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

Skip to comments.

BLAME THE GOP FOR PRO-SODOMY COURT DECISION
The Heustis Update ^ | June 27, AD 2003 | Reed R. Heustis, Jr.

Posted on 06/29/2003 11:26:04 AM PDT by Polycarp

BLAME THE GOP FOR PRO-SODOMY COURT DECISION By: Reed R. Heustis, Jr. June 27, AD 2003

With one stroke of the pen, [homosexuality] has triumphed at the Supreme Court.

And guess what?

Republican-appointed Justices are to blame.

With a convincing 6-3 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the United States Supreme Court on June 26 overturned a 1986 case, Bowers v. Hardwick, which had upheld the legitimacy of an anti-sodomy law. Sodomites and perverts all across America are hailing the Lawrence decision as the biggest gay rights victory in our nation's history.

Mitchell Katine, the openly gay attorney representing John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, the men whose arrest in 1998 led to the decision, proclaimed, "this is a day of independence."

Whereas homosexual deviancy has long been celebrated in the media and on our university campuses over the last two decades, the Johnny-come-lately Supreme Court now joins the orgy. As dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia correctly stated, "The court has taken sides in the culture war...."

How could this have happened?

Weren't Republicans supposed to be the champions of traditional values?

Weren't Republicans supposed to be the stalwart defenders of our nation's Christian heritage?

Seriously, just think:

Every four years without fail, the Republican Party instructs Christians to elect Republicans to office so that we can thwart the left wing agenda of the Democratic Party.

Every four years without fail, the Republican Establishment warns its rank and file never to vote for a third party candidate, lest we elect a Democrat by default by "giving him the election".

Every four years without fail, Christians are told that third party candidates cannot win, and that a vote for a third party candidate is somehow a vote for the Democrat.

Every four years without fail, Christians are bamboozled into believing that their beloved Republican Party will restore this nation to its Christian heritage.

Every four years without fail, we are told that only a Republican can appoint a conservative Justice to the high bench so that liberalism can be stopped cold.

Without fail.

Christians, wake up!

It is the Republican Party that is responsible for moronic decisions such as Lawrence. Quit blaming the liberals and the Democrats. Blame the GOP!

Out of the six Justices that formed the horrifying 6-3 Lawrence majority, four were appointed by Republicans! Four!

Justice John Paul Stevens was nominated by President Gerald Ford - a Republican.

Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy were nominated by President Ronald Reagan - a Republican.

Justice David Souter was nominated by President George H.W. Bush - a Republican.

Two-thirds of the majority opinion were Republican-appointed!

"I believe this needs to be trumpeted," says Tim Farness, 1st District Representative of the Constitution Party of Wisconsin.

Indeed it does.

A 4-2 majority of the six Justices forming the Lawrence decision was Republican-appointed.

Republican President George W. Bush intends to run for a second term in 2004. Don't be too surprised when we start hearing the same-old song and dance all over again: "Elect Republicans so that we can defeat the Democratic agenda."

Mr. President: the Republican Party is the Democratic agenda.

© AD 2003 The Heustis Update, accessible on the web at www.ReedHeustis.com. All Rights Reserved.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ageofconsentlaws; bigomylaws; catholiclist; consentingadults; consentingteens; downorupanyorifice; downourthroats; druglaws; homosexualagenda; houston; incestlaws; lawrencevtexas; marriagelaws; pc; politicallycorrect; polygomylaws; privacylaws; prostitutionlaws; protectedclass; republicans; rinos; samesexdisorder; sexlaws; sodomylaws; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-564 next last

1 posted on 06/29/2003 11:26:05 AM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: .45MAN; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Angelus Errare; Antoninus; aposiopetic; Aquinasfan; ...
I do NOT at this time advocate leaving the GOP for a third party.

