Overturn Lawrence v. Texas

Home Forums Controversial Topics Overturn Lawrence v. Texas

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 59 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1308066
    Joseph
    Participant

    Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision, should be overturned.

    With the changing composition of the U.S. Supreme Court over the next few years, perhaps we can see both Lawrence v. Texas and Roe v. Wade overturned.

    #1308131
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    1) why should it be overturned?

    2) Doubtful that it would be overturned that ship has sailed. Even oberefell which I could see being overtuned, Your boy Trump said “IT is the law of the land”

    #1308139
    zahavasdad
    Participant

    If the law was overtuned and it again became illegal, that means people have to be caught doing the crime

    Joseph are you willing to police people and catching them doing the crime and arrest them during or watch videos of people doing to crime as evidence and then testify in court what you saw?

    #1308138
    Joseph
    Participant

    It was a big piece that paved the way towards legitimizing immorality.

    Lawrence was worse than and paved the way for Obergefell. If Lawrence goes, Obergefell surely can go.

    #1308146
    lesschumras
    Participant

    Joseph, it will never happen. Conservative justices will vote to allow a baker to exercise his right to freedom of religion and not bake a cake for a gay couple. They will NOT vote to impose the baker’s ( nor your ) views on to the gay couple. That would be just as bad as when the Catholic Church used the New York Legislature to restrict divorce based upon Catholic dogma. What if the Court ruled based on Shariah law? Outlawed shechita?
    The Court/government should allow freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion

    #1308150
    yytz
    Participant

    The highest priority should be getting Obergefell overturned, since it signifies the ultimate victory of the anti-Torah forces of the culture wars. This could happen with just one more Gorsuch-type justice replacing a liberal on the court.

    The same majority could easily overturn Roe.

    And yes, it’s possible, and desireable, that Lawrence be overturned as well. Since this is a bit more controversial among conservatives, it would be better to wait until there is a larger conservative majority on the court before trying to have it overturned. Few people nowadays want to actually arrest a lot of people (or even anybody) for toeiva they engage in in the privacy of their own home. However, the importance of having such laws on the book is symbolic — that society (in those states where it would remain illegal) disapproves of toeiva and wants to discourage it. If I’m not mistaken, I think a similar point was made by R’ Lichtenstein in advocating for such laws. Even so, given how widespread acceptance of toeiva is in today’s society, conservatives may be too pessimistic about the possibility of overturning it to try a case in the Supreme Court, or they may not actually want to overturn it.

    Overturning Obergefell and Roe would be relatively easy with one or two more conservative justices. This would happen through “natural” means — hashgacha, of course, but no open miracles.

    Overturning Lawrence would be more akin to an open miracle, not technically, but as a practical matter. Even so, it could happen.

    #1308175
    yehudayona
    Participant

    When SCOTUS overturns a decision of a previous incarnation of SCOTUS, hasn’t it usually been to widen the rights of minorities? For instance, Plessy v. Ferguson. Perhaps one of the CR’s lawyers could weigh in on this.

    #1308188
    zahavasdad
    Participant

    If L Vs O were overturned it would not ban anything anyway, All it would do is make the issue go back to the states

    They will never ban such things in NY

    #1308185
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    yytz

    “it would be better to wait until there is a larger conservative majority”

    Part of the problem is, True conservatives would oppose overturning Lawrence. you cant claim to be opposed to “big government” and demand government regulate what goes on in bedrooms

    “However, the importance of having such laws on the book is symbolic”

    Laws shouldn’t be symbolic they should have meaning. and be enforceable. What would be the point of adding laws that wouldn’t be enforced. Yet more Big government and the ultimate unnecessary intrusion something no real conservative could possibly support

    Keep in mind even in Lawrence the sole justice who opposed overturning the law and is still alive (Thomas) opposed the law and called it “uncommonly silly”, He was in the minority and the law struck down.

    but to turn a phrase it is “uncommonly silly” to think a law dexcribed by its lone surviving supporter in the SCOTUS ” as “uncommonly silly” would be added again.

