Supreme Court to Decide on Texas Sodomy Law

[Stravo]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/891114_asp.htm?0cv=CB20


Essentially the story is about the court case BUT the one detail that just freaks me out is that the homosexual couple were arrested IN THEIR BEDROOM. So much for the argument that "So what? The law's outdated no one in their right mind would arrest someone in theior home for this."

Here's to hoping that the Court finally declares this outdated and ridiculous. However it should be noted that the Court heard a similair argument 12 years ago and upheld the law.

However as many legal scholars know, if the court decides to hear a case that was already decided by a previous Supreme Court the odds are it's because they intend to overturn. The Supreme Court rarely hears cases to simply affirm a ruling they made earlier.

[RogueIce]

Essentially the story is about the court case BUT the one detail that just freaks me out is that the homosexual couple were arrested IN THEIR BEDROOM. So much for the argument that "So what? The law's outdated no one in their right mind would arrest someone in theior home for this."

Well, that was a shocker... No sarcasm intended... I really AM shocked they got arrested for it!

Here's to hoping that the Court finally declares this outdated and ridiculous. However it should be noted that the Court heard a similair argument 12 years ago and upheld the law.

However as many legal scholars know, if the court decides to hear a case that was already decided by a previous Supreme Court the odds are it's because they intend to overturn. The Supreme Court rarely hears cases to simply affirm a ruling they made earlier.

Hear hear! Why should they get to ditact what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom?

And if it is still a law, "More Tales From the City" (has some person's name in front of it, can't remember off hand) is illegal in Texas.

[haas mark]

Since I didn't see it in there.. how did the police get in the house? And what about this little thing we call the Privacy Act?

[Darth Wong]

America, home of the free ... as long as you're not gay, in which case we'll lock you up and kick the shit out of you.

[haas mark]

America, home of the free ... as long as you're not gay, in which case we'll lock you up and kick the shit out of you.

Not so, everywhere, thankfully... But Texas is... Texas.. Yet another reason to hate the state, though.

[Ender]

If they are going to try and enforce it like that, it needs to go. But otherwise I'd like to see it stay because it could be used in the same way cohabitation laws have been used: To nail someone who wiggled free on some other charge. I remember reading once about some deadbeat dad who managed to get off scott free by some loophole despite being guilty as sin, until the prosecutor used the states archaeic "no single men and women living together" law to toss his ass in jail for living with his new girlfriend.

Arresting people for homosexual acts I don't hold with. But using it to nail some sleazeball to the wall I can see.

[haas mark]

If they are going to try and enforce it like that, it needs to go. But otherwise I'd like to see it stay because it could be used in the same way cohabitation laws have been used: To nail someone who wiggled free on some other charge. I remember reading once about some deadbeat dad who managed to get off scott free by some loophole despite being guilty as sin, until the prosecutor used the states archaeic "no single men and women living together" law to toss his ass in jail for living with his new girlfriend.

Arresting people for homosexual acts I don't hold with. But using it to nail some sleazeball to the wall I can see.

Okay, hold on. Then in other words, for cohabitation laws... I don't understand this completely, but really, with that logic, if I am correct in my thinking, you're basically forcing gays to live separately.. Cohabitation means living together before marriage, etc., etc... but since gays can't marry, you're basically saying that gays can't live together and have sex. They can have sex, but not live in the same household........ hmm... yeah, seems justifiable to me..

[Darth Wong]

If they are going to try and enforce it like that, it needs to go. But otherwise I'd like to see it stay because it could be used in the same way cohabitation laws have been used: To nail someone who wiggled free on some other charge.

Keep an unprincipled law which has no basis in human rights or the constitution, just because that way, the police have a blank cheque to hurt people if they can't get them through the legitimate courts? Trust the authorities never to misuse the limitless power granted to them with a blank-cheque law? Are you out of your fucking mind?

[Ender]

If they are going to try and enforce it like that, it needs to go. But otherwise I'd like to see it stay because it could be used in the same way cohabitation laws have been used: To nail someone who wiggled free on some other charge. I remember reading once about some deadbeat dad who managed to get off scott free by some loophole despite being guilty as sin, until the prosecutor used the states archaeic "no single men and women living together" law to toss his ass in jail for living with his new girlfriend.

Arresting people for homosexual acts I don't hold with. But using it to nail some sleazeball to the wall I can see.

Okay, hold on. Then in other words, for cohabitation laws... I don't understand this completely, but really, with that logic, if I am correct in my thinking, you're basically forcing gays to live separately.. Cohabitation means living together before marriage, etc., etc... but since gays can't marry, you're basically saying that gays can't live together and have sex. They can have sex, but not live in the same household........ hmm... yeah, seems justifiable to me..

No, you don't understand me at all. I brought up cohabitation as totally seperate in an example.

[haas mark]

No, you don't understand me at all. I brought up cohabitation as totally seperate in an example.

Okay, then I misunderstood. My apologies.

[Ender]

Keep an unprincipled law which has no basis in human rights or the constitution, just because that way, the police have a blank cheque to hurt people if they can't get them through the legitimate courts? Trust the authorities never to misuse the limitless power granted to them with a blank-cheque law? Are you out of your fucking mind?

It has worked for the UCMJ for however long.

[Alyeska]

Since I didn't see it in there.. how did the police get in the house? And what about this little thing we call the Privacy Act?

Actually the Constitution does not give privacy to individuals. However several states have given it. In Montana Heterosexuals have a right to privacy, though Homosexuals do not.

Now this Texas case is VERY interesting. The Police got a top on a crime going down and they went to the WRONG address. They bust down the door and find two men having anal sex. Lets forget the fact anal sex is legal for heterosexual couples. In Texas you need a warrent to search peoples residence for crimes. They broke down the wrong door. Yet they could charge them on a crime because technically homosexuals do not have privacy in Texas either. That means any crimes Homosexuals comit and are caught accidently without use of a warrent, they can be charged and the evidence can not be tossed out.

So not only is Texas being stupid and charging them for something that is legal for hetero couples, but they are denying privacy based on sexual preference. Well the Constitution does have a little something known as Equal Protection Under the Law. The Supreme Court has no choice but to toss out the conviction of these men. In turn that will invalidate the Texas law and enforcement of the law in the future will be impossible.

[Frank Hipper]

Keep an unprincipled law which has no basis in human rights or the constitution, just because that way, the police have a blank cheque to hurt people if they can't get them through the legitimate courts? Trust the authorities never to misuse the limitless power granted to them with a blank-cheque law? Are you out of your fucking mind?

It has worked for the UCMJ for however long.

That's more of a temptation for the unscrupulous than I'd like to see.
And could you provide a hypothetical situation as to how an anti-sodomy law could be useful in prosecuting those who use loopholes?

[Ender]

And could you provide a hypothetical situation as to how an anti-sodomy law could be useful in prosecuting those who use loopholes?

I provided on using cohabitation above, I suppose you could just substitute the antisodemy law there.

[jegs2]

Sodomy laws? Only thing I'd have against sodomy is if a pair of folks were doing it in public, but then I'd say the same of normal sexual intercourse -- "Get a room!"

[Ender]

Another posibility is using it to really hammer people you already have going down. IE Pedophile Priests, you've got them on the pedophile charges, might as well make sure those fuckers don't get out of the slammer anytime soon.

[Frank Hipper]

Another posibility is using it to really hammer people you already have going down. IE Pedophile Priests, you've got them on the pedophile charges, might as well make sure those fuckers don't get out of the slammer anytime soon.

Smells of Slippery Slope, it does. Where would you draw the line? I sure as fuck would not trust the athorities to "simply" stay their hand in using this to generate stiffer sentencing. Convictions=success to DAs, and having that sword hanging over my head is not something conducive to a good night's sleep.

[Darth Wong]

Ender, by the logic you're using (an unjust law which violates human rights is OK if it can be used judiciously in order to punish people the police really don't like), one could just as easily support a law making it illegal to shave your beard. After all, they can use it to really punish criminals that they don't like, right?

[Ender]

Another posibility is using it to really hammer people you already have going down. IE Pedophile Priests, you've got them on the pedophile charges, might as well make sure those fuckers don't get out of the slammer anytime soon.

Smells of Slippery Slope, it does. Where would you draw the line? I sure as fuck would not trust the athorities to "simply" stay their hand in using this to generate stiffer sentencing. Convictions=success to DAs, and having that sword hanging over my head is not something conducive to a good night's sleep.

I suppose it comes down to personel opinion then. Personelly, I do have enough faith in the system still to be comfortable, especially since using such a charge inappropriately would bring the ACLU and others down on the DA like a ton of bricks.

Convictions are good, but one big controversy is far worse the 100 convictions.

[Stravo]

Another posibility is using it to really hammer people you already have going down. IE Pedophile Priests, you've got them on the pedophile charges, might as well make sure those fuckers don't get out of the slammer anytime soon.

Smells of Slippery Slope, it does. Where would you draw the line? I sure as fuck would not trust the athorities to "simply" stay their hand in using this to generate stiffer sentencing. Convictions=success to DAs, and having that sword hanging over my head is not something conducive to a good night's sleep.

I suppose it comes down to personel opinion then. Personelly, I do have enough faith in the system still to be comfortable, especially since using such a charge inappropriately would bring the ACLU and others down on the DA like a ton of bricks.

Convictions are good, but one big controversy is far worse the 100 convictions.

So its OK to subject an innocent person to the stress and hardship (both emotional AND financial) of defending themsleves at trial in order to have access to that unjust law? The ACLU MIGHT get involved, then again they might not and the ACLU COULD lose the case thus putting the innocent person in jail. But that's OK by your view so we can find some way to get deadbeats. Come on....

[Ender]

Ender, by the logic you're using (an unjust law which violates human rights is OK if it can be used judiciously in order to punish people the police really don't like), one could just as easily support a law making it illegal to shave your beard. After all, they can use it to really punish criminals that they don't like, right?

I thought Exaggeration to extremes was a logical fallacy of some kind.

[Ender]

So its OK to subject an innocent person to the stress and hardship (both emotional AND financial) of defending themsleves at trial in order to have access to that unjust law?

I'm sorry, but where did I say that? I said I trust the DA to do the right thing and not abuse it. I never once said that innocent people should be put through trial and have to hope that a civil rights group defends them.

[RedImperator]

Ender, you can't possibly be serious. Keeping an unjust and unconstitutional (in spirit in not in letter) on the books in order to nail people who've escaped judgement for other crimes spits in the face of the rule of law. If you can't get somebody on a just law, conduct a better investigation next time.

[Durandal]

Ender, by the logic you're using (an unjust law which violates human rights is OK if it can be used judiciously in order to punish people the police really don't like), one could just as easily support a law making it illegal to shave your beard. After all, they can use it to really punish criminals that they don't like, right?

I thought Exaggeration to extremes was a logical fallacy of some kind.

Explain how that's an extreme. Your reasoning that keeping an unjust law around because we could use it to prosecute criminals who got off of another charge defies any sort of derogatory adjective or superlative I can come up with.

It discriminates against homosexuals, because they're the only criminals who would be eligible for being charged with this. If a straight guy gets off, he's scott-free, and your idiotic idea of keeping a stupid law around does nothing to keep him off the streets.

[Stravo]

do have enough faith in the system still to be comfortable, especially since using such a charge inappropriately would bring the ACLU and others down on the DA like a ton of bricks.

NO. You said that the threat of the ACLU would keep the DA honest. I worked a suimmer in the Criminal courts. DA's are usually either political appointees that have freinds in the higher ups and are using it as a stepping stone to something else thus could care less except for their "conviction rate" and those true believer crusaders. NOW would you REALLY want your fate in the hands of civil servants or would you rather not have to make that decsioin at all JUST for having access to a law that makes no fucking sense??