Texas GOP: criminalize gay marriage and ban sodomy, outlaw strip clubs and porn

[Gonz]

one would think that our local constitutional scholars would at least understand that many of the freedoms in the constitution are there to protect the rights of the individual vs. the tyranny of a majority

We're talking two seperate issues here.

The feds do not have the authority to pull this off. Texas, the state, may or may not. Cities within the state most certainly do. At issue is, whether Texas too big to claim community standards, which has been ruled on by the larger courts.

Miller v. California

Porn is not protected free speech. Is it the locality/state/national place to protect not only observers of porn from themselves (I think not) or whether to protect the actors from each other. Given the prevalence of STD's, that is a possibility. Back to general welfare/health & safety.

Marriage is not a right. We've got multi-page threads about that one.

Sodomy. The SCotUS ruled on this (Lawrence v. Texas). They stated that sodomy was a protected act under the 14th. I'd like to see what the Texas legislators are doing to change that ruling.

Strip clubs....again, community standards. Although, if the state regulates other business, they may be able to outlaw this business.

However, there is not one single Texas citizen who is forced to reside in Texas.

Yes, it's dumb (save the marriage part) but if you don't like it, don't go there.

 

[Gonz]

The Founding Fathers never intended to legislate morality, notice that the choices of laws that were put in place were intended to support individual freedom and prevent the oppression and aggression of one group on another.

You might be surprised to read the Massachusetts constitution.

 

[spike]

all freedoms interfere with the freedom of others, unless you live alone in the wilderness.

No they don't. If you get a BJ from your wife who's freedom are you interfering with?

 

[spike]

Porn is not protected free speech. Is it the locality/state/national place to protect not only observers of porn from themselves (I think not) or whether to protect the actors from each other. Given the prevalence of STD's, that is a possibility. Back to general welfare/health & safety.

So you'd probably use the same reasoning to justify banning smoking, non use of seat belts, KFC, trans-fat, legislating food and generally turning things over to a nanny state right?

I'm going to disagree. I don't like the nanny state.

Marriage is not a right. We've got multi-page threads about that one.

Since smoking, trans-fats, KFC, and not using seat belts are not rights you'd probably use this argument to justify banning these things too under a nanny state.

Yes, it's dumb (save the marriage part) but if you don't like it, don't go there.

The marriage part could possibly be the dumbest part. That part is pure irrational bigotry.

 

[catocom]

No they don't. If you get a BJ from your wife who's freedom are you interfering with?

um, your wife's.

 

[Gonz]

There's the old spike we all know. I knew you were in there somewhere.

 

[2minkey]

We're talking two seperate issues here.

1. The feds do not have the authority to pull this off. Texas, the state, may or may not. Cities within the state most certainly do. At issue is, whether Texas too big to claim community standards, which has been ruled on by the larger courts.

Miller v. California

2. Porn is not protected free speech. Is it the locality/state/national place to protect not only observers of porn from themselves (I think not) or whether to protect the actors from each other. Given the prevalence of STD's, that is a possibility. Back to general welfare/health & safety.

3. Marriage is not a right. We've got multi-page threads about that one.

4. Sodomy. The SCotUS ruled on this (Lawrence v. Texas). They stated that sodomy was a protected act under the 14th. I'd like to see what the Texas legislators are doing to change that ruling.

5. Strip clubs....again, community standards. Although, if the state regulates other business, they may be able to outlaw this business.

However, there is not one single Texas citizen who is forced to reside in Texas.

6. Yes, it's dumb (save the marriage part) but if you don't like it, don't go there.

1. texas can trample rights protected by the constitution?
2. okay.
3. i don't care about multi-page threads. marriage to me falls into pursuit of happiness. anyone trying to tell people who they may or may not marry is an ass goblin.
4. good. stay out of my bedroom.
5. okay.
6. there's absolutely no possibility of me living in texas.

in any case, whatever is playing out in the courts, this texas shuff very much violates the spirit of the constitution in shitting on individuals in favor of a dumb majority.

 

[2minkey]

all freedoms interfere with the freedom of others, unless you live alone in the wilderness.

really? what i do in my bedroom impacts you how?

 

[catocom]

It probably won't impact me, directly at least, but it will someone.
(if you aren't alone in there)

 

[valkyrie]

<snippety snip>
However, there is not one single Texas citizen who is forced to reside in Texas.

Yes, it's dumb (save the marriage part) but if you don't like it, don't go there.

I already live here. You are saying that if those of us who do not want to live under the tyranny of the majority we are to pack up our belongings, leave our jobs and neighbors and migrate to someplace else to be refugees? That's ridiculous. And what if the trend of that state that we move to is to set up laws to alter or eliminate the rights of refugees? According to your argument it's OK. Then it's even worse.

There were laws in the past that made attempts to determine who was allowed to marry (based on skin color, for example) and these were shot down in court. There were laws in the past that attempted to close down pornography and they also were shot down in court.

These types of laws are not what the Founding Father's had in mind. They were concerned over the tyranny of the majority over the minority. They wanted certain rights protected across the board, for everyone, and they wanted to set up laws that eliminated oppression and aggression of one group against another.

 

[valkyrie]

It probably won't impact me, directly at least, but it will someone.
(if you aren't alone in there)

If two adults both choose to have buttsecks then it only affects the 2 people having the buttsecks. Both are consenting.

 

[2minkey]

nice try cato. nice try.

 

[catocom]

If two adults both choose to have buttsecks then it only affects the 2 people having the buttsecks. Both are consenting.

Ah, there's the rub.

"I live under certain rule by choice, thus I am free."

 

[catocom]

nice try cato. nice try.

basics

 

[spike]

um, your wife's.

Not unless you force her to do it against her will.

 

[spike]

There's the old spike we all know. I knew you were in there somewhere.

You mean pointing out that you're fine with a nanny state?

 

[catocom]

Not unless you force her to do it against her will.

ok, well, what if she doesn't wanna do it...?
Can you call somebody else?
Can she, if you don't want to participate?

 

[spike]

ok, well, what if she doesn't wanna do it...?

No, consent between two adults.

Can you call somebody else?

Depends on what you agreed to in your relationship. Some people have open relationships.

Can she, if you don't want to participate?

No, consent between two adults.

 

[catocom]

No, consent between two adults.

Depends on what you agreed to in your relationship. Some people have open relationships.

No, consent between two adults.

so...

Ah, there's the rub.

"I live under certain rule by choice, thus I am free."

 

[spike]

Right, so if someone makes the choice to go to a strip club, marry someone of the same sex, look at porn or enjoy some oral sex with their wife that their choice. People who aren't into that sort of thing can choose not to and not force their choices on everyone else.

That's taking away personal freedom.