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

Skip to comments.

Columnist David Limbaugh Says Sodomy Ruling is a "Gold Mine" for Liberals
Human Events ^ | 07-07-03 | Limbaugh, David

Posted on 07/07/2003 1:06:01 PM PDT by Theodore R.

Sodomy Ruling Part II: A Liberal Gold Mine by David Limbaugh Posted Jul 7, 2003

Our Rulers, The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas (the sodomy case) is a veritable gold mine for liberals and the shifting values they hold dear.

Not many conservatives I know have any desire to see the sodomy laws of any state enforced against homosexual behavior within the confines of one's private residence. But the Supreme Court's opinion had little to do with protecting that kind of privacy and much more to do with legitimizing homosexuality, moral relativism and the concept of the Constitution as an evolving document. And for good measure, the Court also took a gratuitous swipe at American sovereignty in the process.

Sure, Justice Anthony Kennedy talked about privacy, and his reasoning could have disastrous consequences if applied to its logical conclusion, as Senator Rick Santorum correctly warned. But "privacy" is hardly what was motivating the majority. The Court was determined to make a statement endorsing homosexuality as a status, not just homosexual behavior. This is profound and far ranging, but part of a continuing progression of cases sanctioning homosexuals as a protected class. The Court in Romer v. Evans (1996), for example, struck down a Colorado statute that prohibited granting special protection to homosexuals under state antidiscrimination laws.

In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy criticized (before overruling) the 1986 Supreme Court case of Bowers v. Hardwick, in which the Court validated a state sodomy law, for demeaning the homosexual relationship. "To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse." And, "(The) continuance (of the Bowers case) as precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons."

I am not disputing that a criminal statute outlawing sodomy between homosexuals demeans the homosexual relationship -- of course it does, and it's intended to. Until relatively recently our society openly disapproved of such relationships. But it is equally true that the Court's language legitimizes such relationships -- and is intended to. Had the Court merely intended to protect the homosexual act within the home it wouldn't have addressed the "demeaning of the homosexual relationship." The Court also acknowledged the "dignity" of homosexuals "as free persons."

And where this Court is concerned, forget any affinity for the Constitution's original intent, much less its reliance on absolute truths. Kennedy continued, "(The drafters of the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) 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." Are we to infer from this that the writers of the Bible were blind to certain truths and that we can now safely discard them as outmoded, prejudicial and homophobic? This concept might be news to King Solomon, who told us "there is nothing new under the sun."

Justice Kennedy's endorsement of postmodern moral relativism and humanism is hardly new. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1996), he and his robed colleagues wrote, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."

Oh well, we might as well throw out American sovereignty along with moral absolutes while we're at it. I'm not exaggerating. The Court virtually incorporated into the Constitution the ever-changing values of other nations -- "a wider civilization." "The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries," said the Court. "There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent (than that of other nations)."

Swell. Now we not only have to contend with the erosion of traditional values from the aggressive moral relativism in our own country, but that of other even more "progressive" nations. What possible justification is there to consider, let alone adopt, as constitutional principles the values of other nations? The last time I checked, we didn't have an international constitution.

President Bush has provided badly needed moral leadership in our War on Terror. But while we're paying scant attention, our moral foundations are continuing to crumble from within. The president should use his bully pulpit to challenge this court publicly. Done effectively, it could lead to the filibuster-proof majority he needs to bring sanity to the judiciary.

Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Absolute Power.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: bowers; court; davidlimbaugh; government; kennedy; lawrence; lawrencevtexas; liberals; santorum; scotus; sodomy; supreme

1 posted on 07/07/2003 1:06:01 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
The legal ramifications of this are going to be felt for decades. This will make Brown vs. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade seem relatively insignificant.
2 posted on 07/07/2003 1:08:02 PM PDT by PackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Justice Kennedy's endorsement of postmodern moral relativism and humanism is hardly new. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1996), he and his robed colleagues wrote, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life . . ."

What is most interesting about this quote is that it marked the "official" end of the U.S. Supreme Court as a relevant body in my own life. This idiotic, empty, silly statement just about summarizes the entire institution and what it has become.

At least I can comfort myself in knowing that Justice Kennedy fully supports my right to define my own existence as one that owes not a shred of respect to any U.S. Supreme Court decisions anymore.

3 posted on 07/07/2003 1:12:24 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Are we to infer from this that the writers of the Bible were blind to certain truths and that we can now safely discard them as outmoded, prejudicial and homophobic?

