Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Supreme Court rewrites Constitution and 3,000 years of history
Alliance Defense Fund | 6/26/03 | Richard K. Jefferson

Posted on 06/26/2003 8:28:58 AM PDT by Polycarp

U.S. Supreme Court rewrites

Constitution and 3,000 years of history

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court today rewrote the U.S. Constitution and 3,000 years of legal history by striking down the Texas sodomy law in a 6-3 decision.

The court overrode the Constitution, the history of American law, and its own precedent by declaring in Lawrence v. Texas that there is a right to privacy to protect private, adult consensual sexual activity. Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority, and only Justices Scalia and Thomas and Chief Justice Rhenquist dissented. The majority reasoned, unbelievably, that because of the trend in state legislatures to repeal sodomy laws, these laws have become unconstitutional.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a national legal organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona, said the framers of the Constitution could never have imagined an interpretation finding in the Constitution a right to engage in the act of sodomy.

“We are disappointed but we’re not giving up hope and we’re not going away,” said Jordan Lorence, a senior litigator with the Alliance Defense Fund. “This ruling provides us with new opportunities. We have already prevailed in other key cases, and we must persevere.” The Alliance Defense Fund supported the prevailing parties in Hurley v. Irish-American Group of Boston and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.

In its 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision, the court upheld laws against sodomy. Then Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in his concurring opinion “… in constitutional terms there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.” Burger continued: “Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards…[Sir William] Blackstone described ‘the infamous crime against nature’ as an offense of ‘deeper malignity’ than rape, a heinous act ‘the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature’ and ‘a crime not fit to be named.’ To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.”

“It would have been a better day if the court had taken Burger’s words to heart, and followed its own holding in Bowers, and 3,000 years of history and precedent,” Lorence said.

The Alliance Defense Fund serves people of faith; it provides strategy, training, and funding in the legal battle for religious liberty, sanctity of life, and traditional family values.

Richard K. Jefferson Senior Director National Media Relations Alliance Defense Fund rjefferson@alliancedefensefund.org (480) 444-0020 15333 North Pima Road, Suite 165 Scottsdale, AZ 85260


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: 14thammendment; 1slimmeyslope; 3branchesofgovt; aides; aidesincreasetaxesup; aidesintheusa; aidesupinsuranceup; aidsalert; antibiblecountry; antichristiantrolls; antireligion; antireligiontroll; arroganceofscotus; assesofevil; biblethumpingmorons; biggovernmentcorrupt; bowtothesecularstate; bowtothewelfarestate; brokenmarriages; catholiclist; catswithdogs; celebratesin; christianbashing; christianshategays; cigardildos4all; civilrights; clintonlegacy; constitutiontrashed; crazyfundies; culturewar; daddyleavesmommy; deathoftheusa; deathofthewest; depravity; destructionofusa; devianceuptaxesup; deviantsex; downoutthroats; endofcivilization; endtimes; evilinrighttoprivacy; fakechristians; fools; fundiesinthecloset; fundyhysteria; gay; gayagenda; gayarrogance; gaycivlrights; gaydar; gaygestapo; gaymafia; gaymarriage; gaynarcissist; gaypride; gaysarevictimtoo; gayscelebrate; gayshatebreeders; gayshatechristians; gayshatefamilies; gaysholdusacaptive; gaysnotcelebate; gaysoutofcloset; gaysremakeamerica; gayssuppressthetruth; gaystapo; gaytrolldolls; gaytyrants; gayvotegodless; godsjudgement; godswrath; governmentschoolsex; hatecrimelegislation; homeschoolnow; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexualagendawins; homosexualvote; hyperventilating; ihaverights; incestlaws; indoctrination; itsjustsex; jeebuslovesyou; jesuslovesevenyou; kneepadbrigade; lawrencevtexas; legislatinghate; legislatingsin; legislaturemakeslaws; lewinsky; lewinskys; liars; liberalagenda; libertines; lotsdaughters; manboylove; manboyloveassoc; menwithmen; moralrelativism; moralrelativistinusa; nambla; namblawillwinnext; newrights; notjusttexas; onepercentrulesusa; pc; pcdecision; perversion; perverts; politicallycorrect; preverts; privacyprotection; publichealthhazard; readtheconstitution; religionbashing; romans1godswrath; rosieishappytoday; rosietypes; rumprangers; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage; samesexmarriages; scotusknowsbest; scotusmakeslaw; scotustrumpsgodslaw; scotustrumpstate; scotustyranny; scrotus; sepofchurchandstate; sexaddicts; sexeducation; sexindoctrination; sheslebanese; sin; singlorified; slimmeyslope; slipperyslop; slipperyslope; slouching; slurpslurp; sodomandgomorrah; sodommites; sodomy; sodomylaws; statesrights; sulphurskies; supremecourtgoofs; swalloworspit; texassodomylaw; thefunpolice; thegayelite; thegayvote; thisisevil; thomasjefferson; usathirdworldcountry; useacondom; vicesnowvirtues; victimlesscrime; victimsofaids; victimsofhepatitus; whatstatesright; wholenationaffected; womenwithwomen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-253 next last

1 posted on 06/26/2003 8:28:58 AM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: .45MAN; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Angelus Errare; Antoninus; aposiopetic; Aquinasfan; ...
Its no longer a slippery slope. Its a free fall.
2 posted on 06/26/2003 8:29:47 AM PDT by Polycarp (Free Republic: Where Apatheism meets "Conservatism.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
So much for the "compelling interest" argument, eh?
3 posted on 06/26/2003 8:30:46 AM PDT by cincinnati65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
The Alliance Defense Fund, a national legal organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona, said the framers of the Constitution could never have imagined an interpretation finding in the Constitution a right to engage in the act of sodomy.

The framers of the Constitution didn't include the 14th Amendment into the document (obviously enough) upon which this case revolved; however, their inclusion of a clause permitting future amendments implies that they could have imagined that anything may at some point get added to the Constitution...

4 posted on 06/26/2003 8:31:46 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
The majority reasoned, unbelievably, that because of the trend in state legislatures to repeal sodomy laws

Refresh my memory -- wasn't there another Supreme Court case in the last few months in which the "reasoning" was similar -- that the decision was justified because of a trend in changes to local laws? I think it was O'Connor who wrote that one, but I could be wrong.

5 posted on 06/26/2003 8:33:39 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
The Court was quite correct on this.

Far more damage to our country was done by Justice O'Connor and friends on the Michigan Law School ruling.
6 posted on 06/26/2003 8:34:00 AM PDT by RJCogburn (He's a short, feisty fellow with a messed up lower lip.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maryz
I think it was juvenile death penalty case, but not sure.
7 posted on 06/26/2003 8:34:48 AM PDT by John Beresford Tipton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: John Beresford Tipton
Thanks, now that you mention it, I think was death penalty, but it may have been mentally deficient -- I mean the accused, not the Court . . . oh, wait . . .
8 posted on 06/26/2003 8:36:57 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
“We are disappointed but we’re not giving up hope and we’re not going away,” said Jordan Lorence, a senior litigator with the Alliance Defense Fund.

Forget it, it's over. It isn't coming back, just like slavery isn't coming back. Yeah, prohibiting slavery overturned 4000 years of history and Biblical approval of same, also. To bad.

9 posted on 06/26/2003 8:40:02 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maryz
That ruling was Atkins v Virginia issued last year, which established that it's 'cruel & unusual' for the severely mentally handicapped to get the death penalty.
10 posted on 06/26/2003 8:41:11 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
The Alliance Defense Fund, a national legal organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona, said the framers of the Constitution could never have imagined an interpretation finding in the Constitution a right to engage in the act of sodomy.

Nor could they have imagined automatic and semi-automatic firearms, which must mean that we're not allowed to possess them under the Second Amendment, right?

To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.”

Although I have not read the court's decision yet, I doubt the court elevated homosodomy to a fundemental right, but rather, reaffirmed the fundemental right to privacy and equal protection under the laws.

