Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
The definition of sodomy which was used by most sodomy laws is any sex other than vaginal intercourse.Howedar wrote:I don't think this hypothetical girlfriend of mine cares much for hypothetical sodomy.
Then following Iceberg's example of oral sex = sodomy, the Hypthethical girlfriend does not know what she's missing out on.Howedar wrote:I don't think this hypothetical girlfriend of mine cares much for hypothetical sodomy.
I agree. This ruling has serious implications for the balance of power between the federal and state governments. As backwards as a law against sodomy is (pardon the pun,) it's hardly unconstitutional. What business does the Supreme Court have dictating cultural standards when there's no constitutionally pressing need to do so? I'm frankly astonished the people aren't seeing it for what it really is . . . namely a bunch of appointed(!) officials dictating public policy.Gil Hamilton wrote:Though to be honest I'm a little suprised that some of the posters here feel as they do. After all, the Constitution doesn't actually give anyone the right to privacy unless you really stretch for it and this steps on the toes of states rights to make their own laws, thus setting yet another example about how the federal government is nullifying the will of the states on the matter. People are being, dare I say it, down right liberal on this issue. :)
The Supreme Court was asked to give a ruling on the law. After studying the case, a majority of the justices decided that it met the standard for a case to be heard by the Supreme Court, and after hearing the full and complete argument of both sides, a majority of the justices decided that sodomy laws did not meet the minimum standard of constitutionality for a Law of the United States of America. And so, sodomy laws in fifteen states were removed from the books because the Supreme Court decided that they were not constitutional and did not serve the public interest.GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:I agree. This ruling has serious implications for the balance of power between the federal and state governments. As backwards as a law against sodomy is (pardon the pun,) it's hardly unconstitutional. What business does the Supreme Court have dictating cultural standards when there's no constitutionally pressing need to do so? I'm frankly astonished the people aren't seeing it for what it really is . . . namely a bunch of appointed(!) officials dictating public policy.Gil Hamilton wrote:Though to be honest I'm a little suprised that some of the posters here feel as they do. After all, the Constitution doesn't actually give anyone the right to privacy unless you really stretch for it and this steps on the toes of states rights to make their own laws, thus setting yet another example about how the federal government is nullifying the will of the states on the matter. People are being, dare I say it, down right liberal on this issue.
See above.The states have been good about striking down/repealing their own backwards and outdated laws. Why the Supreme Court had to get in on this is mind-boggling.
Yeah, but Idaho's is especially funny. Before it repealed the law, this was it's sodomy law:Iceberg wrote:The definition of sodomy which was used by most sodomy laws is any sex other than vaginal intercourse.
I could be VERY wrong about this, given my sample size of direct experience (one), but most girls like receiving oral sex a *lot.*
