# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Ron Paul On Sodomy Laws And States Rights

## anaconda

I just had a long youtube argument with a Ron Paul basher who claimed that Ron Paul was anti gay and was "for sodomy laws." Ron Paul has stated that sodomy laws are "ridiculous" but that the Supreme Court over reached its authority by over turning Texas sodomy laws in Lawrence vs. Texas (2003), with the court citing due process under the 14th Amendment. At first I thought that this was a liberty promoting decision but after some thought I think that it is not in the spirit of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment. I know this was discussed recently on another thread, but I guess the many states have the power to make ridiculous laws that the federal government cannot impinge upon, or else it's a slippery slope to autocracy. 

Thoughts? Comments? 

This is important as we try to recruit gay rights advocates to the liberty revolution.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Sounds like he's saying the U.S. Supreme Court didn't have the constitutional authority to overturn a Texas law.  That doesn't mean he agreed with the law.

----------


## AxisMundi

The Constitutional mandate of SCOTUS is to rule not only in criminal cases, but to act as the third part of the Balance of Powers. It is their job to hear cases where We the People petition our government for a redress of grievances, and if the appeals process takes it to the highest court in the land, it becomes a federal issue.

Stating that SCOTUS had no business to strike down the sodomy laws of TX is like saying that SCOTUS has no business ruling on Loving v Virginia.

----------


## FrankRep

Ron Paul: Repeal Bad State Laws at a State Level. The Federal Government has no authority getting involved.

That's all Ron Paul is saying.

----------


## nate895

> The Constitutional mandate of SCOTUS is to rule not only in criminal cases, but to act as the third part of the Balance of Powers. It is their job to hear cases where We the People petition our government for a redress of grievances, and if the appeals process takes it to the highest court in the land, it becomes a federal issue.
> 
> Stating that SCOTUS had no business to strike down the sodomy laws of TX is like saying that SCOTUS has no business ruling on Loving v Virginia.


SCOTUS had no business ruling in Loving v Virginia.

----------


## Kotin

> Ron Paul: Repeal Bad State Laws at a State Level. The Federal Government has no authority getting involved.
> 
> That's all Ron Paul is saying.


Just a question though: what if the state will not repeal the law?


Would you consider this a state infringing on the bill of rights? Do states have the authority to do that?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Just a question though: what if the state will not repeal the law?


Fight it, or vote with your feet and move to another state that has a different view on the topic.




> Would you consider this a state infringing on the bill of rights? Do states have the authority to do that?


Where are you seeing sodomy in the Bill of Rights, because I don't see it?

----------


## Kotin

> Fight it, or vote with your feet and move to another state that has a different view on the topic.
> 
> 
> Where are you seeing sodomy in the Bill of Rights, because I don't see it?


I am not sure.. Just trying to figure it out.. I would think the issue would be argued from that kind of stand point.. Maybe it's up to the Surpeme Court of Texas? 


Also you would have to define sodomy laws since some are against oral sex and others  against actual sodomy etc..

----------


## FrankRep

> Just a question though: what if the state will not repeal the law?


1.) Vote out your Representatives.
2.) Organize a massive campaign to move out of the state, which will cut taxes to the state and the state will be forced to repeal the bad law or go bankrupt.





> Would you consider this a state infringing on the bill of rights? Do states have the authority to do that?


The Bill of Rights are limitations on the Federal Government, not the states.

----------


## AxisMundi

> SCOTUS had no business ruling in Loving v Virginia.


Are you aware of the Appeals Process?

Civil Rights are a federal issue, as they are based upon the principles found in the US Constitution.

It is the mandated duty of SCOTUS to rule on Civil Rights issues, especially when We the People petition our government for a redress of grievances and it reaches SCOTUS through the appeals process.

----------


## AxisMundi

> .....Where are you seeing sodomy in the Bill of Rights, because I don't see it?


The Right to Privacy as found in the 4th Amendment. The government has no business being in the bedrooms of consenting adults.

If you have any valid, secular reasoning to support anti-sodomy laws, any version thereof, please feel free to bring it to the table for discussion.

I will warn you however, that pure religious doctrines and/or simple "ick" are nothing to base US laws on.




> 1.) Vote out your Representatives.
> 2.) Organize a massive campaign to move out of the state, which will cut taxes to the state and the state will be forced to repeal the bad law or go bankrupt.


Gays, and we who support their Rights, are a minority. You will simply not get enough people to move out of a State to severally impact that State's tax revenue. But then again I am sure you were counting on that when you posted the above.

