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 previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 561-564 next last
To: marajade
It would be very real to ask the Judges whether they are going to invent more "fundamental rights" nowhere in the Constitution, and interfere with State authority. In fact, if we don't get that from Bush, he is an utter failure on judicial appointments. The vice of the decision is the damage it does to the Constitution and the relentless destruction of State authority. You don't have to give a rats ass about gays one way or the other to see that.
181 posted on 06/29/2003 6:19:50 PM PDT by Iconoclast2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: pram
They shouldn't be put into prison. They should be publicly flogged. Cheap, over soon, they can learn their lesson quickly, and public shame is a great teacher and preventive.

I agree with this punishment both for sodomites and for first offense drug users.
182 posted on 06/29/2003 6:20:10 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Yeah... God forbid we actually obey him and love others as ourself...

Are you equating love with sodomy?

183 posted on 06/29/2003 6:21:44 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
They wrote nothing. They merely struck down laws aimed at punishing a specific group of people. No different than striking down Jim Crow laws.

Race that one is born with and voluntary unnatural sex acts have nothing in common and anyone with two brain cells knows that.

184 posted on 06/29/2003 6:24:00 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

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

Actually, now would be a good time.

With you gone we could capture the Senate and House and Presidency by 2/3rds margins, and ram a Capitalist agenda through the Legislature without fear of voter backlash.

185 posted on 06/29/2003 6:24:32 PM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
This isn't about privacy. SCOTUS just undermined every law in the country based upon public morals

Good. About damned time, too.

186 posted on 06/29/2003 6:25:15 PM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: squidly
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.

Disagree.

How many people vote Demon just because they can't stand the Theocrats.

We ditch the Moral Ayatollahs, and we'll control every election on a liberty based, pro-Capitalist agenda.

Dump the theocratic kooks, and I'll vote GOP again.

187 posted on 06/29/2003 6:27:36 PM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
I think you forgot the </sarcasm> tag. Or are you by any chance being so deliberately outrageous as to try to point out the absurdity of libertarianism taken to an extreme?
188 posted on 06/29/2003 6:29:14 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Bet Fred would join, too.

I'm still trying to figure out what his FR nickname is...

189 posted on 06/29/2003 6:29:57 PM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
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?

No. (but shouldn't be illegal either).
Sure, if anyone's that dumb they deserve two wives.
Be more specific.
Yes.
Tacky, but yes. If we weren't so wrapped up in sex, fear of it, hiding it, etc... we'd have a lot less problems, IMO.

Only our culture makes sex 'dirty'. If we didn't TEACH that, and ACT like that, then children would think it was "just natural and something that they'd do one day... now where is my toy?"

190 posted on 06/29/2003 6:32:56 PM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: pram
How many committed married couples practice sodomy?

Lots.

The same legal principle that would allow a state to regulate sodomy among gay couple would enable a state to regulate sodomy among married couples.

Thats a scary bunch of government voyeurism that you support.

191 posted on 06/29/2003 6:33:47 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Arbitrary" and "Unreasonable" are vague terms that activist judges can use to subvert the plain meaning of the 10th ammendment. Their ruling in this case was far more arbitrary and unreasonable than the law in question. Our rights are given as gifts from our Creator. It then follows that you don't have the "right" to do what is wrong.

A nation and society has a right to defend itself from the destructive impluses of its members. Take two nations that have equal resources in every other way. In one, the laws of Texas apply, go beyond it even, cohabitation is illegal and there is no such thing as 'no-fault' divorce when children are involved. In the other nation, half the population engages in sodomy and prostitution. The other half is cohabiting.

Which nation will be the greater nation 100 years hence? Which people will be happier, freerer, and more prosperous? There is no doubt in my mind that nation whose laws best conform to the actual moral order of the universe will be the nation whose citizens are most blessed.

Sorry, thats wrong. Neither fed/state/local governments were ever granted such a fiat power to decree things or acts to be 'criminal'. Booze prohibition required an amendment, repealed when sanity was restored.

What are you talking about? Booze prohibition required an ammendment because they wanted to make it a FEDERAL law. Each state could proibit it if they wanted. Heck, I still live in a 'dry' county.

Yep, harmful criminal acts are the basis for law. What you believe to be 'sins' are not.

Don't tell me what I can have as my opinion for a basis for law. I have just as much right as you do to decide where the lines should be drawn. Gay men have a life expectancy about 30 years less than heterosexual men. They take antibiotics by the handful to continue the unnatural acts they ingage in without constant infection. This does nothing but make the petri dishes for resistent strains that are a threat to us all. Most sex outside of marriage is exploitative of one or the other. The state has a vested interest in preventing exploitation.

192 posted on 06/29/2003 6:34:00 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
Am I to take it that you would also get rid of statutory rape laws, including those protecting 14-year-old boys?
193 posted on 06/29/2003 6:35:23 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
How many committed married couples practice sodomy? Lots.

You liberal-tarian types and homo-promos always say that. I have yet to see any reasonable support for that most assuredly false statement.

The same legal principle that would allow a state to regulate sodomy among gay couple would enable a state to regulate sodomy among married couples.

Suits me. The laws against sodomy that were on the books around the time the Constitution was written included opposite sex sodomy too so they didn't mind those laws, and neither would I.

194 posted on 06/29/2003 6:37:59 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
The same legal principle that would allow a state to regulate sodomy among gay couple would enable a state to regulate sodomy among married couples.

And most states used to have laws doing precisely that. But almost all of them got rid of them, because they came under political attack. Politics is not only the legitimate way to deal with such problems (when the courts are not,) it works.

195 posted on 06/29/2003 6:38:34 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Perhaps Bush could start a new strategery.

Buy off the middle voters with pro-liberty social stands, while stealthly pushing through bold economic reform.

Build a new coalition - dumping the zealots, and stealing voters from the Demons who have been afraid to vote GOP for fear of losing 'social' freedoms.

The theocrats aren't going to vote Demon, no matter what. Even if they vote 3rd party, they won't give demons any votes.

And I'll bet that there are LARGE blocks of more or less pro-capitalist Dem voters who would cross lines to vote for the GOP if they ditched these blue noses.

Now might be the time.
When will be a better time?
Would be a good use of political capital. Realign the GOP and make them election proof.

196 posted on 06/29/2003 6:40:03 PM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
fear of it, hiding it, etc

Surely you jest. HIDING sex? In a culture where sex of all varieties is omnipresent?

197 posted on 06/29/2003 6:40:21 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: deport
Ooops. I'm most definately a criminal in two states.. heheheh.
198 posted on 06/29/2003 6:42:56 PM PDT by DAnconia55 (Red that is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Can we get the states out of our bathrooms now?

Some of us don't like lowflow toilets.

199 posted on 06/29/2003 6:43:07 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: pram; DAnconia55
I don't think DAnconia55 is being serious. I don't think anybody could honestly believe the stuff he's saying.
200 posted on 06/29/2003 6:43:34 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 561-564 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