Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    What's next??? Will the goverment be telling us what time to go
    to bed at night???? Might as well, they're telling us what we can
    do when we get there. Good thing i bought a queen sized bed, don'tt
    know if uncle sam could have fit in my old one.
    

    Next thing you know they'll outlaw "party-size" beds.  (king)
    
    :-)
    
    - M

    This ruling has upset me greatly.  I have always felt (naively,
    it turns out) that the Supreme Court is immune from the biases
    and outright craziness that has so often crept into ruling in
    lower courts.  Not so, apparently, because this decision is the
    most biased, hypocritical, discriminatory thing I have seen in
    a long, long time.  I'm still seething about it.  Anyone else?

    The major thing that bothers me about such laws, is that since they
    are seldom enforced, when they are enforced it is because the
    'offender(s)' are unpopular with the powers that be for some other
    reason.
    
    There is a discussion going on in several USENET newsgroups on this
    topic.  Someone there suggested that everyone who ever committed
    sodomy in Georgia (which has each offense punishable by a 20 year
    jail term!) turn themselves in, and see what they do with 90 percent
    of the population (by most surveys) in jail.
    
    Kathleen

    I think the last line of the previous reply, "our tax dollars at work",
    is what bothers me most about this.  The ruling itself is so totally
    ridiculous it's hard to even discuss it seriously.  But the fact that
    our public servants spend hundreds of thousands (millions?) of our tax
    dollars addressing issues like bedroom activities between consenting
    adults -- well, it's things like this that make otherwise honest
    citizens want to cheat the IRS out of anything and everything they can
    get away with and feel no conscience pangs whatsoever!
    
    						Pat

    
    You know, I find it kind of ironic that we in the U.S. used to make
    a big deal about how the men who ran the Soviet Union were all about
    three strides from the grave, when we have exactly the same situation
    here.                                             
    
    The median age on the Supreme Court is in the mid seventies, I believe,
    and even the most liberal among them grew more conservative as they
    spent a lot of time there.
    
    As for the ruling, the point about the Court deciding nothing more
    than the constitutionality of the law is a good one, although many
    of the extreme conservatives will doubtless hail it as a step back
    on the road to morality, and it will probably go down as another
    Supreme Court opinion that didn't accomplish anything but leave
    enough ambiguity for lawyers to make money off of.
    
    It still makes me pretty angry.
    
    Dave W.

    My mother always said not to talk with my mouth full.

>>< Note 20.6 by LATOUR::RASPUZZI "Michael Raspuzzi" >
>>                      -< a fifth of a dime (maybe less) >-
    
    How stupid of of me to believe that the policy of this conference
    got changed!
    
- Vikas

    Re:  .8 and .9
    
    You have apparently missed the major point of the debate.
    
    The Supreme Court did *NOT* simply decide the law, they went several
    miles (perhaps Astronomical Units) past the law.  The majority decision
    stated specifically among other things: "... there is no Constitutional
    right for Homosexuals to engage in sodomy ...".
    
    That is the main reason that Gay Rights groups are so upset.  The
    decsison does apply (supposedly equally) to heterosexuals, but guess
    who's going to take it in the ear on this one???
    
    This is not the end of the matter, Reagan's nominees to the Court
    are likely to go much further, and if one of the liberal members
    has to resign or dies -- it will all be over but the shouting.
    
    Look out for your liberties - they're all we've got.
    
    dirk

    	Before we all go running off to FORUM for a point/counterpoint on
    how the government is continuing to encroach on human rights, I would
    like to examine exactly what this ridiculous ruling is refering to.

    	There seem to be three different definitions for sodomy given in
    both the Webster's and the American Heritage dictionaries:

    1.	Anal copulation of one male with another.
    2.	Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
    3.	Any copulation with an animal.

    	According to this breakdown, I can already see a loop-hole (no
    pun intended) in these definitions: what about oral copulation between
    members of the same sex?  Or even (imagine if you will) anal copulation
    of one FEMALE with another?  And what happens when fido from next door
    starts humping your leg?

    						-DAV0

    Re: -1.
    
    The whole point of contention here is not **WHAT** is being done,
    or by whom; but rather of what concern is it to anyone else - either
    the government or a private individual.
    
    I (albeit reluctantly) give the government the right to decide that
    these actions done in public may be offensive, but I damn well will
    not allow them (whoever *they* are) to decide what I or anyone else
    do in private.
    
