Now What About Gomorrahmy?

New at Reason: Yesterday's Supreme Court decision was just one part of a larger national trend. The country is exploring new positions in sodomy, and Jesse Walker is happy to get in on the action!

Comments

[JD Weiner]

Walker says something interesting:
"In 2003, when the country's highest court struck down the last remaining, rarely enforced, completely atavistic laws prohibiting private sex between consenting adults..."

Really? The SC has decriminalized prostitution? Oops, wait; they didn't. (In fact, the majority position specifically states that this case has nothing to do with prostitution, an odd thing to say, since no one said it did, unless they were specifically trying to head off any use of its arguments in the service of legalization of prostitution.)

The recent decision is good news for gays and their friends, and the Texas law deserved to go, but having read the decision and the dissent, I feel that it's good policy and terrible law. There's no principle behind the SC's decision, none at all, and it shouldn't be taken as a sign of friendship towards liberty. I'm writing up a more complete explanation of this view; I'll put the URL up if/when I get it finished...

[Jesse Walker]

Oops. Should've said "private, noncommercial sex," I guess.

[joe]

Judging by the spinning about the Civil Rights movement, the Republican Party should start putting out proclaimations that it always supported gay rights in about 10 years. Heck, there will probably even be a homophobic comment or vote by a Democrat to repeat endlessly!

[JW Dinar]

Walker says, "its members have built a social infrastructure that reaches into more of the country than ever before."

Oh, so that's the homosexual agenda.

[Anonymous]

oh yes the Democratic Party has always supported gay rights and civil rights, it says right here my history book...oh, wait, what?

[Anonymous]

Joe - did you have a professor with a lisp that changed your life? Just curious.
I'd love to hear the story about it.

[Kevin Carson]

Re Floyd the Barber. Floyd may have been a pedophile as well. I remember him saying to Andy once in that breathlessly senile voice of his: "Say, Andy, if that boy of yours wants to make some extra money, tell him to come by my shop after school. I might have some odd jobs for him."

I once sent a proposal to Andy Griffith for a time travel themed TV movie set in Mayberry. You see, Floyd the Barber was actually the future self of Howard Sprague, travelling back to the early '60s to warn his past self to stop molesting Opie before Andy caught him. (See, that's why Floyd acts so brain-damaged: Andy messed him up REAL bad when he caught him boning his boy).

[Bards Tale]

anon @ 5:37, leave it. none of us thinks you're funny. and those "trash joe" jokes are lame. the guy has balls to write stuff that many disagree with here. that's what "free minds free markets" means. you gotta respect that and the guy. throw your two cents in and discuss with him. this stupid trolling and flaming is yet another reason to wish that the semester will start up soon and you'll be gone. and he posts his name, to boot. he's two up on you. hopefully, your next semester at whatever community college you're at will have a good professor for you. and, just maybe you need to solder a pair on to your package. stick to your stupid banter with yourself about michael savage. or was it jessica sauvich? either way. stick to that.

[Brian]

"You see, Floyd the Barber was actually the future self of Howard Sprague, travelling back to the early '60s to warn his past self to stop molesting Opie before Andy caught him."

Kevin...step away from the pipe, dude...

...oh, wait, it's Friday! Never mind, just pass it over here! 🙂

[MP]

JD, please e-mail me your link as I may lose track of this comment chain.

I just finished reading Scalia's dissent. I read the court's opinion last night. Scalia is dead on. It is surprising that the Reason staff members blogging on this subject are so willing to accept this opinion while disregarding the overall consequences of it. I totally agree that legislating morality for consual acts is almost always a restraint on personal liberty, and thus bad. BUT, unfortunately, legislating morals is not unconstitutional (well...as I interpret it.)

[confused]

Does anyone know what this thread is about? The first comment discussed the link at least, but I'm clueless about the rest.

[jacob]

joe:

you say"Judging by the spinning about the Civil Rights movement, the Republican Party should start putting out proclaimations that it always supported gay rights in about 10 years. Heck, there will probably even be a homophobic comment or vote by a Democrat to repeat endlessly!" which seems to imply (tell me if i am wrong) that it is unfair and unreasonable to call the democrats constantly for past racism, (especially in issues like affirmative action.) i completely disagree- i mean, we are talking about a party founded by a genocidal lunatic responsible for the deatsh of 5.5 native americans (jackson) perpetuated by the lieks of jefferson davis, and the leader of the one party segregationist state in the south. now i was born and raised in the south, and so when i hear this kind of stuff, it leaves me wondering if you read history with an even eye. because apart from anything else, the democrats still revere, say, "wilsonian" foriegn policy- collective security and all that- even though it came from a perspective that could be summed up as "them darkies need us to watch over them" combined with a vague desire for an american emprie to rival the european ones, both principels which most Democrats would revile today.

whereas, with gay rights, the democrats have not historically slaughtered and enslaved homosexuals by the million, nor legally enshrined (or rather, not democrats in particualr) anti-gay laws, and they have always spearheaded the gay movement (not true of the civil rights movement, which was reviled by southern democarst in 1964 at the tiome of the Civil Rights Act.)

this isn't really a valid comparison.