Yes. The Biblical endorsements of slavery are a notable example.

4 posted on 07/07/2003 1:13:25 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I think the Casey case was in 1991. It was the one that affirmed "Roe" (5-4 at he time) because "Roe" had in its eyes become "established law." Of course, the court did not affirm "Bowers" last month as "established law." The Supreme Court accepts "established law" that it wants to accept.

If Bush appoint O'Connor as chief justice, I don't think I can support Bush in 2004. O'Connor as chief justice is in the words of JFK a case of when "your party asks too much."
5 posted on 07/07/2003 1:20:12 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
The Biblical endorsements of slavery are a notable example.

While the Biblical endorsement of slavery has been misused throughout the centuries, it is not an example of how men's understanding changed the truths of the Bible.

This is not a Bible study forum, but I would suggest that you study this subject much more carefully. You should focus on 1) the notion of slavery discussed in the Bible and 2) the status of all human beings from a spiritual point of view.

Shalom.

6 posted on 07/07/2003 1:20:28 PM PDT by ArGee (If you can read this your computer may be infected with a virus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
I am not disputing that a criminal statute outlawing sodomy between homosexuals demeans the homosexual relationship -- of course it does, and it's intended to.

I wish I'd thought of saying this so clearly and succinctly. Then again, that's probably why I'm not a syndicated writer.

We need to maintain laws against homosexual behavior to continue to demean those who engage in it, whether we ever enforce such laws in the bedroom or not.

Shalom.

7 posted on 07/07/2003 1:21:55 PM PDT by ArGee (If you can read this your computer may be infected with a virus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

I'M BACK!!!

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com


STOP BY A BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD (It's in the Breaking News sidebar!)

8 posted on 07/07/2003 1:31:49 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Yes. The Biblical endorsements of slavery are a notable example.

Please provide references to these endorsements.

9 posted on 07/07/2003 1:33:53 PM PDT by VoiceOfBruck (I know everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
This ruling profoundly discouraged me. The way I see it, the war for our nation's survival became vastly more difficult to win with this decision — not just due to the decision, itself, but due to the sweeping language used to justify it.
10 posted on 07/07/2003 1:39:38 PM PDT by Wolfstar (If we don't re-elect GWB a truly great President we're NUTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
This ruling profoundly discouraged me. The way I see it, the war for our nation's survival became vastly more difficult to win with this decision...

I'm not so sure. This decision might only move the issue from the courts into the political arena. Gays constitute a much smaller minority than did African Americans, and their position generates far less sympathy from the majority. The GOP is in a good position to capitalize from this, and the Democrats are firmly tied to the homosex lobby, a group with many many problems.

It will take time to play out, but time and human nature are with us here (as they were with race relations, which the GOP was on the right side of from the beginning).

(steely)

11 posted on 07/07/2003 2:23:11 PM PDT by Steely Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
"The Biblical endorsements of slavery are a notable example."

The Bible tolerates and provides civil laws for several things, including slavery, divorce, and polygamy. But that shouldn't be viewed as an endorsement of such.

Divorce was allowed by Moses and laws were established because of the "hardness of men's hearts". Polygamy was allowed also allowed, despite that Genesis chapter 2 says man would cling to the woman (singular) and the TWO shall become one flesh. Slavery is just another example of a common practice which the Bible made allowance for. However it did write laws for protection of the slave and for the slave to gain freedom in many instances.

The following is from this link.

Why does the Bible seem to tolerate the institution of slavery?

The slavery tolerated by the Scriptures must be understood in its historical context. Old Testament laws regulating slavery are troublesome by modern standards, but in their historical context they provided a degree of social recognition and legal protection to slaves that was advanced for its time (Exodus 21:20-27; Leviticus 25:44-46).

In ancient times, slavery existed in every part of the world. Slaves had no legal status or rights, and they were treated as the property of their owners. Even Plato and Aristotle looked upon slaves as inferior beings. As inhumane as such slavery was, we must keep in mind that on occasion it was an alternative to the massacre of enemy populations in wartime and the starvation of the poor during famine. It was to the people of this harsh age that the Bible was first written.

