In Rose v. Locke (1975) the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee anti-sodomy statute. The case involved a Memphis man convicted of breaking into a neighbor's apartment and forcing her at knifepoint to submit to cunnilingis. He was charged with "committing an unnatural sexual act" on the victim and filed suit on the grounds that the statute was too vague and did not define "unnatural sexual acts", further that there had been no previous indication anywhere that the statute included cunnilingis.The Court ruled 6-3 that the Tennessee law did include oral sex and cited a state court of appeals argument from 20 years earlier in which the claim that fellatio was not covered under the law had been rejected. A further ruling of the state supreme court in 1959 held that "the prohibition brings all unnatural copulation with mankind or a beast, including sodomy, within its scope." Furthermore, other jurisdictions had already reasonably construed identical statutory language to apply to such acts. And given the Tennessee court's clear pronouncements that its statute was intended to effect broad coverage, there was nothing to indicate, clearly or otherwise, that respondent's acts were outside the scope of "crimes against nature."Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stewart dissented on the grounds that there was no indication that Tennessee's court system had come up with a consistent definition of "unnatural" sex acts. They also cited the similar case of Wainwright v. Stone in which a Florida anti-sodomy statute spelled out in clear detail what acts were covered, while the Tennessee one did not.Rose v. Locke was effectively voided by Lawrence v. Texas (2002) in which the Supreme Court overturned all state anti-sodomy statutes as an unreasonable infringment on personal privacy.
>>15622906What a based man, eating pussy is truly the cultured man's pleasure
>>15622906Anyone who goes down on a woman is by definition a Faggot
So could a married couple or a bf and gf have been convicted under that?
Eating pussy is beta, it's submitting to the girl. Also you can contract HPV doing that.
>>15622906tfw a woman (female) will never hold a knife to me and demand to give me head
>>15622906>The case involved a Memphis man convicted of breaking into a neighbor's apartment and forcing her at knifepoint to submit to cunnilingis. He was charged with "committing an unnatural sexual act" on the victimWhy the hell not just charge him with rape or something?
>>15624783The Deep South is funny like that with these things
>In a one-paragraph dissent to Lawrence v. Texas, Thomas remarked that he thought the Texas sodomy law was "silly" and "If I were in the state legislature I'd probably get it repealed."
>>15624783Yeah rape seems to make more sense
>>15622906This one makes sense. Lawrence v. Texas makes zero sense because gross indecency is actually an infringement of our rights as third parties, similar to how indecent exposure is a crime. Being exposed to such things as the known presence of sodomy (which has nothing to do with protecting privacy) is materially damaging, and it is behavior that is especially damaging to children who are targets of recuitment by sodomites, in whom it causes psychological and mental damage, in addition to dangerous exposure to all kinds of other things. The sodomites are mentally sick and a health risk to other people, so they should be convicted of gross indecency, locked away whenever their presence is revealed.
>>15625358>AAAGH NO NOT LE POOP SHIT BUTT POOPY SHIT BUTTSEX FAGGOT POOP LOLOLOL XDDD REEEE HELP ME LE JEEBUS
>>15623046Yes? That's exactly why the repeal happened
>>15625358The argument there was the state had no compelling interest in regulating consensual sex between adults in private.
>>15623056>Also you can contract HPV doing that.Not if you only do it to your wife you degenerate
>>15623056You're only supposed to eat out your wife.
>>15626635>>15626275You’re not supposed to do that to your wife and she’s not supposed to do that to you. Your mouth is for eating food.
>>15624783It probably had to do with the stricter definition of “rape” which many states used to have. Rape used to be defined as penetration of a woman. Eating her out isn’t penetration, so it doesn’t fit that definition. Obviously, many states have changed these definitions.
>>15626882You will never give your wife a great orgasm
>>15626230Remove the word sex and see if that's still the case. I can think of a very wide range of illegal activities which materially harm others which the state absolutely needs to crack down on for all of our sakes.
>>15626230>in privatethey were doing it in front of a window with the express purpose of being seen. also the court only applied rational basis.
>>15628940>The argument there was the state had no compelling interest in regulating consensual between adults in private.
>>15629009Yeah, you name it. Consensual drug processing, consensual dumping of toxic waste, consensual shooting a gun out of a window. They were doing it in private and they both agreed so I guess that means nobody is harmed.
>>15629013This seems more like a criticism of substantive due process. Consensual dumping of toxic waste is a liberty, but not a fundamental value, so rational basis applies. What I understand from Lawrence is that privacy in the bedroom was a liberty interest that triggered a sort of medium scrutiny test where the Court demanded a showing of some legitimate state interest in prohibiting sodomy. If you read Lochner, you see a very similar framework there.
>>15629064>the Court demanded a showing of some legitimate state interestWhy is the court legislating from the bench in this matter though? There is no Constitutional right at stake here, none in the First Amendment or in any of the other Amendments.
>>15622906American law was better when it was just Leviticus verbatim. Coming up with any definition of "sodomy" besides homosexuality is unworkable.Execute all homosexuals.
