Posted on 06/26/2003 6:15:35 PM PDT by Polycarp
I'm not as pessimistic as you are. Especially if Bush gets to appoint a Justice or two to the Court.
Context is our friend.
Here, I'll help you:
It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the demo-cratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.
The Court views it as "discrimination" which it is the function of our judg-ments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seem-ingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such "discrimination" under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress...and that in some cases such "discrimination" is a constitutional right,
Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that crimi-nalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But per-suading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is some-thing else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts—or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them—than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitu-tional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change.
Typical, Jorge. We can always count on you to spout the homo agenda.
Yes. Even if he was not in the majority..the fact that he said that he needed to speak out and say he thought the sodomy laws were silly...makes those on this board who are hysterical about it look pretty silly.
I guessed that the law would be overturned, but I thought it would be on the grounds that O'Connor found, which is equal protection, since this law singled out homosexual sodomy.
Yes..the fact that these people want to enforce these laws when it comes to homosexuals yet ignore them when it comes to heterosexuals clearly defines them as hypocritical bigots.
Who wants people like this in control of the sex police or ANYBODY in a position of power?
Not most Americans.
Silly or wise, for or against.
Not: Constitution or Un-Constitutional.
Proof positive that there's a new despot in town.
Bow down before your new RULERS. The Supremes will brook no dissent from Amendments, Legislatures, or the people.
And we can always count on you to post these hollow one-liners.....that don't even attempt to address posts that challenge you.
And of course we can't expect you to point out where I actually "spout the homo agenda" ANYWHERE in my posts....
..anymore than you can support ANY of your baseless accusations against those who disagree with your numerous hysterical and hypocritical rants about your favorite obsession...homosexuals.
As a homosexual apologist, jorge, you sure as hell do not speak for most true Christians.
Blather on all you want.
No way. Marriage is by definition a monogamous union between a man and a woman.
God created man and woman and marriage and we can't just define it as anything we want it to be.
This is a lot different than believing we need the sex police to enforce, in America.. a Muslim like fundamentalist sex police state by stoning gays and shooting women in the head on the sidewalk for unfaithfulness.
And there you have it. "countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments" have relied upon the majority's belief.
What we have today is a Supreme Court that defies the majority belief and allows immorality.
Where before a society might well expect devine punishment if the majority embraced immorality. Today we are in a situation where the Government specifically the court has embraced immorality to an extent far greater than the people have.
The great question is whether the people will be able to assert their rights and turn back the court's decision or whether by the court's permissiveness, society will degrade to the point that the majority indeed deserve devine chastisement.
You two are using Thomas against Scalia. I side with Scalia. You are purposely trying to change the point, which is the homo agenda of the expansion of "rights" to include marriage and using the power of the state to silence critics of homosexuality.
Jorge, I expect as much from one as you.
Sink, you've got no excuse. You know the wider issues here, but disingenuously pretend there is no connection between this decision and the attempt to expand homo rights.
Read Scalia again, Sink. Then recall The church's teachings:
Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in 1990, enumerated the definitive church teaching on this issue, with a document entitled "Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons." Paragraph 9 of this document states:
``In assessing proposed legislation, the Bishops should keep as their uppermost concern the responsibility to defend and promote family life'' (no. 17). Furthermore, under "Applications," Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Document states: 10. ``Sexual orientation'' does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. ``Letter,'' no. 3). 11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the consignment of children to adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or coaches, and in military recruitment.
Paragraph 16 states:
"Finally, since a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for Church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to Church organizations and institutions. The Church has the responsibility to promote the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. no. 17)."
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.