In New Testament times, slave labor was foundational to the economy of the Roman empire. About a third of the population was comprised of slaves. If the writers of the New Testament had attacked the institution of slavery directly, the gospel would have been identified with a radical political cause at a time when the abolition of slavery was unthinkable. To directly appeal for the freeing of slaves would have been inflammatory and a direct threat to the social order. 1 Consequently, the New Testament acknowledged slavery’s existence, instructing both Christian masters and slaves in the way they should behave (Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:2; 4:1; 1 Timothy 6:2; Philemon 1:10-21). At the same time, it openly declared the spiritual equality of all people (Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 7:20-24; Colossians 3:11). 2

The gospel first had the practical effect of doing away with slavery within the community of the early church. 3 It also carried within it the seeds of the eventual complete abolition of slavery in the Western world.

The fact that the Bible never expressly condemned the institution of slavery has been wrongfully used as a rationale for its continuance. In the American South prior to the Civil War, many nominal Christians wrongly interpreted the Bible’s approach to slavery and used their misunderstanding to justify economic interests. The terrible use of African slave labor continued in spite of those who argued from the Scriptures for the equality of all races. 4

Only under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln did an American government bring an end to the nightmare of slavery that had long blighted the American conscience. The cost was incalculable. Nowhere in the world has more “brothers’ blood” been shed over the issue of slavery than in America. (Over 600,000 soldiers were killed in the Civil War.) As President Lincoln said:

Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled up by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

The writer of the “Battle Hymn Of The Republic,” popularized during the Civil War, expressed the views of millions who participated in the suffering of that era when she wrote:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord, He has trampled out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored, He has loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible, swift sword, His truth is marching on.

Today the Christian message of the spiritual equality of all men under God has spread throughout the world, and it is rapidly becoming the standard by which the human values of all nations are measured.

Written by: Dan Vander Lugt

12 posted on 07/07/2003 2:40:44 PM PDT by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Wow! Well done thou good and faithful servant. Dividing the word correctly is a Spirit gift.
13 posted on 07/07/2003 2:49:12 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 12 | View Replies]

To: VoiceOfBruck
Exodus 21:2-10
Exodus 21:20-32
Leviticus 25:44-46
Deuteronomy 20:13-14
Proverbs 29:19

Ephesians 6:5-9
Colossians 3:22
I Timothy 6:1-2
Titus 2:9-10
Philemon 1:10-21
I Peter 2:18
14 posted on 07/07/2003 2:49:58 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN; MHGinTN
I see nothing in that link which implies anything but Biblical endorsement of slavery.

The slavery tolerated by the Scriptures must be understood in its historical context.

Are we to infer that Biblical "truths" are dependent on historical context?

15 posted on 07/07/2003 2:52:58 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PackerBoy
The legal ramifications of this are going to be felt
 for decades. This will make Brown vs. Board
of Education and Roe v. Wade seem relatively insignificant.


Yes, it's going to be a big one.  The social conservatives
will be, heck-they are, into industrial grade whining.
16 posted on 07/07/2003 2:54:36 PM PDT by gcruse (There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women[.] --Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
R. Limbaugh this morning said that the rulings were essentially 'irrevocable'.

That's pretty much it. Bush has to answer for this with the amicus briefs that were filed. What was he thinking?
17 posted on 07/07/2003 3:00:01 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
"Are we to infer that Biblical "truths" are dependent on historical context? "

No that would be a wrong inference. What you are to infer is that the Bible makes allowances for man's fallen condition. God hates divorce but nevertheless included laws to govern divorce.

Polygamy was not the model that God set up in Genesis chapter 2, but nevertheless, the Bible include laws on how to treat your wives if you have two and you love one but hate the other. Should we infer from that, that God endorses hating one of your wives? Of course not! That would be contradictory to everything else the bible is about.

Same thing with slavery. The Bible commands you to love others. Yet it has laws to govern slavery, because God knows the heart of man, and man's heart is not righteous.

18 posted on 07/07/2003 3:02:32 PM PDT by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
This idiotic, empty, silly statement just about summarizes the entire institution and what it has become.

Actually, while that phrase is sheer idiocy, it is calculated. It is the eternal humanistic demand to be able to define one's past, present, and eternity without filtering one's existence through the prism of Almighty God. The Justice is this case is asserting a right to define your own existence, as if any human being can do that apart from God.

The battle continues.

19 posted on 07/07/2003 3:02:32 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
We infer God's hatred of divorce, polygamy, and certain types of hatred due to various relevant Scriptures. Upon what do we base our inference of his alleged hatred of slavery? Could you provide whatever relevant citations?
20 posted on 07/07/2003 3:05:08 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
One other point worth mentioning is that the covenant of faith is now open to all people everywhere of every nation and culture. In the OT, Jews were forbidden to enslave other Jews. Ergo, enslaving one of God's chosen people was unacceptable.