11 posted on 06/26/2003 8:41:38 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
O'Connor must retire soon..
12 posted on 06/26/2003 8:43:26 AM PDT by ewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
The Supreme court simply declared itself out of usefulness, giving up its job to the legislature and mobs and medias, PC etc...
13 posted on 06/26/2003 8:43:50 AM PDT by JudgemAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
In the privacy of your home..anything goes
14 posted on 06/26/2003 8:45:55 AM PDT by metacognative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
if the supremes had used the koran they would have come up with a decision acceptable to many on this forum.
15 posted on 06/26/2003 8:48:04 AM PDT by liberalnot (democrats fear democracy. /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp; dansangel
It looks like this is the beginning of the end of the Constitution of the U.S and the end of the laws of humanity as we know them..
16 posted on 06/26/2003 8:48:32 AM PDT by .45MAN (If you don't like it here try and find a better country, Please!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
You don't know much Roman history do you.
17 posted on 06/26/2003 8:49:37 AM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metacognative
>>In the privacy of your home..anything goes<<

Errrr, not at all. You can't use illegal drugs, you can't have sex with children, the list goes on and on.

On the other hand, it's no longer illegal to engage in oral sex with your spouse.
18 posted on 06/26/2003 8:49:45 AM PDT by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Face facts. The homosexuals have won the culture. There is no turning back UNTIL the culture either pays a terrible price or meets its demise.

It seems that Sodom and Gomorrah got to the point where those inhabitants felt it was their RIGHT to FORCE their sexual advances on others. (Impossible, you say? Then you've not been listening to the radical gays and to Nambla.)

When we get to that point, when good people look the other way, then we can rightly say, "If God doesn't respond here, then he owes an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah."

19 posted on 06/26/2003 8:49:46 AM PDT by HatSteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I thought that you had to overturned in order to have sodomy!
20 posted on 06/26/2003 8:50:15 AM PDT by Radix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
The framers of the Constitution didn't include the 14th Amendment into the document (obviously enough) upon which this case revolved; however, their inclusion of a clause permitting future amendments implies that they could have imagined that anything may at some point get added to the Constitution...

yes, but through the amendment process, not through judicial fiat with the Supreme Court inventing new rights out of thin air. I, for one, am ready for the revolution against the new tyranny of the left, who have abandoned the constitution altogether. they do not even try to hide thier abandonment of the constitution or rule of law any longer. I no longer have faith in the Supreme Court, or the any of our governmental branches to abide by the constitution or rule of law.

21 posted on 06/26/2003 8:54:00 AM PDT by brownie (Reductio Ad Absurdum, or something like that . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HatSteel
"If God doesn't respond here, then he owes an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah."

Nah....I still know ten righteous men.

22 posted on 06/26/2003 8:57:14 AM PDT by RJCogburn (He's a short, feisty fellow with a messed up lower lip.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: metacognative
As it should be.
23 posted on 06/26/2003 9:00:18 AM PDT by Weimdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: RJCogburn
Per city of approx 30-50 thousand max.

Sodom & G weren't that big, imho, based on the size of force used in the war that Abraham won for them.

25 posted on 06/26/2003 9:03:23 AM PDT by HatSteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: metacognative
That may be true, but it also means that on landlord's property, anything now goes!
26 posted on 06/26/2003 9:04:32 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Many people miss the point. The issue is not whether this law is a good or bad one-that would be for the Texas legislature to decide-but whether this law, good or bad, violates the constitution. Without the mythical right to privacy, it clearly does not. Our supreme court has become nothing more than a super-legislature, which it was never supposed to be. And a pretty bad one I might add. And, sadly, abetted by four Republican appointed judges, two by Reagan.
27 posted on 06/26/2003 9:04:44 AM PDT by almcbean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
The SUPEME COURT is suppose to be impervious to trends and politics
28 posted on 06/26/2003 9:06:15 AM PDT by y2k_free_radical (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cincinnati65
This is Justice Kennedy's rationale:

"These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex".

This is a very broad ruling, and it asserts the power of the Supreme Court to rule based upon "emerging awareness" rather than law.