    Keep in mind how things have shifted. “DOnt ask dont tell” was originally a Democrat position and opposed by Republicans for being to “liberal”, 2 decades later it became the Republican position and opposed by Democrats for being to “harsh”

    Regardign Obergfell, maybe maybe it might be oveertunred, but more than liekly that ship too has sailed. Trump said “it is the law of the land” While certainly some disagree it is doubtful there is enough opposition to actually change anything

    #1308183
    ๐Ÿ‘‘RebYidd23
    Participant

    The government should not be in charge of morality.

    #1308184
    Joseph
    Participant

    YY, perhaps adulterers should be the next “minority” to have their “rights” widened, you think?

    #1308210
    ๐Ÿ‘‘RebYidd23
    Participant

    Adulterers already have their rights.

    #1308229
    yytz
    Participant

    Ubiquitin: Your comments illustrate my point — that it would be very difficult to overturn, given disagreements within conservative (even charedi!) circles on this point.

    There is no official definition for conservative. So the idea that no true conservative would support these laws is false. In fact, nearly every state had such laws before a few decades ago. According to your definition there would have been no true conservatives until recent times.

    Lawrence should be overturned because each state should have the right to make its own decisions about how to treat controversial issues. If Lawrence and Obergefell were overturned, then some states would have toeiva marriage, some would have civil partnerships, and some would have no civil partnerships and actually outlaw toeiva practices. I would guess that about 20 states would have toeiva marriage, 20 states would have civil partnerships but no marriage, and maybe 5 or 10 states (Alabama, Mississippi, etc.) would make toeiva illegal again (while of course it would be rarely if ever enforced).

    It is not true that laws are only to be enforced. According to some Tannaim in the Gemara there are laws in the Torah that were never enforced, such as the rebellious son. The Gemara also makes clear that even the death penalty was rarely if ever applied, strongly suggesting that the purpose for the various death penalties is to show us the importance of the mitzvah rather than to actually require us to carry out executions.

    RebYidd, the halacha is that non-Jewish governments are required to outlaw toeiva. It is one of the Seven Noahide Mitzvos. In any case, nearly all laws involve morality and ethics.

    It’s extremely unlikely Lawrence will be overturned, and it isn’t all that important (though the symbolism would make easier for Torah values to flourish in this country.) What’s important is overturning Obergefell. Immediately after overturning it (which could easily be done with one or two more conservative justices), half the country would be in toeiva marriage states and half would be in traditional marriage states. This would be good because the general media and politicians would be at least somewhat less likely to treat this as an issue in which you have to agree with the “progressives” or you are a bigot and deserve to be destroyed. Obergefell makes it much harder to live as a Torah Jew and raise children to have a proper hashkafa, because it is hard to hermetically seal ourselves off from all influence from popular culture. I have no doubt many MO and charedi teens are finding pro-toeiva views online in mainstream news sources and social media and it is turning them against Torah values.

    Joseph, unfortunately I believe it’s also considered unconstitutional to enforce laws against adultery. Not that we should actually enforce them most of the time. But think about the case of the horrible website that is meant to facilitate extramarital affairs (millions of people have signed up). A few decades ago the US government would have shut such a website down (if the web had existed back then) in no time. Now they do nothing, and lives are destroyed.

    #1308239
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    yytz

    “According to your definition there would have been no true conservatives until recent times”

    definitions evolve over times. IF you define conservative as favoring limited goverment (granted there are tother definitions) then yes they werent real conservatives.

    “It is not true that laws are only to be enforced.”
    You mix up halacha and legal laws they arent synonyms.

    “Not that we should actually enforce them most of the time.”
    Why not? why is that immorality different than the topic of this thread

    #1308241
    ๐Ÿ‘‘RebYidd23
    Participant

    I believe the government’s role should be to keep the people safe from violence.

    #1308564
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Keep in mind that one outcome of having Roe v Wade overturned is that when you have a situation where an abortion is halachically mandated to save the life of a woman, you may not be able to get it.

    The Wolf

    #1308586
    Joseph
    Participant

    Wolf, that’s like saying to keep in mind that if killing is illegal that when you have a situation where an killing someone in self-defense is necessary, you may not be allowed to.

    The point of overturning it isn’t to make it illegal in all circumstances. The vast majority of supporters of overturning that SCOTUS decision do not support making abortion illegal 100% of the time. The vast majority of pro-lifers support keeping abortion legal when the mother’s life is at stake. But making it illegal when the parent simply wants to abort for financial reasons. Or desires abortion for a fetus of the wrong gender preference or similar reasons.

    And once Roe v. Wade is gone state laws will allow specific exceptions to the laws outlawing abortion. Just as they had prior to the Roe v. Wade travesty of a decision.

    #1308593
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    And once Roe v. Wade is gone state laws will allow specific exceptions to the laws outlawing abortion. Just as they had prior to the Roe v. Wade travesty of a decision.

    I think your overwhelming trust in arch-conservative lawmakers to make sensible exceptions in certain cases is severely misplaced.

    The Wolf

    #1308605

    I think your overwhelming trust in arch-conservative lawmakers to make sensible exceptions in certain cases is severely misplaced.

    Who says it would be overturned entirely by arch-conservatives? They would likely need to concede exceptions, even if they didn’t want to.

    For argument’s sake, let’s say it became illegal in all cases. Still, it’s hard to imagine that more halachically mandated abortions would be prevented than ones that are halachically proscribed.

    #1308609
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    For argumentโ€™s sake, letโ€™s say it became illegal in all cases. Still, itโ€™s hard to imagine that more halachically mandated abortions would be prevented than ones that are halachically proscribed.

    I’m not convinced that a numerical superiority is the proper way to judge that.

    The Wolf

    #1308680
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “The vast majority of pro-lifers support keeping abortion legal when the motherโ€™s life is at stake”

    1. Who do you want to determine what is considered “life is at stake” ?
    2. The vast majority of gun owners want universal background checks unfortunately laws are not made based on what “the vast majority” of any group wants

    #1308699
    zahavasdad
    Participant

    There is a famous football player who now plays for the Mets baseball organization.

    He is a real hard core christian and his parents were christian missionaries, While they were on mission in some 3rd world country his mother was pregnent with him and got some disease, the doctors told her to abort and of course this son survived and became a sports star. Harecore pro-lifers use this example to ban all cases even in cases of danger to the mother

    #1308709

    Iโ€™m not convinced that a numerical superiority is the proper way to judge that.

    How would you judge it?

    #1309731
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    How would you judge it?

    That’s not a defense of your position.

    There are cases in halacha where life and death matters are not decided by a simple numerical majority of lives saved and where the proper course of action to take is one where more people die.

    The Wolf

    #1309737

    Thatโ€™s not a defense of your position.

    Wasn’t supposed to be. Regardless, you didn’t answer the question.

    There are cases in halacha where life and death matters are not decided by a simple numerical majority of lives saved and where the proper course of action to take is one where more people die.

    That’s not a defense of your position.

    #1309770
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Thatโ€™s not a defense of your position.

    It wasn’t. In fact, I didn’t state a position at all. All I said was that it was not clear to me that numerical superiority is the criterion that should be used. I very well could be wrong.

    The Wolf

    #1309740
    akuperma
    Participant

    1. Lawrence v. Texas, was one of many cases (and statutes) over the last 200+ years by which the Americans legalized virtually all types of ื’ืœื•ื™ ืขืจื™ื•ืช. There is overwhelming public support for this and it is unlikely to be changed. Even if the courts were to allow such laws, there would never be public support among the goyim to criminalize consensual behavior. We Yidden are used to the goyim acting in way we don’t approve.

    2. Given the above, which began in the early 18th century (when they rejected the common law definition of marriage as involving one man, one woman, to the exclusion of all others, lasting for life with no possibility of divorce), it is inevitable that the Americans would redefine marriage based on the idea of two people who marry for love as opposed to be people forming an economic partnership to raise children. As we follow halacha, this really has no impact on us (anymore than a statute regulating how much cheese goes into a cheeseburger).

    3. Roe v Wade, on abortion is different, since even goyim object to murder, and the scientific evidence of the last 40 + years reject that upon which Roe v Wade was based. Back then, it was believed by scientists that the baby was just a mass of insentient tissue until shortly before birth, and modern science has shown otherwise. In America there is not overwhelming support for “abortion on demand”, but there isn’t enough support for a constitutional amendment to change the law.

    #1310371

    As we follow halacha, this really has no impact on us (anymore than a statute regulating how much cheese goes into a cheeseburger).

    Inapt comparison. B’nei Noach are permitted to eat cheeseburgers. They are not permitted to engage in arayos.

    Also false is your assertion that it has no impact on us.

    ืจื‘ื™ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืฉื ืจื‘ื™ ืืžืจ: ื“ื•ืจ ื”ืžื‘ื•ืœ ืœื ื ื™ืžื•ื—ื• ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืขื“ ืฉื›ืชื‘ื• ื’ืžื•ืžืกื™ื•ืช ืœื–ื›ืจ ื•ืœื‘ื”ืžื”

    ืžื“ืจืฉ ืจื‘ื”

    #1310476
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    Take the government (both federal and state) out of the business of regulating kedushin and bedroom behavior. The Republicans preach the gospel of individual liberty but seem to carve out exceptions for their right wing evangelical friends. Be consistent or acknowledge your hypocrisy.

    #1310478
    lesschumras
    Participant

    akuperma, no divorce was a Catholic position, not a Protestant one and the US was predominantly Protestant, not Catholic

    #1310487

    The government most certainly does regulate morality. If I think it’s moral to kill, it is still a crime.

    Certain things are objectively immoral according to the Torah, even for non Jews, and until recently, were acknowledged as so by law. It’s a terrible shame, and something which angers Hashem. Chazal say that the mabul didn’t come until certain types of immorality became institutionalized.

    #1310506
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    I believe its “objectively immoral” to allow any child born in the U.S. to lack adequate health care or nutrition. Yet, these same Republican “moralists” insist that each state should be allowed to decide whether such an entitlement exists. What would happen in Monsey or Lakewood if the states wee allowed to cut off welfare benefits to families with more than 2 children because the parents were morally irresponsible for having children they could not feed or care for?? The scope of the selective morality and hypocrisy is breathtaking.

    #1310572

    Calling your baseless opinions “objective morality” is ludicrous.

    Comparing your self-determined sense of morality to G-d’s is probably kefirah. Definitely idiocy.

    #1310585
    akuperma
    Participant

    lesschumrahs: At the time of the constitution, no divorce was also the position of the Protestants. In England (and the American colonies), the only way to get a divorce was: 1) be Jews, since they had “personal law” and Jews were governed by Jewish law; 2) an act of parliament, which was usually only available to the royal family. After they secularized domestic relations ( in the late 18th and early 19th centuries), divorce still required an act of the legislature. However at the point of reception of English law in the USA, there was no divorce. The route to Lawrence v. Texas began when they allowed anyone to get divorced, and started decriminalizing extramarital relationships. So reversing Lawrence really means uprooting 200+ years of legal development (and very few Americans want a return to the law as it was in 1789 when the constitution took effect).

    #1310623
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    GH
    “I believe its โ€œobjectively immoralโ€ to allow any child born in the U.S. to lack adequate health care or nutrition…”

    fantastic point!
    those hilarious hypocrites also call themselves “pro-life”

    #1310595
    Joseph
    Participant

    akuperma, didn’t King Henry specifically break away from the Catholic Church and form the Church of England in the early 16th century for the express purpose of introducing divorce? Thus England had divorce close to a century before the formation of the first British colony in America in 1607.

    In any event, permitting divorce is in no way comparable to permitting sodomy.

    #1310782
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    To Daas Yochid:

    You say that “comparing [society’s] self-determined sense of morality to G-dโ€™s is probably kefirah. Definitely idiocy.”…..Well, I guess you also would take exception to calling the “asseres hadibros” (aka the 10 commandments), the “The 10 suggestions”. If you cannot accept the fundamental moral equivalence of not taking the life of a so-called “unborn child” with the obligation to assure that the child has access to basic health-care and nutrition after birth, I would suggest its you who is the tipesh gamur. I could care less if zealots such as yourself consider such moral imperatives as ‘kefirah” but that is reality. I don’t look to torah moshe m’sinai to outline the required elements of national health care but would place a much higher priority on providing basic health care to all than legislating and regulating about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home or whether the government provides a piece of paper providing certain contractual rights to same gender couples.

    #1310803
    zahavasdad
    Participant

    We are allowed to have morals greater than the torah, we cannot have morals less than the torah

    There are things that the torah allows , that people today consider immoral like Slavery. I dont think anyone except for maybe Joseph thinks that Slavery is moral even though the torah permits it

    #1310840
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    Both the torah and our own constitution implicitly approved of slavery, albeit under conditions requiring that slaves be treated humanely. There also are provisions for one yid to summarily execute another yid without going through a judicial process for certain violations of torah law. I’m unaware that the Ebeshter provided his yidden a mechanism to amend his torah by a vote of 2/3 of the shevatim or by a 3/4 vote of the RCA membership. There are lots of things in the torah that might seem morally repugnant today but its not up to us to question. However, as long as we live in galus, we must in most cases to dina d’malchusa and cannot invoke torah law to justify actions that are strictly forbidden under civil law. I find it bizarre how many political conservatives (including some yidden) who rant and rave about outlawing any adherence to Shariah law in the U.S. but are totally quiet (or ignorant) about the degree to which frum yidden already subject themselves voluntarily to halacha, rely on a system of beis dins to adjudicate disputes, etc. Of course, we would contend there is no “moral equivalence” betweeh Shariah and Halacha but from a legal and constitutional perspective we cannot enforce a selective prohibition on ANYONE voluntarily subjecting themselves to any religious code.

    #1310856
    Joseph
    Participant

    “There also are provisions for one yid to summarily execute another yid without going through a judicial process for certain violations of torah law.”

    Are you referring to anything other than a rodef? Because secular law also permits extrajudicial killing when done in self-defense.

    #1310984
    oyyoyyoy
    Participant

    Auperma “As we follow halacha, this really has no impact on us (anymore than a statute regulating how much cheese goes into a cheeseburger).”

    I think it does effect us. If i see a non jew eating a cheesburger, it is totaly fine with me. I grew a certain definition of marriage and consider it normal. Despite the world changing their mind, for the most part my own personal outlook isn’t changed, and i still consider it immoral. But, if i grew up in world with the new understanding of what marriage is, especially now when there is hardly any division between us and them and their mindsets, i would not blink twice and probably not understand my religion so well, so cruel.

    Even they know the effect the public opinion has on people, thats why they try to shove this idea into movies tv shows and any other media they can.

    #1311006
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “I think it does effect us. If i see a non jew eating a cheesburger, it is totaly fine with me. I grew a certain definition of marriage and consider it normal. Despite the world changing their mind, for the most part my own personal outlook isnโ€™t changed, ”

    I dont follow, you Goyim eat cheeseburgers we dont, goyim have 2 men marry we dont.
    Its simple as that.

    Granted there are other concerns such as being forced to participate/cater/etc such ceremonies that are real concerns. But as for what two Goyim do I’m not sure why we get so worked up over it.

    And spare me the midrash about the mabul, The Torah says the mabul came because of chamas, I’ll believe those who are so worried about another mabul coming when they spend even half as much time condemning chamas as they do about this

    #1311078

    ” Iโ€™ll believe those who are so worried about another mabul coming when they spend even half as much time condemning chamas as they do about this”

    โ€ผ

    #1311299
    oyyoyyoy
    Participant

    not getting involved so much but
    ื•ึทื™ึผึนืืžึถืจ ืึฑืœึนื”ึดื™ื ืœึฐื ึนื—ึท ืงึตืฅ ื›ึผึธืœ ื‘ึผึธืฉื‚ึธืจ ื‘ึผึธื ืœึฐืคึธื ึทื™ ื›ึผึดื™ ืžึธืœึฐืึธื” ื”ึธืึธืจึถืฅ ื—ึธืžึธืก ืžึดืคึผึฐื ึตื™ื”ึถื ื•ึฐื”ึดื ึฐื ึดื™ ืžึทืฉืึฐื—ึดื™ืชึธื ืึถืช ื”ึธืึธืจึถืฅ:

