Overturn Lawrence v. Texas

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

“The vast majority of pro-lifers support keeping abortion legal when the mother’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

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

How would you judge it?

That’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.

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 גלוי עריות. 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.

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.

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.

Calling your baseless opinions “objective morality” is ludicrous.

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

GH
“I believe its “objectively immoral” 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”

To Daas Yochid:

You say that “comparing [society’s] self-determined sense of morality to G-d’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.

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.

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.

” 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”

‼

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.

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

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

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

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.