It also places the Court's discernment of "emerging awareness" in a superior position to the acts of elected officials, who live their lives to be up on what awarenesses are actually emerging.

29 posted on 06/26/2003 9:07:33 AM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: y2k_free_radical
SUPREME
30 posted on 06/26/2003 9:07:45 AM PDT by y2k_free_radical (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: metacognative
"In your own home anything goes"

I would not argue with that, but what gets me is gay 'PRIDE'.

31 posted on 06/26/2003 9:12:40 AM PDT by Churchillspirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/935982/posts

Scalia wrote the dissent. Thomas and Renquist sided with him. It's worth a read.
32 posted on 06/26/2003 9:14:12 AM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
False. The Framers were not authoring a document under which anything might be made legal. A great deal of the struggle in writing the Constitution was delineating the source of rights and circumscribing what government can do, presumably including the SCOTUS.
33 posted on 06/26/2003 9:14:14 AM PDT by thegreatbeast (Quid lucrum istic mihi est?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Why get so worked up about what a fag you don't know does to another fag you don't know when 34 states have never bothered to outlaw necrophilia?

Who knows what they are legally doing to dead family members down at the Funeral Home?

So9

34 posted on 06/26/2003 9:18:17 AM PDT by Servant of the Nine (A Goldwater Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Well...
It does make it easier to go and perform bestiality, necrophilia, and other acts.
The dog is of age, the corpse is of age..
And so on and such.
Kinda stupid move on the Court's part, actually.
35 posted on 06/26/2003 9:23:14 AM PDT by Darksheare ("It's no use, the voices are on MY side.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
I disagree. Sodomy laws are hypocritical. The vast majority of heterosexual adults have engaged in oral sex, but the laws remain on the books, even though nobody is ever prosecuted. That's hypocrisy.

If you've never engaged in oral sex with your spouse, that's your loss.

36 posted on 06/26/2003 9:27:05 AM PDT by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Bring down the Supreme Court! Since they're violating Constitution, then we don't need them.
37 posted on 06/26/2003 9:28:38 AM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp; brownie; thegreatbeast
I just finished reading Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in the Lawrence v Texas ruling. Interestingly, he addressed the very issue brought up here as his final remarks:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its mani-fold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

38 posted on 06/26/2003 9:32:21 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
Reminds me of the Sam Kinison routine on the Homosexual Necrophiliacs that break into a funeral home.
39 posted on 06/26/2003 9:33:09 AM PDT by Delbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
Nor could they have imagined automatic and semi-automatic firearms, which must mean that we're not allowed to possess them under the Second Amendment, right?

Nonsense; a design for a fully-automatic firearm was presented to Congress for a funding request at the second Congress, and working designs for machine guns go back at least as far as 1718 (James Puckle's design). Concepts for machine guns go back even further. The founders were well aware of the inevitable progress of technology, especially in the field of firearms in which many of the founders were personally interested.

If you're going to try to equate sodomy with a fundamental (and constitutionally enumerated) right, I suggest you get your basic facts straight. It also seems somewhat queer that you would select firearm rights in your comparison, considering (even though they are an enumerated right upon which the Constitution is clear that should "not be infringed") that the modern court have often abridged such rights in spite of explicit Constitutional constraints, restraints which do not exist in the case of rules relating to sodomy.

40 posted on 06/26/2003 9:34:59 AM PDT by Technogeeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: metacognative
What happens between two consenting adults, in the privacy of their own home, that doesn't harm anyone, is no one's business but their own.
41 posted on 06/26/2003 9:40:06 AM PDT by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
This is dismal, but strangely fitting, as the majority has gleaned a right to homosexual sodomy from reasoning they pulled out of their asses.

Like abortion, homosexual sodomy is not legitimately within the purview of the federal government, and legislation regarding both should be properly left to the states. I support the prerogative of the states to outlaw or legalize either, and it's a foul practice for the federal government to relentlessly usurp the states' prerogatives via the tripartite clutching for power we see in the federal branches.