And homophobia is simply too strong of an emotion to be effected in this manner anyways.




> The Bill of Rights are limitations on the Federal Government, not the states.


The 9th and 10th Amedments act as a "Supremecy Clause", something clarified in the 14th.

As a Contract of Incorperation, for all intents and purposes, all parties agree to abide by what is enumerated within the US Constitution. This is reflected in the simple fact that each State Constitution also has sections reflected the US Constitution's Bill of Rights, and each State's legislature resembles the structure for the Executive and Legislative branches.

----------


## Kotin

> The Right to Privacy as found in the 4th Amendment. The government has no business being in the bedrooms of consenting adults.
> 
> If you have any valid, secular reasoning to support anti-sodomy laws, any version thereof, please feel free to bring it to the table for discussion.
> 
> I will warn you however, that pure religious doctrines and/or simple "ick" are nothing to base US laws on.



this is what I was thinking as well..

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The Right to Privacy as found in the 4th Amendment. The government has no business being in the bedrooms of consenting adults.


I totally agree that government has no business in people's bedrooms.  However, that is not enough for a lot of people.  For example, in your mind, should the federal government be forcing that homosexuality be taught in public schools?  




> If you have any valid, secular reasoning to support anti-sodomy laws, any version thereof, please feel free to bring it to the table for discussion.


Secularism is itself a religion and you don't frame the arguments.  Sorry.




> I will warn you however, that pure religious doctrines and/or simple "ick" are nothing to base US laws on.


You will *warn* me?   

Well, you're more than a couple hundred of years late to the table, because many of our early laws were founded in Christianity.   




> Gays, and we who support their Rights, are a minority. You will simply not get enough people to move out of a State to severally impact that State's tax revenue. But then again I am sure you were counting on that when you posted the above.


So what?  The idea of having state governments have more power than the federal government is that one-size wouldn't have to fit all.  Because it doesn't.  If you don't like how one state does something, move to another state more to your liking.  




> And homophobia is simply too strong of an emotion to be effected in this manner anyways.


Oh, so you think that federal government should be used to attempt to FORCE people to change their emotions?  Really?  Do you think that is the proper role of the federal government, or any government for that matter?

----------


## AxisMundi

> I totally agree that government has no business in people's bedrooms.  However, that is not enough for a lot of people.  For example, in your mind, should the federal government be forcing that homosexuality be taught in public schools?


I do not support many policies forwarded in public schools as it impacts the time spent on learning the basics of education.  

"Lifestyle tolerance" is one of them.




> Secularism is itself a religion and you don't frame the arguments.  Sorry.


Secularism is hardly a religion. Secularism is completely religious neutrality as in not favoring any one religion, or religion itself. And there is no reason for anyone to "frame the argument". If there is nothing but religious doctrine to base a law upon, there is no valid reason for it to pass into laws as it would favor that one religion to the exclusion of all others.




> You will *warn* me?   
> 
> Well, you're more than a couple hundred of years late to the table, because many of our early laws were founded in Christianity.


Enumerate these laws. I hear that phrase quite often, yet no one can list laws created after the BoR and prior to approximately 1830 when the First Amendment principles were eroded under the weight of theodemocratic agendas.

The phrase is mere lips service uttered because it "sounds good".




> So what?  The idea of having state governments have more power than the federal government is that one-size wouldn't have to fit all.  Because it doesn't.  If you don't like how one state does something, move to another state more to your liking.


I seriously doubt you would support such an ideology were racial equality was concerned.




> Oh, so you think that federal government should be used to attempt to FORCE people to change their emotions?  Really?  Do you think that is the proper role of the federal government, or any government for that matter?


Please show how you arrived at that conclusion from my statements. I was quite clear in stating that homophobia would keep the gay minority a discriminated class.

That is a sad thing in a Nation who supposedly prides herself on the concepts of Justice and Equality.

----------


## dannno

> I am not sure.. Just trying to figure it out.. I would think the issue would be argued from that kind of stand point..


How about property rights? Aren't people supposed to be secure in their person and property?

State police still have to respect no unreasonable search and seizure right?

----------


## dannno

If I had to limit myself and choose between the Fed Govt. having more control or less control over states I would choose less..

but it's hard not to think that the Fed Govt. should some how help secure our freedoms from tyrannical state laws... the problem is that giving them that power, like after the Civil War and blacks were rightfully freed, that they go and then take more power away from states and ultimately the Fed Govt. becomes more tyrannical.

----------