But I fear the day is fast approaching when social conservatives and/or Christian conservatives will have no choice,

2 posted on 06/29/2003 11:28:54 AM PDT by Polycarp (To all hiding out in theReligionForumGhetto-It's time to fight the CultureOfDeath on the NewsForum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Perhaps someone can explain to me:
1... Why is was better to have the police power to break into someone's house (on a false police report by a neighbor) than to let people be?
2... How many people abstain from this sort of behavior simply BECAUSE OF THE LAW AGAINST IT?
3... Do you really think that putting the two original sex partners in this case in prison (with umpteen thousand other male inmates) is likely to REDUCE their homosexual behavior?
3 posted on 06/29/2003 11:34:20 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I don't think leaving right now is the answer as it will empower the Dems.

But it's a good article.

The SCOTUS is a very big disappointment to me.
4 posted on 06/29/2003 11:39:49 AM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
You either out of willful ignorance or disengenuousness refuse to see what this court decision is truly about. Your points are mute. This isn't about privacy. SCOTUS just undermined every law in the country based upon public morals, and all you can do is repeat the same tired red herring argument? Pathetic.
5 posted on 06/29/2003 11:40:15 AM PDT by Polycarp (To all hiding out in theReligionForumGhetto-It's time to fight the CultureOfDeath on the NewsForum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I do NOT at this time advocate leaving the GOP for a third party.

Me neither. Not until we've had an honest go at ridding the party of the Homo-promo element. It's a heck of a lot easier and will take us less time to use a tool that's already there than to try to build a new one that, in the short run at least, would only elect pro-homo democrats.

In short, more Santorums, less Specters.

Speaking of which, does anyone know where Arlen MacSpecter's opponent falls on the "gay marriage" issue? You can bet Arlen's in favor (even if not publicly) thanks to Scottish law.
6 posted on 06/29/2003 11:41:15 AM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Great article. This is why I voted for Pat Buchanan. He's not always right, but you know who he is, and you get what you vote for with men like him. What we need right now is Federal Legislation to counteract this devious Supreme Court decision. And if they should overthrow that with a declaration that the legislation is unConstitutional, then we need a Constitutional Amendment defining American marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Christians are losing a lot of ground in the U.S., and it's mainly because we don't unite and fight this crap.
7 posted on 06/29/2003 11:41:27 AM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
This has nothing to do with the GOP. Ahem, ~adjusts tin foil hat, flips switch so that lights blink and funny little prop spins~ THIS is all about the New World Order and globalism. Reagan wasn't a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, but his VP and future President, HW Bush, was a former director of CFR as was a majority of the Reagan cabinet. Sandra Day O'Connor is CFR so is Souter, Ginsberg and Kennedy. ONE MORE CFR Justice on the High Court and you can kiss liberty and the Constitution goodbye!

GW Bush is not CFR but again, the majority of his cabinet are members. You want to know more about this looming threat to our freedom? Read these books available from American Opinion Book services at http://www.jbs.org Shadows of Power by James Perloff and Global Tyranny: Step by Step and I forget the author, just now.

8 posted on 06/29/2003 11:41:44 AM PDT by ExSoldier (M1911A1: The ORIGINAL "Point and Click" interface!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Every four years without fail, Christians are bamboozled into believing that their beloved Republican Party will restore this nation to its Christian heritage.

Ain't gonna happen.

The majority of people in this country do not wish to live under a theocracy. The Republicans know this.

If the Republicans ran under a platform of "restoring this nation to its Christian heritage" they would not win many elections --not the ones that count, anyways.

9 posted on 06/29/2003 11:42:05 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
As the ancient Hebraic channeling of male sexuality into heterosexual marriage was the anchor of Western civilization, so that chain becomes ever more thoroughly broken.
10 posted on 06/29/2003 11:42:33 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Third parties are pointless, useless, and self defeating. A conservative 3rd party only serves to get the Rats elected, likewise a liberal 3rd party (Nader), only serves to get the GOP in power.
Sure things are bad. But if you want them to go from bad to worse, go form your third party.
11 posted on 06/29/2003 11:45:46 AM PDT by squidly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
The "theocracy" cliche is worn out, OK?
12 posted on 06/29/2003 11:45:57 AM PDT by Polycarp (To all hiding out in theReligionForumGhetto-It's time to fight the CultureOfDeath on the NewsForum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
How do we rid the GOP of the pro-Homo element?

