in my view and some of its views are not entirely without merit and need to be expressed and considered. Is not our society indebted to the past for its very existence? Isn't everyone for social stability to some degree? Then the destruction of all social traditions is something to make one pause and think. I'm obviously not for stupidly preserving everything from the past, but does anyone consider the opposite equally stupid; blindly destroying every tradition from the past? You would think some of our societies would manage to produce something worth preserving after several thousand years, yet what I've seen is gradual destruction of every tradition.
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
but does anyone consider the opposite equally stupid; blindly destroying every tradition from the past?
I agree, this would be just as stupid as blindly preserving everything. But I look up and don't see the sky falling on us as you seem to imply. There isn't a big movement for "the destruction of every single standard of sexual conduct" as you put it. We're not talking about people having sex on the street; we're talking about consenting adults in the privacy of their homes.


"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Jim pretty much summed up what I wanted to state. But a few other notes:
What, 50 libertarian rants and one conservative rant makes me a conservative??

I can count more than three instances of conservative thought process by you right off the top of my head.
1. This thread
2. The rant about women and their role in society
3. The rant about how immigrants lower society's living standards
I'm not saying that these are incorrect viewpoints but I'm stating that these are more likely to be the viewpoints of a conservative. Anyway, this is another discussion and we can ignore this for the time being.
You would think some of our societies would manage to produce something worth preserving

After the first 170 years, American society had fought one civil war, one depression and two world wars. Yet the most important tradition of this society was "Segregation". 50 years forward, that tradition has been discarded.. was it a bad thing?? I dont think so. So I view current events along the same lines. As society moves forward, useful traditions will be preserved and useless ones will be discarded.
Like the ad for J&B Whiskey states : "Traditions are what they used to be!"
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Has anyone seen the movie "Far From Heaven"?? In that movie, homosexuality is treated as a disease with the doctor prescribing shock therapy for the person who displays homosexual tendecies..
Is this a true representation of American society in the 50s?? Can someone old enough verify this.
On another note, I'd like to point out the blatant hypocrisy that exists on the issue of homosexuality.
As a man (who has been raised in a very conservative S. Indian household) I find the act of sex between "MEN" disgusting. While at the same time , like many "other men of my age",
I have nothing against Women having sex with each other. Infact its considered quite cool..
So isnt this a case of blatant hypocrisy? Is sex between consenting men an immoral act but that between women is natural. Aren't both acts representation of homosexuality? Anyone got an explanation for this?
[ June 29, 2003: Message edited by: Sriraj Rajaram ]
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:

After the first 170 years, American society had fought one civil war, one depression and two world wars. Yet the most important tradition of this society was "Segregation".

In my prior discussions when talking of traditions, I had in mind traditions that had been in effect longer than 170 years. But even if we grant segregation the status of a tradition I find it somewhat appalling that you would call this the "most important" tradition. What about the constitutional form of government that was improvised several hundred years ago and has been the foundation of our government ever since then? This traditional respect for the constitution and its effect on the stability of our society is far more significant than segration ever was. It was this traditional respect and acceptance by most Americans of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the consitition that led to the end of segregation.
After reading this morning's newspaper about a successful immigrant in Miami from Cuba, I'd have to say American's also have a broad general acceptance of immigrants and allow them to go from "rags to riches" far more quickly than any other society. This is not meant to be a pro-America rant, but you're statement on segregation was really galling in its ignorance. America also has a tradition of relative classlessness that allows upward mobility fairly easily, even amongst immigrants.
[ June 29, 2003: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
In my prior discussions when talking of traditions, I had in mind traditions that had been in effect longer than 170 years.

Ok! Now we are getting around to defining time period around traditions. This doesnt make sense to me because I could still, probably, point out some flaw in some tradition that has been followed for more than 170 years and then someone else could shift the timescale further upwards.

But even if we grant segregation the status of a tradition I find it somewhat appalling that you would call this the "most important" tradition.

After 170 years, America's most important debate was on the "tradition of segregation". America had one mainstream national party split in two because of this. America had a decade of rioting/picketing because of this. If this didnt seem to reflect the most important debate at that point of time, I dont know what else could have. Perhaps I worded my post incorrectly

What about the constitutional form of government that was improvised several hundred years ago and has been the foundation of our government ever since then? This traditional respect for the constitution and its effect on the stability of our society is far more significant than segration ever was. It was this traditional respect and acceptance by most Americans of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the consitition that led to the end of segregation.

Agreed. But tell me something, how did you come to the conclusion that the respect for Supreme Court's interpretation of the Consitution was because of a "Traditional respect for that institution" as compared to a "Rational respect for what is right"
[ June 29, 2003: Message edited by: Sriraj Rajaram ]
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
As a man (who has been raised in a very conservative S. Indian household) I find the act of sex between "MEN" disgusting. While at the same time , like many "other men of my age",
I have nothing against Women having sex with each other. Infact its considered quite cool..
So isnt this a case of blatant hypocrisy? Is sex between consenting men an immoral act but that between women is natural. Aren't both acts representation of homosexuality? Anyone got an explanation for this?