Today, anyone can be a Christian, and we never know when that person might receieve the Gospel and enter into the family of God. That is why slavery today is abhorrent.

I don't agree with everything he says, but Gary North does an excellent treatment of this in one of his books - I think the Economic Commentary of Leviticus. He discusses JEsus as being the literal embodiment of the OT "Jubilee Year" in which slaves were set free.

21 posted on 07/07/2003 3:07:11 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
anytime something is wrong for some reason it is declared "x"phobic.


How about moralphobic, heterophobic, or choicephobic.

Conservatives can use this new "privacy" right against the left. (gun registries, political speech, etc.)
22 posted on 07/07/2003 3:23:26 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs; All
This is why we need the federal marriage amendment.

write to these representatives and let them know to push

the FMA its HJ 56.

Time for people of conscience to ACT. Lets stop this

opinion from going any farther than the bedroom door.

Chairman Sensenbrenner's Photo

 

US House of Representatives

Committee on the Judiciary

107th Congress Flag

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman

Subcommittee Members

 

Subcommittee on the Constitution

Mr. Steve Chabot, Chairman

362 Ford HOB, Tel: 202-226-7680
Mr. King Mr. Jerrold Nadler
Mr. Jenkins Mr. John Conyers
Mr. Bachus Mr. Robert Scott
Mr. Hostettler Mr. Melvin Watt
Ms. Hart Mr. Adam Schiff
Mr. Feeney  
Mr. Forbes  

 


23 posted on 07/07/2003 3:32:45 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Here is another interesting link on slavery as it was defined by the laws in the Old Testament and how that differs from what we normally think of as slavery.
24 posted on 07/07/2003 3:35:45 PM PDT by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Here is another interesting link on slavery as it was defined by the laws in the Old Testament and how that differs from what we normally think of as slavery. Slavery
25 posted on 07/07/2003 3:36:13 PM PDT by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Here is another interesting link on slavery as it was defined by the laws in the Old Testament and how that differs from what we normally think of as slavery.

Hmmm.. Fair enough. Are we then to infer the Biblical "truths" are dependent upon cultural context? Or, as the author of this link prefers, upon socio-economic-religious context?

26 posted on 07/07/2003 3:46:06 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: All
Every society in history has viewed sodomites as an alternative lifestyle choice. In fact in ancient times it was generally considered a choice.
27 posted on 07/07/2003 4:09:40 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
"Are we then to infer the Biblical "truths" are dependent upon cultural context? Or, as the author of this link prefers, upon socio-economic-religious context? "

Well I think the first problem is in labeling these Old Testament laws as Biblical "Truths". When I think of "truths", I don't think of commandments that are specific to a place or time or specific people. I think of things that either describe the unchangeable nature of God, including his desires for us.

Therefore, a truth is something like "What does the Lord require of you but to love your neighbor as yourself and walk humbly before your God?". That doesn't change, it's valid for all people for all time.

Many of these Old Testament laws were given specifically to Israel, and only to Israel. Reasons were given in scripture for dietary laws which were to set Israel apart from other nations. So the dietary laws are "truths" in the sense that God did say that to Israel, but they aren't not "truths" in that you can lift a verse out and apply it to all man for all time, those are situation specific.

Similarly with the divorce, polygamy and slavery laws. They are "truth" in that God gave those laws to Israel for that time, but they are not "truths" in the sense that if you step back and look at the bigger picture they are not and never were the "ideal" that God would have us follow.

So the Bible is a combination of spiritual "truths" and historical recordings which would include these laws. Spiritual truths are not cultural and socio-economic-religious context dependent.

Historical recordings, such as the laws given to Israel can be dependent on the culture or other situation. They need to be evaluated in the greater context of scripture. You need to be careful to ensure that any spiritual truths you may derive from those are consistent with the other spiritual truths of the Bible. And when you look at the other spiritual truths in the bible, it becomes clear that laws given to Israel regarding slavery should not infer endorsement of slavery.