Reagan himself had tons of them (as it came out in those court cases) so did Bush Sr.

I'm all for this, but it seems like they are too numerous.
13 posted on 06/29/2003 11:48:23 AM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Every four years without fail, the Republican Party instructs [gun owners, low-tax advocates, etc.] to elect Republicans to office so that we can thwart the left wing agenda of the Democratic Party.

Every four years without fail, the Republican Establishment warns its rank and file never to vote for a third party candidate, lest we elect a Democrat by default by "giving him the election".

Every four years without fail, [gun owners, low-tax advocates, etc.] are told that third party candidates cannot win, and that a vote for a third party candidate is somehow a vote for the Democrat.

Every four years without fail, [gun owners, low-tax advocates, etc.] are bamboozled into believing that their beloved Republican Party will restore this nation to its [second amendment, low-tax] hertitage.

Every four years without fail, we are told that only a Republican can appoint a conservative Justice to the high bench so that liberalism can be stopped cold.

Without fail.

[Gun owners, low-tax advocates, etc.], wake up!

14 posted on 06/29/2003 11:49:41 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: squidly
1) If the GOP continues coddling the homo agenda, I'll have no choice. 2)The GOP will most likely go neutral on abortion by 2008, pulling its pro-life plank. 3) Bush already caved on the biggest Second Amendment issue of his reign.

There's not much holding social conservatives in the GOP. If they go soft on guns, gays, and abortion, why the hell should I stay?

15 posted on 06/29/2003 11:49:55 AM PDT by Polycarp (To all hiding out in theReligionForumGhetto-It's time to fight the CultureOfDeath on the NewsForum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
not to mention the strong marriage practices of the Germanic and Keltic peoples, which predated the introduction of Christianity in the West.
16 posted on 06/29/2003 11:50:46 AM PDT by rogerthedodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
What we need right now is Federal Legislation to counteract this devious Supreme Court decision. And if they should overthrow that with a declaration that the legislation is unConstitutional, then we need a Constitutional Amendment defining American marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman

All you need is for Congress to exercise its Article III, section 2 power to regulate and make exceptions to the appellate power of the Supreme Court.

Amend the Judiciary Act to read, "The appellate power of the Supreme Court does not extend to judicial review of state laws pertaining to marriage or sexual behavior"

Simple majorities, both Houses, no Presidential approval required-it should take a week.

17 posted on 06/29/2003 11:50:51 AM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
"Why the hell should I stay?"

Because you can't win. It's the old half loaf being better than no loaf theory. Okay, maybe you're only getting a quarter loaf. That's still better than no loaf. Politics is now and always has been about choosing the lesser of two evils. I'm not particularly in love with the GOP myself, but it sure beats the alternative.
18 posted on 06/29/2003 11:53:04 AM PDT by squidly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
New medicare entitlement, a new gun ban, affirmative action ruling, sodomy ruling, $15 billion for AIDS in Africa, utter fear to push for confirmation of conservative jurists, won't defend the border, and (controversial on Freerepublic, I know) sponsoring undeclared wars in the Middle Eaast . .. .

Are we living under a conservative regime? I think not.

Why I should I vote for that again?
19 posted on 06/29/2003 11:54:01 AM PDT by rogerthedodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
So now you are proposing that Presidents ask prospective judges nominated to the Supreme Court how they would intend to rule on sodomy laws? Get real...
20 posted on 06/29/2003 11:55:43 AM PDT by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
It won't hurt if we somehow convince the people inside the beltway to spend some time in the rest of the country from time to time. It also wouldn't hurt to turn over congress more often than it is now. Too many "leaders" are clueless because they don't get out very often.

Part of this is the entrenchment, IMO. And it is up to the voters to change that. Leaving the GOP, at this time, splitting the conservative vote among smaller parties, will hand elections the democrats. That being the case, the target should be the primaries and vote out the ineffective GOP people.
21 posted on 06/29/2003 11:55:52 AM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!!!!!!!!!!!
22 posted on 06/29/2003 11:59:23 AM PDT by cksharks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
If the Republicans ran under a platform of "restoring this nation to its Christian heritage" they would not win many elections --not the ones that count, anyways.

Maybe not, but the platform can reflect it without explicitly saying it. And then if the elected officials would kindly follow through....
23 posted on 06/29/2003 11:59:24 AM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I left the GOP (Gay Old Party???) awhile ago.
24 posted on 06/29/2003 12:02:00 PM PDT by Cap'n Crunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
"1... Why is was better to have the police power to break into someone's house (on a false police report by a neighbor) than to let people be?"

"Be" what, perverters of human nature? Conveyors of AIDS? Openly lewd, lascivious pigs? Child molesters? Truck stop and men's room predators? Voyeristic Boyscout troop leaders who leer at the boys? Same-sex Sodomites who play with each others genitals but can't procreate? NAMBLA members who push for man-boy sex? Angry pigs who parade themselves down Main Street each year in drag and throw condoms at Saint Patrick's Cathedral? National sub-culture members who rank number one in suicides, alcoholism, drug addiction, partner abuse and sexually transmitted diseases?

"2... How many people abstain from this sort of behavior simply BECAUSE OF THE LAW AGAINST IT?"

Nobody can ever know that, but the law represents the PEOPLE and their interests, and is based on the moral and physical good for the nation as a whole. How many people refrain from robbing and killing because the law is against it?

"3... Do you really think that putting the two original sex partners in this case in prison (with umpteen thousand other male inmates) is likely to REDUCE their homosexual behavior?"

Prison isn't really designed to reduce behaviors, it's designed to punish bad behaviors and keep dangerous people away from the general population.

25 posted on 06/29/2003 12:02:35 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Look on it as more triangulation. This week's decisions give homosexuals a lot less reason to support the Democrats. (And while their numbers may be small, they have given a lot of money to the Democrats in recent years.)
26 posted on 06/29/2003 12:02:40 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Blame the GOP???

Looking for all the "usual suspects" again?

Cripes, blame the society. Politicians go where the people are. Otherwise, they are just ex-politicians.

If you don't like what the politicians are doing (or not doing), look back at the people whose votes put them in office.

This court decision had to with societal forces (such as entropy) well beyond the power of political figures to control.

Why would you expect the government, seated through democratic elections, to do anything else but represent the beliefs, values and desires of those that put them in office.

Your beef is truly with the society that America has become, aiming at the politicians is closing the barn door after the horses have gone, spitting into the wind, and many other cliches (!)

That morality has been driven from the public square and replaced with the relativism that comes from the absolute power of individual choice -- and in the collective, from the tyranny of opinion that rules the majority -- is not because of the politicians. They are merely the whores to the tyranny of opinion. And if society has fallen this far, the politicians will not save it.

27 posted on 06/29/2003 12:03:51 PM PDT by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
Amen! PJB baby! Go Pat Go!
28 posted on 06/29/2003 12:03:53 PM PDT by Cap'n Crunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Justice John Paul Stevens was nominated by President Gerald Ford - a Republican. Uh, Ford is a moderate to left member of the Republican Party who bowed to the demands of a democrat controlled Jusge approval process.

Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy were nominated by President Ronald Reagan - a Republican. And who controlled the Senate then?

Justice David Souter was nominated by President George H.W. Bush - a Republican. And our current president's father should have his butt kicked for that error!

Two-thirds of the majority opinion were Republican-appointed! All the more reason to demand that Frist get cahonies and bust the democrat leftist filibustering of conservative judges! What you folks seem to miss is the purposed effort to divide the pubbies and allow the dying democrats to regain some control! Wake up! The real results will come from even larger pubby numbers in House and Senate, and the Senate showing some courage in facing down the damn destructive democrats! Threatening to act in a way that will return control to the societal engineering leftist party of democrats isn't gonna get one damn thing out of the career politician pubbies or democrats. You know why?... Because it fosters the notion that there is no consensus in America so every man should do what is right in his own political survival, which means compromising our national interests to get re-elected locally.

29 posted on 06/29/2003 12:04:06 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
The Supreme Court could very well have held that evidence coming from that kind of forcible entry could not be used in a sex case without violating due process (through violating privacy). A narrow decision that did not strike down sodomy laws would have been easy to write.
30 posted on 06/29/2003 12:05:12 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
You didn't see a problem with the law in that it was legal for a man and woman to do it but wrong for two men? It was a bad law...
31 posted on 06/29/2003 12:06:20 PM PDT by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
"I do NOT at this time advocate leaving the GOP for a third party."

I didn't want to bail, either, but the sad part is that if you don't, nothing will ever change.

32 posted on 06/29/2003 12:06:20 PM PDT by TexasCowboy (COB1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
David Frum's column, JUN. 27, 2003: SODOMY IN TEXAS , explains why the effect of Lawrence's overruling of Bowers is to render homosexuals a constitutionally protected group, under Romer v. Evans. Scary.
33 posted on 06/29/2003 12:07:28 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband
How do we rid the GOP of the pro-Homo element?

Reagan himself had tons of them (as it came out in those court cases) so did Bush Sr.

I'm all for this, but it seems like they are too numerous.

Start your own party. Call it the "Fred Phelps (God hates Fags) Party."

Bet Fred would join, too.

34 posted on 06/29/2003 12:08:06 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TexasCowboy
"I didn't want to bail, either, but the sad part is that if you don't, nothing will ever change."

The only thing you'll change is the balance of power... you'll be handing it back to the left. How do you think Bill Clinton got elected, anyway?
35 posted on 06/29/2003 12:08:47 PM PDT by squidly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I do NOT at this time advocate leaving the GOP for a third party.

Imperialism put it over the top for me.

I'm gone.

36 posted on 06/29/2003 12:11:14 PM PDT by iconoclast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
Amen. It's appaling how many people describe this decision as being "Pro-Gay" (or "Pro-Sodomy", which pretty much clarifies their own attitudes) instead of "Pro-Privacy" or "Pro-Safety from Govt Intrusion".

It's worth emphasizing that this decision did not legitimize same-sex marriage or anything else. It only decriminalized same-sex relationships to the same extent as hetero relationships, and these relationship MUST have ALL the following characteristics:
(1) Between (among) full adults,
(2) Entirely voluntary,
(3) Entirely in private,
(4) Non-monetary.
There are still laws on the books that criminalize any relationship - hetero or homo - that lack any one of those characteristics.

37 posted on 06/29/2003 12:11:39 PM PDT by DonQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
"...do not wish to live under a theocracy."

Look up "theocracy" in the dictionary and here is what you will find:

    Theocracy. 1. Government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God; hence, government or political rule by priests or clergy as representatives of God.

    2. A state so governed, as the Hebrew commonwealth before it became a kingdom.

    Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd edn, unabridged, 1959, p. 2619

No one has proposed "rule by clergy," so your argument is a red herring. We have always had laws intended to support moral order and for a very simple and obvious reason -- only a moral people are fit for self-governance and freedom. This was self-evident to the Founders.

Are you in favor of incest? How about polygamy? Does public indecency appeal to you? Is it ok with you if people parade themselves nude in front of parents and children in public parks? Engage in sexual activity in front of same?

Where do you (personally) draw the line or do you draw the line at all?

Walk into the Supreme Court and look at what's on the wall there. It's a bas relief of Moses handing down the Ten Commandments. Why do you think it's there? Could it be because our system of law ultimately derives from the Judeo-Christian tradition?

38 posted on 06/29/2003 12:15:27 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
But I fear the day is fast approaching when social conservatives and/or Christian conservatives will have no choice,

You're angry over this ruling, still. You know very well, unlike the goofball who wrote this article, that the "GOP" is not to blame for this decision. You just need a punching bag.

What's next? Start sending nasty e-mails to Charles Rosenthal, the Houston DA who brought the Lawrence case?

39 posted on 06/29/2003 12:18:02 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
1... Why is was better to have the police power to break into someone's house (on a false police report by a neighbor) than to let people be?

The police DID NOT BREAK IN to someone's house and that was no mere neighbor.

The door was unlocked. The "neighbor" was a roommate and homosexual lover of one of the men.

The police did not know that it was a false complaint at the time the call was received. If you want to prohibit the police from responding to 911 calls, then say so.

The caller was sentenced to 30 days in jail and reportedly served 15 (I do not know if he worked off some of his time).

The caller is now dead of an unrelated assault so he won't be giving any interviews.

One article I read said that the police claimed that there was a history of these men making false calls on each other. I still contend that the 3 men conspired to create the circumstance by which they could challenge the law (since overturning the law was the first thing they addressed after being arrested).

Perhaps the other fake phone calls were attempts to lure the police into their trap (and some didn't bite/charge them with homosexual sodomy).

40 posted on 06/29/2003 12:19:00 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
As Frum says, we're lucky to have a man named Thomas on the high court. What Justice Thomas said regaridng the Lwrence case was so very precisely right, (paraphrasing) 'the Texas law was silly'. Had Texas banned all sodomy regardless of sexual proclivities, er, excuse me--that no longer works to define homo degeneracy, I mean regardless of sex of the participating parties, sodomy would continue to be bannable and the idiocy of defining a group of people for special legal status based on their professed sexual proclivities chosen voluntarily would not have become an issue to be rule in fiat fashion by an activist, societal engineering court. But you know what?... The degenerate homosexual agenda was seeking every state to find just such a set up as the Lawrence case over which to drag this nation into the gutter via a SCOTUS fiat ruling. And the degenerates of homosexual definition succeeded.
41 posted on 06/29/2003 12:19:26 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
"The majority of people in this country do not wish to live under a theocracy. The Republicans know this."

Living with laws that reflect Christian morals and values is infinitely different than living in a theocracy, where the rulers are unelected tyrant clerics and heirarchical leaders within a particular religion. America did just fine, thank you, for nearly 200 years, living under our Constitution and in basic accordance with sound Christian values. It wasn't until the 1960's that Christian norms, morals and values began to get overthrown and undermined by the Courts. Abolishing school prayer, legalizing abortion, granting 'minority status' and special rights to sexual perverts, allowing for divorce-on-a-whim, and the plethora of other illogical, anti-Christian sewage that became case law through the Courts. The way I see it, either Christians unite and take back what God gave us by voting out the liberals and phoney "conservatives", or else get used to the rancid stench of perversion that is rapidly permeating our society.

42 posted on 06/29/2003 12:20:00 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
The majority of people in this country do not wish to live under a theocracy.

Hey bozo -- is that what we had for the first 180 years of our existence as a republic until the Supreme court decided that everyone had a right to pornography, abortion, and sodomy? Of course not. The "theocracy" argument is a completely specious canard. You should be ashamed of yourself.
43 posted on 06/29/2003 12:20:03 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp; unspun; TheRightGuy; Chi-townChief; Dengar01; Notforprophet; cherry_bomb88; JustPiper; ...
VERY interesting and thought provoking.for your reading pleasure or Displeasure!
44 posted on 06/29/2003 12:20:47 PM PDT by chicagolady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
WHAT!!?!?!? Moses handing down the Ten Commandments on the wall of the Supreme Court???!!!

That needs to be removed immediately!!!

Seperation of Church and State!!!

45 posted on 06/29/2003 12:21:43 PM PDT by Cap'n Crunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Supporting a third party outside of the Republican Party would only take badly-needed votes away from the Republican Party. We all saw how the Green Party managed to sap Al Gore's election efforts very effectively. What we don't need is a third party stealing votes and seats all over the country.
46 posted on 06/29/2003 12:23:19 PM PDT by HigherMoralAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
Would the nation's drug laws have been overturned if the 2 men had been caught smoking marijuana that they raised at home instead?

They're just gonna do it anyway. Yhe laws don't prevent them from engaging in the act.

The guards in jail sell contraband pot so they can still get high in prison.

47 posted on 06/29/2003 12:25:20 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
http://www.sodomylaws.org/history/history03.htm
Criminal Sodomy Statutes in Effect in 1791

”The proscription of sodomy in the English tradition began in 1533 when King Henry VIII adopted contemporary church doctrine into a system of laws at the time of the English withdrawal from the Catholic Church. Sodomy became both a sin and a crime, since ecclesiastical law recognizes no distinction between the concepts of "sin" and "crime." Sodomy included any form of non-procreative acts including masturbation, oral and anal sex.

”...stated by the Kansas Supreme Court in a 1925 sodomy case, sum up the historical attitude of the Anglo-American legal system toward non-procreative eroticism. The psychological discomfort of repressed or moralistic individuals from centuries before created a jurisprudence relegating the enjoyment of non-procreative physical intimacy to the status of criminality. Those forefathers’ attitudes control our legal system today. When the issue of the constitutionality of laws outlawing consensual sodomy was brought before the United States Supreme Court in 1986, nearly 200 years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, Justice Byron White’s opinion upholding the laws referred to "the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time."1 In addition, criminal penalties for sodomy "have ancient roots."2 Sodomy was a crime at common law.3

My Father, dead some 25 years, must be rolling over in his grave at the SCOTUS’s decision. However where that sainted man never lost his innocence, his children though taught better, lost theirs in their young adulthoods with Hollywood scandals; lewd stories in news papers and in books and livelier communication among nations and cultures. His grandchildren never had a chance to experience the softness of simplicity, trustfulness and naïveté of just being a good citizen knowing right from wrong. Puerility has been denied them through their schools, churches, all guilty of social engineering 'to make the world a better place'. Today parents are striving to take back some of the lost innocence and lost education by home schooling, protecting their young from an ever increasingly tasteless and immoral world and a government that panders for votes and money from special interests outside the moral teachings.

Be that as it is, the states that had the Sodomy Laws on their books and did nothing in the recent past to act upon that law; the law has become innocuous as should be removed and perhaps re-written to make passing on AIDS and other diseases brought about by same sex partners, a crime against society and punishable under new laws designed to bring at least a modicum of morality. We can thank Bill Clinton’s well-publicized sexual conduct and his pandering for votes for the ‘90s plunge into true Sodom & Gomorrah for our young people to emulate.

Place the blame on liberal thinking, teaching, government, political correctness and a general apathy to stop pornography, adulation of skimpy clothes in inappropriate places and a dozen other things that come to mind - BUT don't place the blame on the GOP - the SCOUSA merely did their job; if anyone doesn't like it, then you should have paid attention long before this.

48 posted on 06/29/2003 12:26:26 PM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HigherMoralAuthority
What we don't need is a third party stealing votes and seats all over the country.

There won't be. As long as there is a terrorist menace, Americans are not going to turn the executive branch over to a bunch who can't get anything done in Congress.

49 posted on 06/29/2003 12:26:41 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast
"Why would you expect the government, seated through democratic elections, to do anything else but represent the beliefs, values and desires of those that put them in office."

Get off the soap box. How many politicians promise one thing, get elected, and then deliver something completely different? Such as Bill Clinton, who promised to make abortion, "safe, legal, and "rare". Well that scumbag had the chance to sign legislation making partial birth aborition illegal, but he vetoed it. So much for the "rare" part of his pledge. Nixon promised "peace with honor" and gave us peace with humiliation. George Bush senior talked incessantly of nominating a conservative Supreme Court Justice, and gave us David Souter, (barf). These are only a few examples of how we all get the shaft by the politicians, even when we do vote them out. They just get replaced by other snakes.

50 posted on 06/29/2003 12:27:22 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-564 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