12/21/2007

Since then, courts have disregarded Lawrence in order to uphold state laws banning the sale of vibrators, restricting gays' rights to adopt, prohibiting people from having sex with their adult ex-stepchildren, and various other basic human rights specifically mentioned in our Constitution.
Ann Coulter, as she gets less and less the right wing thug and more and more a very clever evangelist for her views.

2 comments:

Xiaoding said...

Damn, read that column. Had no idea Coulter does not "believe" in evolution. Stupid bitch! Don't need ignorant, superstitious bitches like that around! What a moron! All respect for her just flew out the window. Brainless whore.

cubanbob said...

The broad is nuts. The reason it is legal for two adult males to butt bang each other in the privacy of their own homes is that there is no compelling state reason to prevent them from doing so. That is the same reason birth control, blow jobs, muff diving and gay sex in general pases constitutional muster: there is no over arching state reason to prohibit these behaviors. What the libs and the equally stupid far right conservatives fail to get is just because you don't approve of a behavior means that therefore the constitution gives you the right to ban or limit it.
There has to be a reasonable state interest in limiting or banning them. Yuck and ewww isn't enough of reason. The constitution is a negative document, that is it states what are the powers of government therefore everything not specified as a government power is presumed to be the right(s) of the people and unless there is a compelling state reason the rights of the people are not to be abridged.

The real problem is idiot judges who often make a right decision (outcome) based on our using the most torturous and ridiculous or even absurd or irrelevant reasoning. Example: Brown vs Board of Education, the desegregation case. Right outcome for wrong reasoning. Instead of the convoluted reasoning used it simply would have neater, cleaner to state there is no provision in the constitution for different classes of citizenship so the whole premise of Jim Crow was fatally wrong to begin with. There never was a compelling state reason for racial discrimination under the color of law. Allowing judges to invent things that are not in the constitution for the purposes of giving the state authority over areas not clearly stated usually wind up in very bad law such as Plessy vs Ferguson, the basis for Jim Crow. That is why
strict constructionist judges are the safest course to take. It prevents the lower courts from imposing idiocy on the whole of the people most of the time.

As for evolution and Darwin's theory, you have to be kidding. To say there are flaws in theory of evolution and that creationism is equally valid is just plain nuts in the face of all the empirical evidence buttresing it.