Printable View
This amicus brief by The Cato Institute was quoted extensively in the decision overturning "sodomy" laws (Lawrence v. Texas). For the libertarians out there, you should really check this out. This is hitting a grandslam. The history of this dubious aspect of law may shock you.
www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/garnervtexas.pdf
I would request we not get too in depth on the actual use of these laws. Needless to say, this shows it was not as we are often told.:thumb:
OEC
How about the anti-pussy eating ordnances in Georgia, those get overturned?
Lawrence v. Texas directly overtuned Bowers v. Hardwick (the anti-sodomy laws in Georgia). In the decision of Bowers, the question is framed as a "Constitutional Right to homosexual sodomy", however (the most strained and narrow reading I have yet to see) But yeah, they were overturned. Anti-pussy eating was not mentioned in Bowers (although you are correct to say it was possible to be prosecuted in Georgia for the same) They were overturned by the case I am referring to.:thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyRider
OEC
"Yeah, I have prior felonies. Spent five years in the state pen."
"Jesus, what for?"
"Eating pussy." <--- THAT is something hardcore. Bet teh womens would appreciate THAT background
The argument given in Bowers was, in part, along the lines of uneven application to different acts. It is pretty ironic. But yeah, that was possible (I don't believe it was a felony but I'd have to check)Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyRider
OEC
Whoo hoo... A step in the right direction.. I don't think that any "Adult-consented" Sex act should be against the law.
I Agree:thumb: I would like to see more decisions like this, but I have to be honest: The Court is like a teeter-totter right now. It is hard to predict (at least until the '08 election) what direction we're going to take over the next 10 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondage Clown
OEC
:yeeaaahh: