NeedToUseYou
Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005 From: None of your business Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cjan quote:
Sodomy Ron Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's decision on the Lawrence v. Texas case in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website he wrote "Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."[199] Ron Paul's position seems to be that states' rights to legislate private, adult sexual conduct supercedes equal protection for all under the U.S. Constitution. This opens the door for local legislation denying fair housing, job protection, adoption rights, etc. based on sexual preference. Again you are arguing something completely different, this is a states rights versus federal rights issue, it has little to do with sodomy. He even states that sodomy are laws are ridiculous in your quote, its' the question of do they actually have the authority to do what they are doing that is at question. Anyway, you started by saying he's anti-gay.The objections are based on state versus federal authority in such regards. That is what he is talking about, not personal approval or disdain for a law, but the legal framework from an intellectual level, whether it was about sodomy or pig fucking, or whatever, that wouldn't matter, because it is about states rights versus federal rights in that context. The marriage thing was about what is marriage, is it a religious concept or a contractual one, and where is that line drawn, or whether their should be a complete seperation, or an offered alternative. Do you get it now. It's not about gay people it's about the legal framework. You are simply latching on the emotion of it, apparently, and not seeing the bigger picture. The question is do they(federal) have the right, not do I agree with the specific law(sodomy). Anyway, you can believe what you want but everything presented so far, shows zero indications of being "anti-gay" as you said he was.
|