    It doesn't matter who else commits these acts, or even how many
    others do them.  The only point is that as long as it is being done
    in private, and it involves no coertion, and most importantly involves
    only adults,  it aint any of your business no matter how much you
    may deplore those actions.  If people object, then they should refrain
    for themselves, but they do not have the right (read arrogance)
    to tell anyone else what they may or may not do.
    
    Dirk

   Well, the *very* Rev. Jerry Falwell said that even though he personally
    is against this act, married couples are protected from this law
    by "the sanctity of the marriage vows"....  I guess this means we
    married people can heave a sigh of relief?    :-)
    

RE: .12

>    You have apparently missed the major point of the debate.
>    
>    The Supreme Court did *NOT* simply decide the law, they went several
>    miles (perhaps Astronomical Units) past the law.  The majority decision
>    stated specifically among other things: "... there is no Constitutional
>    right for Homosexuals to engage in sodomy ...".

What is really being missed here is that there's the "forgotten Ninth" 
Amendment to the Constitution that states that rights not specifically 
identified in the Constitution "can not be abridged" (if someone's got a copy, 
please post the text; my memory's poor on the exact wording).  I believe one of 
the dissenting justices brought this out, although no one seems to be 
listening.

What it looks like is if it ain't in the Constitution, you don't have the 
right.  Absolutely abrogates the Ninth Amendment, in my ignorant opinion.

Where are all our legal scholars out there?  Have I misinterpreted this?

    Re .18
    
      As I remember from History 102 years back, the Ninth Amendment
    was written because people (James Madison I think) were afraid that
    states would not be allowed to give people extra rights if they
    were not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The Ninth and Tenth
    Amendments were ment to protect states from having their rights
    taken by the U.S Congress.
    
      It is more the case now that the U.S. goverment protects private
    citizens from having their rights taken away by the States. That
    is something that the founding fathers never thought of. It has
    little to do with the 9th amendment.
    
      In an interesting development, it turns out that White did not
    have a majority after all. There were only 4 votes saying that
    federal rights were not involved. L. Powell concured with the
    majority only because the case was brought to the court in a civil
    case and not a criminal case. If a criminal case is involved, things
    may turn out differently.
    
      George

RE: .12

>    The Supreme Court did *NOT* simply decide the law, they went several
>    miles (perhaps Astronomical Units) past the law.


I do not understand what the furor is all about. The supreme court
is simply excercising their (constitutionally guarranteed?) freedom
to deprive us of ours  :-).

    "...is simply excercising their (constitutionally guarranteed?) freedom
    to deprive us of ours  :-)."
    
    Judicial review is actually not mentioned in the constitution.
    
    - M 

    
    This law is so stupid that it NEVER stopped me from doing anything
    I enjoyed!
    
    

    I AGREE KATHLEEN.... MAYBE WE'LL GET LUCKY THOUGH AND THEY'LL PUT
    US ALL IN THE SAME CELL!

    This is a new reply to a very old note, but an interesting scenario
    occurred to me recently during a conversation with a friend about sex
    legislation etc.  It's very far fetched and probably would never, never
    happen, but it's still sort of interesting to speculate. 
    
    Here's the scenario.  A married couple, both of whom work for Digital,
    are told they are being transferred to another location.  Their
    current jobs have disappeared due to a reorganization, and this
    is one of those rare "mandatory" transfers in Digital.  They refuse
    on the grounds that the state they have been asked to move to has
    sodomy laws that violate their personal beliefs.  This is a sincere
    objection on their part, not an attempt to fabricate an excuse so
    they don't have to move.
    
    What do you think Digital would do in such a case?
    
    Assume Digital told them they had to move anyway or leave the company.
    What do you think the courts would say if the couple then sued for
    {whatever_you'd_sue_for_in_a_case_like_this}?
    
    I know it's an off-the-wall speculation, but I honestly couldn't
    come up with an answer I was relatively sure of.  What does everyone
    else think?
    
    							Pat

    I have only heard once or twice on the radio about this paticular
   subject. I laughed all the way up to the previous note! Call me stupid,
    but has there ever been two (or more)consenting adults in the privacy
    of there own home ARRESTED,FINED or SERVED TIME for this act? And
    if so, what was the evidence?
    					Mark in Mass...
    
         
      
    

    I have an *extremely* fuzzy memory of an incident occurring
    in a southern state (Georgia? Alabama?) sometime during the
    last few years, where a policeman had a warrant to enter a
    home for something unrelated, and surprised a gay couple in
    dishabille.  He arrested the two men on charges of sodomy or
    homosexual acts or something.  I don't remember what the
    final ruling was, but it seems to me it did get up to the
    Supreme Court.  Can someone fill in my blank spots?