>>15629092Obviously, if we are to just copypaste the Bible, then all rapists, kidnappers, and adulterers get stoned too
>>15629070Well, that's substantive due process for you. Your criticism is precisely that of critics of substantive due process. Read Williamson v. Lee Optical, which was a case that soundly rejected substantive due process for economic liberty.Keep in mind, however, that if you want substantive due process to go away, states could conceivably prohibit private school education, and other things too. See Pierce v. Society of SIsters, which was decided on SDP grounds. There's a reason why SDP exists.There are also other unenumerated constituional rights, such as Miranda warnings and right to counsel. These might escape your criticism, however, because they service enumerated rights.
>>15629092Just start actually enforcing gross indecency and we good. I do think they are worthy of death, but not even worth the effort of going through that at this point.
>>15629095>Keep in mind, however, that if you want substantive due process to go away, states could conceivably prohibit private school education, and other things too.To outlaw something that has been done since the beginning of US society would seem to be a good case to argue against that receives some support from the 9th amendment. If you wanna argue 14th amendment due process that might work but it seems like a weak line of argument and potentially opening the door to fever dream craziness like "protected groups" and determining who does or does not belong in such groups being solely determined by judges. We're talking here about something that was always illegal in the past being made into something supposedly protected and supposedly embedded into the Constitution itself -- it's just that no one "realized" it was, including those who wrote it and ruled on it in the past, for some reason, until centuries later.
>>15629179Nowhere is anyone saying that the Constitution explicitly protects gays.
>>15629196What I'm saying makes sense, isn't it anon? Not much of a rejoinder.
>>15629179I'm not necessarily endorsing substantive due process, I'm just telling you what the Supreme Court has said what the law is. And the Supreme Court has interpreted the 14th Amendment to protect particular groups of people. Again, your criticisms of substantive due process as enabling "legislation from the bench" are legitimate. Some on the Supreme Court agree with you. But that doesn't change what the current law is. And >>15629196 wasn't me.
>>15629224>But that doesn't change what the current law is.Which is the Constitution, and the SCOTUS are good as long as they adhere to it. But it's not like they are the ones who tell me what it says, after all.>to protect particular groups of people.And why not others, then? Who's to say what is or isn't a protected group? And what's this whole thing about disparate impact? That's the fundamental fallacy of correlation being attributed as causation. Are they retards? No seriously, are the people who support that absolute retards?
>>15629232Disparate impact is not a constitutional doctrine. It is statutory. Congress's power to create disparate impact statutes comes from Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.SCOTUS is precisely the institution that tells you what the law is. See Marbury v. Madison. It's all well and fine for you to try to figure out the meaning of the Constitution, and it's also ok to be critical of the Court's decisions, but you would be fooling yourself if you think you have ideas that either the Court or others have not thought of before. I think you'd really benefit from actually reading about how certain doctrines developed and how certain cases were decided. Everyone can.
>>15629273>SCOTUS is precisely the institution that tells you what the law is. See Marbury v. Madison.That seems circular to me, but whatever.>It's all well and fine for you to try to figure out the meaning of the ConstitutionI have enough of a grasp on it to know where some mistakes are being made in certain places. I readily admit right here to not knowing every byzantine legal theory out there, but then again I think no one does. It may be better for me not to know, because a lot of that stuff is wrong. There is a certain faction of people who want to turn everything on its head, so it's up to us to look to historical precedent to some extent. Abolition of slavery was a noble goal that took some time to enact, but that's not what's being talked about here. What we're talking about here is someone saying it's anti-semitic to pass laws felonizing the deliberate exposure of others to AIDS. They're taking stuff like Lawrence v. Texas for granted and pushing the envelope. It is having real world consequences as children are abused now under these jurisdictions. The older ruling at least makes sense in something resembling our universe, where we don't yet have talmudic (a la Public Law 102-14) bureaucracies just steamrolling everything.
>>15622906What’s the natural law case for this?
>>15629302These byzantine legal theories you talk about are very simple principles of American government. Judicial review is one of the most basic checks and balances characterizing the separation of powers. If you do not put in even a minimal degree of effort to actually read the Constitution, and believe me, I can tell you haven't, you have little right to complain about things you don't understand and will never understand unless you actually shut up and read.A law criminalizing the deliberate exposure of others to HIV will never be struck down under substantive due process under a theory of anti-Semitism. If you actually read Lawrence and its predecessors, you would understand why this is impossible. But you didn't read, and I'm starting to believe you can't.
>>15629358I'm not impressed, anon. (Also, to the mods, talmudism is an ideology, not a race).
>>15629092>Leviticus Why are Protestants so Jewish?
>oral sex is le bad, I need the government to prevent me from getting blowjobs!Big cuck energy.
What it means is the law is designed to preserve public order and safety. One's private sex life does not fall under that.
>>15629863People who claim to be Jews today aren't actually.
>>15631328This is such a lame copout. The point is people obsessed with following Old Testament law, usually Postmillenials/Calvinists, are the exact Judaizers that Paul warned about.
>>15624783Southerners approve rape.
>>15626230Which is what I believed unt about 5-6 years ago with the homo invasion on our streets. Slippery slope'd.
>>15631421seriously /pol/ used to be atheistic libertarians 10 years ago but now it's full of lunatics who want to create sharia law and stone all gays and abolish women's rights
>>15631421not even Jews themselves do that shit as they invented an entire tradition of logical gymnastics to get out of the OT law