There is a thermodynamic aspect to political power: like energy, political power is conserved and finite. The federal government only becomes more powerful by seizing that power, either from the states, or from the people. We appear to have reached a point where federal power is now a political black hole, with each new absorption of power increasing its mass, with the consequently greater gravitational pull fueling the next seizure of power.

Since much of the plain meaning of the Constitution is now meaningless to the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the federal government, what is to stop their ravenous lust for power from gorging indefinitely on the states and the people?


42 posted on 06/26/2003 9:49:02 AM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .45MAN; FreeTheHostages
In its 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision, the court upheld laws against sodomy. Then Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in his concurring opinion “… in constitutional terms there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.”

Have we fallen down so low between then and now....a mere 17 years? Definitely a blow to all of humanity.

43 posted on 06/26/2003 9:50:48 AM PDT by dansangel (America - love it, support it or LEAVE it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
It's scary to think this is the most ``conservative'' the Court may ever be again...
44 posted on 06/26/2003 9:52:51 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
New York's legislature just changed the wording of it to include criminal (read forced non consensual) oral and anal sex.
It doesn't mention criminal vaginal sex at all, so they've created a possible defense there.

It shouldn't be legal for my wife to go out an dcommit adultery, though.
She should face some form of reprimand for such behavior.

And since she's a 7th day Adventist (Read as legalist that insists that the Levitical laws are all in effect..) then she and her boyfriend should be stoned at the city gates as per Levitical Law.

Such rulings and laws are, however, insane.
There is no easy out, and it would be better if common sense applied.
Common sense says that one should not try to force something into a one way opening (anal sex) and as far as oral sex goes, that shouldn't be forced.

That's the bottom line.
Have a good one, and don't stay out in the sun too long.
Seems here in New York we've already had some people show up with 'sun poisoning'.
45 posted on 06/26/2003 9:52:54 AM PDT by Darksheare ("It's no use, the voices are on MY side.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
And I suppose that using the same logic, that since states are repealing marijuana posession/use laws that the federal interest in such cases is no longer in effect either?

Maybe someone should make sure the DEA gets a copy of the wisdom broght forth by the majority ruling.

Once again, proof that saying nothing preserves your wisdom. Opening your mouth (or in this case opening your judicial mouth) proves that the cloak of elitist wisdom that our supreme court is shrouded in has presented them as an incredibly stupid bunch of social architects willing to rule on issues which have nothing to do with their charter.

I can recognize a cultural nervous breakdown when I see one. If the FDA does not start a thorazine feed into the public's water system there is going to be complete insanity during the next decade.

Liberals have lost congress, and executive branches out of a three branched government. Can someone please explain to them that the judicial branch is not an elective one?

46 posted on 06/26/2003 9:54:32 AM PDT by blackdog (Get comfortable with canabalism, in times coming it will be the fare dejour. Sharpton Stew........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
I completely agree, Sabertooth. The issue before the Court was not whether homosexual sodomy should be outlawed, but whether under the Constitution the Texas legislature had the power to do that. Of course they do.

The reason that judicial appointments are now a Senate bloodsport is that the SCOTUS is no longer an impartial arbiter of what the law says, but is now a political, policymaking body.

47 posted on 06/26/2003 9:55:55 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Beg to differ. The Supremes are wrong, as the States may legislate in their best interests.

The only real argument against the Tex law was that it did not prevent HETERO sodomy.

Further, until the dopesmokers in the Warren court discovered it, there was no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and there STILL is not.

But hey, EEO is more important than fundamental disorder-licensing, hey?
48 posted on 06/26/2003 9:56:34 AM PDT by ninenot (Joe McCarthy was RIGHT, but Drank Too Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
you can't have sex with children

Why not?

Please advise where the Supremes have left this intact with their decision...

49 posted on 06/26/2003 9:58:42 AM PDT by ninenot (Joe McCarthy was RIGHT, but Drank Too Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Rush just asked: "Do we even need states anymore? I mean, if they can't act individually, what's the purpose?


50 posted on 06/26/2003 10:00:09 AM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-253 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson