sensate

This is a huge victory for everyone, not just gays. The ideas that are used to justify sodomy laws in the first place could be used against any group of people. On the steps of the supreme court today a preacher was saying that sodomy is immoral and therefor should be illegal. Think about some of the other things someone might think of as being immoral and therefor illegal: not being a Christian, premarital sex, alcohol consumption, to name a few. We have taken an important step toward being a more just and free society today.

fix tags - Toto

never been there

Grasp the scope of this - homosexuality is at last legal anywhere in the U.S. It's a huge step forward and it's great to hear good news on human rights south of the border.

atheist_in_foxhole

Here's what one of the fundy groups ("Wisconsin Christians United") had to say about the ruling:

Quote:

"The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the law which criminalizes sodomy in Texas is a lawless decision which flies in the face of the foundational law upon which this nation was founded, the laws of nature and of nature's God. In ruling that state governments cannot criminalize such sexually perverse acts which are proscribed by God's dictated and revealed law, the justices have violated the precepts of our nation's charter, the Declaration of Independence, by which the U.S. Constitution along with all federal and state laws are to be defined. They have also arrogantly spat in God's face by declaring lawful that which He has declared to be unlawful. And so America slips deeper into anarchy and becomes even more deserving of the judgment Almighty God is even now beginning to visit on this nation. "This ruling does not change the mission of Wisconsin Christians United. We will continue to meet the deceptions and aggressions of the homosexual movement with truth, including the gospel of Jesus Christ. In addition to our many other activities, this year alone we expect to distribute over a quarter of a million of our brochures door-to-door and person-to-person in Wisconsin and, to a lesser extent, across the nation. Now is the time for Christians to increase, not decrease, their efforts on behalf of God's kingdom and His righteousness. With His help, we intend to do just that." -Pastor Ralph Ovadal

TheGreatInfidel

So how does the supreme court's recent "liberalism", that is, its ruling concerning sodomy and affirmative action, play into the "under God" issue? Can we make any inferences?

Arken

Considering that many devout theists have no problem with homosexuals in any way, I doubt we can.

DMB

I liked this quote from the CNN story linked to by atheist_in_foxhole:
Where does the idea that governments should legislate on morals come from? I thought that governments were there to oil the social wheels and do the things that need to be done collectively. Obviously that includes as much as possible protecting the vulnerable from predators, but in banning sexual acts between consenting adults of unimpaired mental capability, I can't see who they're supposed to be protecting. Would someone please explain to me the origin of this funny idea?

CJD

I would think this is also, in the long-run, a huge victory for the "religious right." Quite possibly in the future when an actual aggressive anti-religious government comes into power (keep in mind I do not consider our current government "Christian," nor was this country founded upon wholly Xian principles), and they begin to legislate what can and cannot go on behind closed doors re: religious rituals, the "religious right" will breathe a sigh of relief when they remember the precedent set by our own current Supreme Court on the sexual morals issue (early Xians were also accused of sexual deviance). Unless, of course, Christianity as a religion becomes subsumed under terrorism, then it's back to the lion's den.

CJD

*edited for clarity's sake

Toto

Let's be clear, the question is whether the government should legislate on sexual morals. No one has raised the question of whether the government should force friends to keep their non-contractual promises to each other, or give to charity, or treat others kindly. In general, a "moral obligation" is one that the government has no part in.

It all goes back to the Roman Emperor Justinian, who believed that homosexuality was the cause of earthquakes, plagues, and famine.

Pat Robertson upholds this classical view; he believes that gays bring about earthquakes, tornadoes, bombs.

Others think that homosexual activity causes "hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, and wildfires" not to mention the 1987 stock market crash.

{vBB can't handle this URL due to an apostrophe in the middle:

http://www.tldm.org/News3/God'sWrath.htm }

That's American politics for you.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by SLD
... any ruling likely to piss of the Southern Baptist Convention is fine with me.

Hear, hear. My sentiments exactly.

pug846

I’m confused – I thought rational basis review only deals with equal protection and not due process. I should read the majority opinion again, but I'm having trouble figuring out why I don't agree with Scalia.