28 posted on 07/07/2003 4:41:22 PM PDT by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
An interesting little subgenre of Greco-Roman literature involves what they termed the "Eternal Debate" - in which the characters argued over whether females or males were the better partners. This survives in its purest form in three works: Plutarch’s Dialogue on Love, published as part of his Moralia; a short passage in Achilles Tatius’ widely popular novel, Leucippe and Clitophon; and Lucian’s rambling 4th century CE drama Affairs of the Heart. Plutarch and Achilles Tatius essentially abandon the effort without resolution, both suggesting the matter will be determined primarily by personal taste: literally, “to each his own.” In any event, it's safe to infer from an overwhelming number of sources that the Classical Greeks & Romans assumed that any attractive, young individual of either gender could inspire sexual desire in either gender. Quite similar perceptions are unmistakable in the Japanese nanshoku tradition which formed the greater part of literary endeavors during the Tokugawa era.

More to your point, while it's quite clear that near every society - including Western Christendom - regarded homoeroticism as a more or less universal impulse until rather recent times, there were some distinctions made that clearly implied 'innate' tendencies from whatever source (usually divine selection). The difference being that these rested not on a modern dichotomy between choices of sexual partners but rather on a distinction between masculinity & effeminacy. The basis innovation of modern Western society in this respect has involved the conflation of homosexuality & effeminacy in a manner which would've been quite alien to most other societies, including Western society, during the greater part of their history.

Whatever the case, individuals whom we would now term "transgendered" (or psychotic, as the case may be..) were acknowledged and commented upon within virtually any society where records survive. Their status varied dramatically from one society to the next, and tended to range higher in societies descended from settled lowland cultivators than those descended from nomadic highland warriors/herders. Their status was notably low in the Greco-Roman world - where they were regarded with contempt - but much higher in Near Eastern societies where they usually ended up in sacral temple roles (the Hebrews were a most notable exception). Other societies were ambivalent or unresolved (the Chinese by example), preferring to avoid or dismiss inquiry into the nature of such individuals.

To make the long story short, most societies have left record of these and their character traits were generally regarded as inborn (especially the Native American berdache, the Arabian khadith, the Indian hijra, and the Japanese noh). Another interesting feature of modern Western society (for those interested in such things) is that homosexual behavior has been so effectively restricted to a slim minority that this minority now includes a much, much greater share of gender ambiguous individuals, therefore reinforcing the modern conflation between the two behaviors. It's also intriguing that many modern commentators (especially on the conservative side of the spectrum) speak as if homosexuality is a paramount enticement with even the slightest exposure, while then condemning the behavior as one of the more contemptible and abhorrent activities one may engage with.

Anyhow, there's a lot of cognitive dissonance throughout history on the subject, and none of that is likely to change anytime soon.

29 posted on 07/07/2003 4:44:24 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; DannyTN
On further thought, let me backtrack and modify part of my previous comment for utmost accuracy. Much the same as their Near Eastern neighbors, the Hebrews were evidently also susceptible to the practice of placing gender ambiguous individuals in temple roles. Despite the clear suppression of religious eunuchism and homoerotic ritualism (Deuteronomy 23:1, 23:17-18; the Deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom 14:23-26), their recurrent rise within Judaic institutions requires their successive expulsion from the Temple of Solomon and concomitant persecution throughout the Kingdoms of Israel and Judaea (I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; II Kings 23:7). These verses refer to the qadesh - literally “holy ones” - which were sacred male sexual ritualists in pagan temples, not the King James Version “sodomites” of modern translation.

Although the sharply limited evidence leaves the matter inconclusive, it's generally thought that the Hebrews would periodically pick up the practice from their Levantine neighbors.

30 posted on 07/07/2003 5:37:06 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
We called to be in the world but not of the world. I'm sorry that is incongruous to you, but it is quite biblical. The Bible neither endorses slavery nor condemns it. It does admonish slaves to serve their masters with honor. Paul identified himself as a slave to the Lord.
31 posted on 07/07/2003 5:40:31 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: AntiGuv
In how many past cultures and societies was marriage between homosexuals condoned and protected?
32 posted on 07/07/2003 5:47:38 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 30 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs
Well, the ruling as narrowly defined only throws out the Texas sodomy law (and similar laws), which almost everyone agrees is a stupid law to have on the books. The broader implications as to future decisions is the big problem, and I don't see how that aspect of it is "irrecovable". Is Rush trying to say that any issue regarding gay "rights", or polygamy et al, that comes before this court will have a similar result? He may be right, but I don't think so.