    ืงืฅ ื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ: ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉืืชื” ืžื•ืฆื ื–ื ื•ืช ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื”, ืื ื“ืจืœืžื•ืกื™ื ื‘ืื” ืœืขื•ืœื ื•ื”ื•ืจื’ืช ื˜ื•ื‘ื™ื ื•ืจืขื™ื: rashi

    #1311302

    GH, I never said that thinking the government should provide access to healthcare is kefirah. It’s definitely not “inherently immoral” to disagree and think it’s not the government’s role, but should be left to the private sector. I would agree that preventing that access is inherently immoral. That’s a Torah value.

    Dismissing the inherent immorality of the things the Torah calls immoral is probably kefirah.

    B’nei Noach are obligated to enforce certain things – that’s part of the 7 mitzvos. They’re not obligated to provide free health care in an official capacity.

    Substituting the word “your” with “society’s” is just plain arrogant. You’re entitled to your opinion (if it doesn’t contradict the Torah), but you’re not entitled to call it society’s.

    #1311268
    oyyoyyoy
    Participant

    I believe the understanding of what is normal and, as argued above, objectively immoral, gets knocked out of whack. Then fact that its toavah will get lost. A big hashkafik blow. (btw i think its a 7 mitzvah thing also= moral, not just cheeseburger level.) I think youre agreeing with me but still say, “Who cares? We’ll just tell our children that we dont do that even though they do.”

    Also, like i said, it will become something people growing up in this world won’t comprehend. They’ll have this concept their no shychis parents tell them but the whole world believes different. (The whole world is where most people live now because of social media.)” Don’t our parents realize it’s beautiful?” Bit over the top possibly but trying to explain my opinion.

    And one more thing which i wan’t saying before. Big hit to the moral barrier in general, now all this other weird stuff is coming through.

    My personal belief is a quarter of those that are pro dont even think this way. Bunch of sheople. they may say it but doubt they feel it. Same with “oh this is my african american friend”

    #1311305

    And spare me the midrash about the mabul, The Torah says the mabul came because of chamas, Iโ€™ll believe those who are so worried about another mabul coming when they spend even half as much time condemning chamas as they do about this

    Nobody is celebrating chamas. Today’s morally decrepit society celebrates arayos.

    And spare me the cheeseburger comparison. Goyim are allowed to eat cheeseburgers.

    #1311303
    akuperma
    Participant

    If we were freaked out by goyim doing things they shouldn’t, we wouldn’t have made it out of Egypt. For modern orthodox, and coservadox, who desire to fit into the goyish world, this is a problem. For Bnei Torah, there is no problem. At the end of the day, we know that we are bound to Ha-Shem, even if this really annoys the goyim, and that is just the way it has to be. It’s inconvenient if they are persecuting us, but we manage just like we always have. Whether the universe will impload is dependent on what we do, not what the goyim do.

    And this is hardly a hiddush. In fact, its very old news.

    #1311476
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    To DaasYochid:

    Do you really believe “the market” will provide what society doesn’t value…..if adequate health care for children is not treated as a “right” (as it is in EY and most of the world outside the U.S.) and subsidized as necessary by the government, the market will NOT voluntarily provide care to those who cannot pay (we can argue why) but run in the direction of offering higher quality service at increasingly higher prices to those that can afford it. Health care is different from any other product or service in the economy. If you insist on protecting “life” in the womb as an objectively moral requirement under penalty of law (one infamous state law would have made abortion a capital crime) than you are equally obligated to treat that life with dignity and value after it emerges into the world. As a yid, you seem to be saying that unless some social value or objective can be explicitly found among taryag mitzvos, it inherently must be assigned a lower priority.

    #1311481

    Whether I believe government should provide health care is totally beside the point. I actually think it should. It’s just not inherently immoral to think it’s not the government’s responsibility.

    It is inherently immoral to defend acts which the Torah calls immoral.

    It would be immoral for a government to legalize theft and murder as well. Actually, you mentioned murder already. You just called it abortion.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 59 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.