Skip to main content

View Diary: America is Pro-Choice, Any Questions? (194 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Griswold (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Judge Moonbox

    And the basis of Lawrence---let's throw the queers in jail too!!!

    (then again, we're broken people engaging in evil, so we deserve jailing.)

    I am a revolting homosexual!

    by MAJeff on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:19:42 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Right, because I argue my point (0+ / 0-)

      out of an explicit hatred of homosexuals.

      Please, get over yourself. This is a question of Federal authority versus state authority, and judicial activism with respect to the decisions of the SCOTUS over the last century or so. Some people may argue their case based upon a moral system, but I don't - I'm very wary of a Supreme Court which views the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a treasure hunt for new rights, 'if we can just fit the pieces together correctly.' That's a VERY dangerous way of doing business, and it pretty much makes the structure of our government moot.

      •  No, I won't get over myself (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Judge Moonbox

        The prospect of prison for making love is sort of serious to a few of us.

        I am a revolting homosexual!

        by MAJeff on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:40:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  At issue here is not prison, (0+ / 0-)

          but the role of the courts in our governmental structure. Arguing, for instance, that Griswold is bad case law is not the same as arguing that contraceptive usage ought to be legally banned. Nor is arguing that Roe is bad case law the same as arguing that abortions should always be illegal. Nor is arguing that Lawrence is bad case law the same as arguing that sodomites ought to be imprisoned.

          It all goes back to what a 'flexible' view of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights allows the courts to do. When you give the courts absolute ability to conjure interpretation from virtually nowhere without any sort of codification, you give that body a pretty awesome power to make changes which are very difficult, if not impossible, to overturn. The functionality and legitimacy of our legal system is the center of this discussion - not sex.

          •  sodomites, eh? (0+ / 0-)

            I am a revolting homosexual!

            by MAJeff on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:20:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's the technical term for it (0+ / 0-)

              Or 'practicing homosexuals' if you wish. I believe Sodomy is the 'Webster's dictionary' definition for the practice of homosexual sex - making practitioners 'sodomites.'

              The point here isn't disrespect, and if you feel disrespected I apologize. This doesn't tend to be the most politically sensitive forum, though, so I thought I'd speak colloquially. Really don't see the need to be PC . . .

            •  I stand corrected (0+ / 0-)

              Did a little research and found that sodomy is not the 'technical term for it' as I had believed to be true. It doesn't really lend any insight to the discussion at hand - my point is a legal one, not a moral one. "Sodomites" just seemed a little more concise than "People who engage in anal sex," since colloquially they are pretty much synonymous. Apologies for the confusion - but let's not derail the discussion simply due to semantics.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site