[Kevin Carson]

Jacob:

It is a little disingenuous for today's Republicans to make that argument, though. True enough, Civil Rights legislation was supported by the GOP establishment and passed over objections of southern Demos. But the GOP establishment in the early '60s are the kind who are marginalized today as, well, Eastern Establishment in a largely Sun Belt/New Right party. And most Republican Congressional leaders today are southerners who left what party? over what issue? quite a few years back.

[fag tr0ll]

THIS IS A SERIOUS QUESTION TO THE STAFF:

So since butt ramming is legal are anal related medical maladies a protected right under insurance?

[not]

I think it's ironic that people are saying this is the SC mixing morality and law. Seems the opposite is true, they are taking a law based on Xian morals off the books.

The argument that states should be able to make laws like this is hilarious. What is the difference in a law that says 2 men can't have sex together and a law that says 2 men can't watch football on Saturdays together? There's no way you guys would defend a state passing such a law, even though they are equally abhorrent in a free society. The only diff b/w an anti football law and anti-sodomy law is that it conflicts with Xian morality and puts fear in homophobes.

seems sometimes it's just more fun to get your pannies in a wad than to admit that something worthwhile occurred.

[Jesse Walker]

MP: There's a defensible argument to be made that the Texas law was wrong but constitutional. There's also a defensible argument to be made that it's both wrong and unconstitutional. I deliberately skirted the debate in my article because, well, that's not what the piece was about.

What I want to know is this: How come the people who are so quick to raise federalism issues when a state law prohibiting sodomy is on the line hardly ever bring it up when the issue is a state university's admission policies? Yes, there's no dubious constitutional right to privacy involved in the affirmative action case. But if states' rights outweigh that business about "equal protection under the law" when the issue is sodomy, you'd think at least *some* federalists would decide the same logic applies with affirmative action. No?

[Jesse Walker]

On second thought, don't answer that question here -- I just opened a new item for the discussion.

[dhex]

aren't vaginal cuts, abrasions and the like treatable under insurance?

what's the difference fag troll? 🙂

[jacob]

i disagree- jesse helms et al notwithstanding, i think that bush is considerably less racist than, say, LBJ. as a youngster, who lives in virginia, most of our legiuslate on the local level is republican. and race is really not a significant issue- more queers and abortion. (unless you agree with washinton post columnist courtland milloy, in that opposition to affirmative action is proof of racism- a position i hope you don't share because then, by your terms, i am a racist.)

i really think race has not been an issue so much- not countign affirmative action, of course,- but the undeniable fact is, the democratic party ahs a logn, sordid history of straight up evil. for the first 140 years of its 180 year history, at least, it represented racism. i think one has to take that into account, just as it would sound pretty lame for someone in austria to make laudatory remarks abotu the nazis and say, well, i don't like that other stuff they did with the jews and all. (check it out- look up jorg haider.)

actually, the difference, if there is one, is that
a. the democratic party committed logn series' of crimes against humanity. as opposed to the 13 year reich, they kept discrimination a reality for close to 150 years.
b. not only are they not taboo, but they are a major (this shocks me) LIBERAL party. guys liek andrew jackson, who everyoen acknowledges to eb a lunatic, is on the 20 dollar bill. which i think is pretty outrageous, all things considered.
c. there has been no nuremburg. no truth comission, no nothing. generally, democrats jsut grumbled and took it, and after a while it faded out into vietnam protests instead.

and frankly, i don't see too many republcians sayign stuff like, "well, discriminatory racial policies are suspect coming from a political organisation responsible for the perpetuation of slavery, imperialist genocide, jim crow, etc. etc. it is disnigenuous to call those who dislike affirmative action partisan, racist, etc. considering the white-mans-burdenism of the originators of the idea." so i think that when you say that it is really a problem that republcians say that, you're fighting a straw man. if anythign, democrats like al sharpton (lets not forget: implicated in a hate crime himself) who play the "race card."

[history tr0ll]

Didn't the last defenders of the Alamo shout something about "butt sex"?

[Kevin Carson]

hello Cobain come on in
Floyd observes my hairy chin
Sit down in the chair don't be afraid
Steamed hot towel on my face
I was shaved
I was shaved
I was shamed
Barney ties me to a chair
I can't see I'm really scared
Floyd breathes hard I hear a zip
Pee pee pressed against my lips
I sense others in the room (Floyd lets)
Opie Aunt Bea I presume
They take turns and cut me up
I die smothered in Andy's clutch (Aunt Bea's muff)

[Michelle Savage]

GOMORRAH -ME!

[Green Matthew]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.pills-for-penis.com
DATE: 01/25/2004 09:32:13
Love can damage more than you can heal with drinking.