[btomba_77]

America has stumbled behind in the individual rights camps, no longer the leader.

 
The Legatum Institute publishes an annual  prosperity index that includes a sub-category for personal freedom, ranking each of the world’s nations.  2014 was not a good year for the US.

[img]http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/Personal_Freedom_Rankings.jpg[/img]

The US ranks 21st, well below Ireland’s 11th place ranking.

[suyanebenevides_151]

Interesting that they have referenda to declare something, while we have it and when the judges (as in the gay in CA) don’t like the answer, the referendum means nothing.
 
Why can’t the people decide here?

[kayla.meyer_144]

And let’s not forget Republican opposition to Griswold.
 
 

[btomba_77]

Hey …. settled law in 2003 ain’t so settled anymore is it?!

[h1]Ken Paxton Would Defend Texas Sodomy Law[/h1]  

 [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/texas-sodomy-supreme-court-lawrence-paxton-lgbtq/]Washington Post[/link] 

Shortly after the Supreme Court struck down the fundamental right to an abortion, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) appeared to express support for [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/contraception-supreme-court-clarence-thomas-griswold/?itid=lk_inline_manual_2]Justice Clarence Thomass concurring opinion[/link] that the high court could review other precedents that may be deemed demonstrably erroneous, including those affecting the LGBTQ community.
 
One of the cases mentioned by Thomas was [i]Lawrence v. Texas[/i], which prevents states from banning intimate same-sex relationships. The [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/06/27/justices-overturn-texas-sodomy-ban/fe0cc479-0d83-4f95-83fb-01e151060352/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4]landmark 2003 ruling[/link] struck down a 1973 Texas law that criminalized the act of sodomy. But as [i]Roe v. Wade[/i] was overturned, Paxton said he would defend the states defunct sodomy law if the Supreme Court were to follow Thomass remarks and eventually revisits [i]Lawrence[/i].
 
I mean, theres all kinds of issues here, but certainly the Supreme Court has stepped into issues that I dont think theres any constitutional provision dealing with, Paxton said in a Friday [link=https://www.newsnationnow.com/on-balance-with-leland-vittert/texas-ag-vows-to-enforce-abortion-laws-with-roe-overturned/]interview [/link]with NewsNation anchor Leland Vittert. They were legislative issues, and this is one of those issues, and there may be more. So it would depend on the issue and dependent on what state law had said at the time.

[/QUOTE]
 

[kaldridgewv2211]

How is it even practical for them to try and enforce an anti-sodomy law?

[btomba_77]

It allows law enforcement to harass gay people based on flimsy allegations and public displays of affection …
 
the fascists love it.

[kaldridgewv2211]

I guess what’s the % of people even in Texas that want to harass gay people.  Hopefully not many.
 
If we keep going down this path I actually do fear what might happen.  Stonewall Riots or even worse.

[ruszja]

Quote from DICOM_Dan

How is it even practical for them to try and enforce an anti-sodomy law?

No different from the statutory rape caes. One party states he was sodomized the other goes to prison.

The last case was initiated when cops bumbled into an apartment and found two in the act. As they couldn’t charge them with anything else, they drug out the ancient sodomy law.