    -- Linda

    It was Georgia.  It did go to the Supreme Court which, I believe,
    upheld the Georgia law.  They didn't serve time, but I don't remember
    exactly what happened after that.  Like Linda, my memory is hazy
    and lazy.

My reply -- better late than never?

It was the Hardwick case.  A heterosexual couple later tried to get themselves
arrested for sodomy, because the law in Georgia does not specify that 
heterosexuals are exempt from that law, but it was thrown out and they were
let go.  It was thrown out *because* they are heterosexual.

         Carol

    I haven't read all these replies...
    
    but I did hear about the case.  It was because the man inadvertantly
    let slip (while being tried in court) that he had oral sex with
    his wife or she with him...I forget.  So they busted him.
    
    The issue becomes the privacy issue.  Does the court have the right
    to make laws governing what adults do with their privates?
    
    Or homosexuals for that matter.  I think its a little ridiculus
    for such a ruling to exist.  But this IS america (small 'a').
    

    inre .32
    
    
    say what?
    

    re .33
    
    Me too!
    
    Skip

    
    RE .32
    
    My interpretation was....loosely....
    
    God gave us Laws. They cover everything that matters.
    As they didn't specifically say "Thou shalt not commit sodomy" then
    we should mind our own business about this matter and use our
    energy more usfully following the Laws as stated.
    
    

    re: .35
    
    I'm not sure I agree that the Ten Commandments "cover everything that
    matters.", but the word "sodomy" comes from "Sodom", a city in ancient
    Palestine which, according to the Bible, was destroyed by God.
    
       - Larry

    Yes but Sodom was not destroyed for sodomy, but for inhospitality
    to strangers, in this case, angels.
    
    Bonnie

    in re .38
    
    I really don't agree with you. Many people who vote for anti sodomy
    laws are conservatively religious and believe that God condems
    homosexuality.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Deuteronomy is no longer politically correct...

    in re .44
    
    my earlier comments about who votes for such laws are also not
    my personal beliefs but for informational pruposes only.
    
    Bonnie

    I though Sodom was destroyed for it's high degree of sin and it's
    peoples refusing to live by "God's Law".  
    
    Goes to show what I know I guess...
    
    Skip

    Nah.  Its people were destroyed for being stupid enough to build
    on an active geological fault.
    
    						Ann B.

    It is more or less common folk lore that Sodom was destroyed for
    immorality. However, a careful reading of the actual story indicates
    other wise.
    
    BJ

    Just another example of someone claiming that they "know" what is right
    and everyone who doesn't agree with them are "wrong."  Interpretation
    is neither right nor wrong, it just _is_.  I don't claim ownership of
    the Bible.  I wish others wouldn't.
    
    >>>Ken

    Rereading this string is a bit weird..
    
    notes .32, .38, .40, .41 and .42 (all of which I presume were written
    by the same author) have been deleted by the authors...leaving
    the replies hanging with no reference.
    
    BJ

Re .39:
    
>    I really don't agree with you. Many people who vote for anti sodomy
>    laws are conservatively religious and believe that God condems
>    homosexuality.

This illustrates something that bothers me about some religious belief. If 'my'
god disapproves of a practise which 'your' god allows, why should I try to
make laws to enforce this disapproval? If I really believe in my god, surely
that includes believing that he is capable of making his own feelings known,
either immediately (as in the common view of Sodom's fate) or later (when
you arrive in the nether regions - no pun intended!).

If, on the other hand, I believe that it is my duty to convert you to my
religion (or at least to try), shouldn't I be doing something a bit more
meaningful than producing laws which aren't even along the old-fashioned lines
of "everyone must be a believer in <whatever>", but merely concentrate on
individual consequences of that belief?

I don't have a religion, and I get annoyed with restrictions on my behaviour
based on someone else's belief. If anyone really wants to 'save my soul' or
whatever, I am always interested in the resulting discussion - for all I know,
someone out there may be right, and might be able to convince me of that. If
they succeed, then not only will they put a stop to one aspect of what they see
as my undesirable behaviour, but they will stop me wanting to behave in that
way - a law may prevent me from doing something, but it won't prevent me from
wanting to do it.

Another aspect of this is the hypocrisy shown by a lot of people who make laws
based on their religion, or support such laws. Their view seems to be that the
law applies to other people and not to them - we seem to see a lot of
politicians found committing sundry offences which they have been vocal in
condemning in parliament, not to mention the number of judges and churchmen
caught with their trousers down (literally). The old line "do as I say, not as
I do" seems to apply here!

Chris.