Tolerance is for others

[bungrider]

Quote from Pabst:

I would consider myself a conservative, but I'd rather err on the side of libertarianism. While I'm pro-life and was never thrilled that Roe vs. Wade took the merits of the abortion battle out of the statehouse and mandated it into Federal law, on balance, I would still prefer a high court that strikes down laws than one that upholds them.

Very well said.

I think that the senator's point was basically that you can't pick and choose which laws to enforce. If the state isn't going to prosecute for gay sex, then it shouldn't prosecute other sodomy law violations. But I could be wrong since I don't know much about this.

As for the whole reaction to this remark on the part of the "liberals," I think that it is more a symptom of people being sick and tired of having "conservatives" like strom and newt (whose pictures you might find next to the dictionary entry for "hypocrite") telling them how they should behave. The problem is that the conservatives argue all along that they want the government out of their lives, but, probably to get voters, they have this whole "morality" campaign, and people are getting pretty sick of it.

W's whole routine comes to mind..."...cocaine and drunk driving are bad when you do it, but it's OK for me because I'm a good guy and deep down I love Jesus..."

obviously I'm exaggerating a wee bit, but this is the facade that the republican party is really working hard to project...

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from alfonso:




I think you'd find many liberals would argue that homosexuality isn't a "choice"; that it's genetic, it's an inherent part of you, that you can no more choose to be homosexual than choose to be Chinese. I'm not sure that this is actually the case, and from what I've read, it certainly hasn't proven (scientifically), but it is the position of many liberals.If it was true, that would obviously make it different to polygamy etc.

In any case, you might be careful of what you wish AAA, it just might come true; maybe the other forms of sexual activity (which I'm sure that you, a Republican, disapprove of) might become legal fare.

Despite millioms of dollars of research, the gay gene hypothesis has never been proved. It sounds dubious to me, just on the basis of there being so many bisexuals and people who decide in midlife that they are gay or gays who turn straight. No doubt some have powerful attractions that way, but we simply don't know why.

I'm afraid you somehow misunderstood my posts. I'm not in favor of the Court overturning this law. I wouldn't vote for it, if I were a legislator, but I don't think there is anything in the Constitution that prevents a state from enacting it. That point seems to be missed by 99% of the public. The Supreme Court is not some sort of national legislature that decides what is a good idea, what is good policy and what is not. That role is reserved for each state. The Court can only overturn laws that infringe on the US Constitution.

I also don't like having these archaic laws around that are not enforced, until it becomes convenient for the police to use them to nail someone they couldn't get otherwise or who the DA decides to go after for some reason. But that is again a matter for the state to decide. The way the Founders set up our system was if you find this Texas law so odious, well, you are free to move somewwhere else.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Pabst:

I would consider myself a conservative, but I'd rather err on the side of libertarianism. While I'm pro-life and was never thrilled that Roe vs. Wade took the merits of the abortion battle out of the statehouse and mandated it into Federal law, on balance, I would still prefer a high court that strikes down laws than one that upholds them.

I tend to agree that less law and regulation is preferable to more, but the issue is who makes the decision. No doubt legislatures are made up of hack politicians who will enact whatever popular passion carries the day, and there is a real danger of tyranny by the majority. However, on balance I think the greater danger lies in an unelected judiciary taking on powers that were never envisioned by Article Three of the Constitution. Then we truly are in the realm of a government of men not of law.

One clearly foreseeable outcome of the judiciary taking on a political decisionmaking role is now apparent. We cannot get judges confirmed. Since the federal courts now are prepared to decide all sorts of hot button policy issues, it has become crucial for each side to stack the bench with judges who will vote "their" way. The normal considerations that went into judicial selection are out the window and completely overridden by concerns about the nominees' positions on a litany of issues.

 

[Madison]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

However, on balance I think the greater danger lies in an unelected judiciary taking on powers that were never envisioned by Article Three of the Constitution. Then we truly are in the realm of a government of men not of law.

without a doubt. and the blame rests between the power-drunk judges that knowingly overstep their bounds and a public that is too ignorant to know any better.

 

[bungrider]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I also don't like having these archaic laws around that are not enforced, until it becomes convenient for the police to use them to nail someone they couldn't get otherwise or who the DA decides to go after for some reason.

amen to that.

millions of dollars to find a "gay gene" is meaningless. regardless of whether or not being gay is genetic, it is something that is none of the state's business. period. i don't care what people think the cause of being gay or straight is. the fact is that there have been gay people since the beginning of time and if somebody has a problem with that, then they need to go to therapy and find out why they have a problem with that.

it's been my observation that people who gay bash have some serious personal issues with their own sexuality. if you're kinda gay and you aren't comfortable with that, then the thing to do is go around attacking other gay people, just to show everyone how gay you aren't...i see this all the time with people. everybody seems to know "that guy" who's like 35, never been married, no serious girlfriend, loves porn, and constantly makes anti-gay remarks to other guys just to show how un-gay he is...

 

[aphexcoil]

Quote from bungrider:

everybody seems to know "that guy" who's like 35, never been married, no serious girlfriend, loves porn, and constantly makes anti-gay remarks to other guys just to show how un-gay he is...

There's no need to attack Optional777 like that ...