Are you talking about what you consider moral, or what you consider appealing to yourself personally? If you're talking about your own tastes, there's nothing hypocritical about findingthe idea of two women more appealing than the idea of two men. It's not that different from saying you like the idea of a naked woman more than the idea of a naked man. That's a metter of personal taste. However if you think sex between men is immoral while sex between women is not - well, yeah I think that's inconsistent. (Not sure how it would be hypocritical exactly.) Sounds like there's some confusion between your personal taste and sense of morality - it's probably worth examining that and trying to keep them separate in your mind, IMO.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Andrew Monkhouse:
I was curious though. I am not American, so I do not understand many parts of American law, but I think that if you commit a crime in more than one state, it becomes a federal crime automatically. So if my girlfriend and I were arrested in Texas for having oral sex, could we get bailed out, go to Oklahoma and cause ourselves to get arrested for having oral sex, thereby bumping it to federal level, which would get it thrown out of court?
No, you would just be in trouble in two states, not one. In order for you to be in trouble with the Feds you have to commit a federal crime or commit a crime while crossing state borders. So stealing a car and driving it from one state to another is a federal crime. Killing a federal employee (like a postal worker) is a federal crime. Kidnapping is a federal crime (the Lindbergh Law) even if it doesn't involve crossing a state border.


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
An example of the interaction between the state and federal governments is the recent sniper attacks around Washington DC. The murderers can be tried in Alabama, Virginia, and Maryland for murder. They could also be charged with federal crimes (probably gun laws) but the federal charges don't carry as severe a penalty as the state charges.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:

Agreed. But tell me something, how did you come to the conclusion that the respect for Supreme Court's interpretation of the Consitution was because of a "Traditional respect for that institution" as compared to a "Rational respect for what is right"
[ June 29, 2003: Message edited by: Sriraj Rajaram ]

I didn't shift the time frames around what I considered a "tradition". In my prior posts I mentioned several hundred years and thousands of years as examples. Of course, to nitpitck on where the time boundaries should be is fruitless, but at some point you would be confusing a fad or temporary social adjustment with a tradition.
Maybe it could be argued that segregation was a temporary social adjustment or transition period between slavery and full equality. As an evolutional transitional adjustment and in flux (from Jim Crow laws to Supreme Court decisions of "separate but equal" to the Bakke decision) maybe it never aquired enough stability and permanence to be called a tradition. This is of course very debateable and depends on your time horizon; mine happens to be longer than yours.
Regarding the conflict and debate over segregation, you're still missing the point of the context in which it occurred. Its easy to forget the basics like having an air supply until you're choking, or the concept of gravity until you're falling, and the background and foundational role of the consitution in American society is the same. The debate was framed, argued, and decided
in a consitutional context. The consitution estblished the Supreme Court. Our traditions give the Court the ultimate power to decide what the consitution means. Equality is a moral concept, but applying it in a practical manner is a consitutional and legal issue. Equality is explicitly mentioned in the constituion. As a legal right it has to be interpretated, it is interpretated by the Supreme Court. Equality was at one time interpretated as Equal but Separate. Separate facilities were provided for both races and they were supposed to be equal. The moral concept of equality is still there, but was implemented and interpretated differently by the Court at different times. This decision was accepted by many Americans. Of course, many did not accept it, yet there was not armed revolution or civil war to protest separate but equal. The issue of how equality was to be implemented was decided and resolved legally via a constitutional process. The resolution of the matter and the reasoning involved in the implementation of equality with separateness was accepted. The reasoning included references to the 14th amendment (which now has been turned on its head by allowing racial bias against whites) and the bill of rights, etc, all of which are consitutional concepts. The concepts of morality are never rammed directly into consitutional debates, they are filtered through the rights explicitly defined in the consitution.
Perhaps it would be clearer if we looked at alternate ways this issue of equality could have been resolved - Another civil war or by a king's decree. Neither of which are traditional routes of conflict resolution to Americans.
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
To fear that some future Bill Clinton will propose outlawing a pet position of mine is ludicrous.
Do pets have a Kama Sutra?!
Michael Morris
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2002
Posts: 3451
Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
[qb]To fear that some future Bill Clinton will propose outlawing a pet position of mine is ludicrous.
Do pets have a Kama Sutra?! [/QB]

Well, sort of.
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
Michel Foulcault's History of Sexuality (1-3) is an good read if you like studies on the human body and how society has a history of applying socio-political structures over it. He's done some nice stuff work on mental disorder, the medical profession and surveillance/punishment too.
 
permaculture playing cards
 
subject: US court lifts ban on gay sex in Texas
 
Similar Threads
Are there any fair chances
Chocolate Wars - A New hope
Red beavers ahoy!
enough of all war and WMD .... now try this
An interesting article (from Guardian)