Entry tags:
Weird, disturbing, and downright saddening
And I quote from my textbook: "[The Supreme Court] overruled a Texas law criminalizing sodomy when practiced by two persons of the same sex. By a 6 to 3 decision, handed down on June 26, 2003, the Court affirmed that the rights of liberty and privacy guaranteed under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment include the right of two consenting adults to engage in such acts within the home." (Emphasis mine)
So in 2003, just 4 and a half years ago, a third of the Supreme Court thought male homosexual relations (not marriage, but the sex act itself) should be illegal. As in, the State should control actual private practices that affect no one but the two (or more, I suppose) parties involved, even if it occurs only in the parties' personal residences.
To quote the ever reliable Captain Jack Sparrow, "That's a sad commentary in and of itself."
So in 2003, just 4 and a half years ago, a third of the Supreme Court thought male homosexual relations (not marriage, but the sex act itself) should be illegal. As in, the State should control actual private practices that affect no one but the two (or more, I suppose) parties involved, even if it occurs only in the parties' personal residences.
To quote the ever reliable Captain Jack Sparrow, "That's a sad commentary in and of itself."
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
The thing to remember about dates: you have to take them back a good thirty or forty years to represent the world that most of the jurors or magistrates grew up in, so maybe when we're old and grey (not me, I'll keep it black lol) things might be a bit more acceptable.
That said, I'm not the hugest fan of anything that has something to do with Texas and the law ...
(no subject)