SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: JohnM who wrote (2842)7/2/2003 12:28:23 AM
From: D. Long  Read Replies (1) of 793843
 
You know that's a hyper stretch from the far right.

If you can't read that this ruling was designed to legalize gay marriage, you just can't read. Probably haven't read the decision.

the country has moved to accept the notion that homosexual sex acts are private and should be protected by constitutionally grounded notions of privacy.

That is arguable. What isn't arguable is that by making consent the rule, you just legalized all manner of socially unaccepted sexual acts. Part of the job of being a judge is weighing the consequences and tailoring judgements to the narrow interests of the case. This ruling was deliberately, or just stupidly, over-broad and totally devoid of grounding in precedent. Kennedy threw stare decisis out the window.

I'm using a broader umbrella to interpret it, which is a minority rights umbrella.

You can use whatever umbrella you want. You can use a tent if you want. But it's just your (uninformed) opinion, and it don't mean squat.

Derek
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News