The Republicans should turn this into a wedge issue; just go forth and say "you want gay marriage, adoption, and instruction on gay issues in schools? Here it comes unless you do something about it. Sadly, it may well be Bush and Rove that prevent successful use of this issue in this manner.
33 posted on 07/07/2003 5:49:48 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
The ruling addressed private behavior between consenting adults, private sexual beahvior. That covers adultery also, IMHO. The law may no longer proscribe adultery or incest, if it is behavior between consenting adults in private.
34 posted on 07/07/2003 6:14:04 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: MHGinTN
This is true. But the media coverage of this ruling is telling the sheeple "gay marriage is coming", it hasn't focused on what the actual ruling was. Of course, for the media, their spin on this is designed to promote what they hope will be an eventual reality. The brainwashing of the sheeple into accepting gay marriage has begun. But its early, and the polls show people are against gay marriage. Its time to steal a page from the Dems book and make this a wedge issue, the narrow specifics of the ruling are not important with regards to the politics.
35 posted on 07/07/2003 6:22:34 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Well it's certain that Israel did pick up practices from neighboring cultures. The depravity of the culture that they were replacing when they first entered Canaan is why God was so harsh in ordering Israel to kill everyone and not to take any as slaves.

But right of the bat, one of the existing groups of people convinced Joshua they were from a distance land and wanted to be their slaves. Joshua fell for it and Israel ended up with slaves and a big negative influence.

I don't know Hebrew well enough to infer from the word qadesh that these sodomites had infiltrated the temples. But it is clear that the priests did become corrupt at points in Israel's history.
36 posted on 07/07/2003 6:26:28 PM PDT by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
"But right of the bat", should be "right off the bat".

The former made me think of anything more conservative than Hillary.
37 posted on 07/07/2003 6:29:34 PM PDT by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Thanks for those references. I am familiar with those passages; I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

I don't read endorsement into those passages. If you read endorsement by the lack of comdemnation, I suppose that's your prerogative, but I think it's a bit of a stretch.
38 posted on 07/07/2003 7:50:49 PM PDT by VoiceOfBruck (I know everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
"The ruling addressed private behavior between consenting adults, private sexual beahvior. That covers adultery also, IMHO. The law may no longer proscribe adultery or incest, if it is behavior between consenting adults in private. "

It does seem like adultery would be relegated to the realm of contract law.

Prostitution could be regulated as commerce, but not banned on moral grounds.

Polygamy is fair game, which ought to spell the death knell for the definition of group insurance as we know it.

Beastiality will probably fall to animal rights groups to oppose, if they will.

39 posted on 07/07/2003 7:59:06 PM PDT by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
In how many past cultures and societies was marriage between homosexuals condoned and protected?

Hmmm.. A proper reply to this requires a fairly complex review of the context & structure of both marital relations & homoerotic constructs in the respective cultural spheres (which I could provide in brief, if you're actually interested).

Whatever the case, strictly speaking, three societies have "condoned and protected" marriages between men: several ancient Greek city states (most notoriously with the Theban Sacred Band, but also recorded for the Phocians and Elians); the Fujianese of China from the Five Dynasties era through at least the early Qing Dynasty - this in the form of an "adoptive older brother" qixiong exchanging vows with an "adoptive younger brother" qidi; and appearing once in a while within Western Christendom, in its most developed form evidenced by 11 modern nations (formal marriage in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada; civil unions in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland; registered partnerships in Germany, Luxembourg, and France) as well as civil unions in the U.S. state of Vermont. From a sociological perspective, these are all same-sex marriages.

Further, several societies have featured generally uncondoned but nonetheless tolerated same-sex marriages (Rome during the late Principate era; 17th Century marital contracts in the Low Countries of Europe), inconclusive evidence of formal marital arrangements (the Hittite law code; medieval Catholic/Orthodox adelphopoiïa rites), or marriage between a transgendered male & a normative 'masculine' man (Native American berdache marriages; formal marriage rituals in which one male adopts the female role in a few East African tribes; Javanese gemblakan marriages; Siberian shaman 'wives'). These latter societies would not have tolerated marriages between two 'masculine' men (or at least we have no evidence that they would have, and no record of the issue having been an issue). There's also limited anecdotal evidence of same-sex marriage in 17th Century Siam.

So, there's your answer.

40 posted on 07/07/2003 8:09:46 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Where does the Bible endorse slavery?
41 posted on 07/07/2003 8:10:34 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; DannyTN; VoiceOfBruck
The Bible neither endorses slavery nor condemns it.

After having reflected on the comments posted in reply, I think 'endorsement' was not an accurate description of the relevant Biblical passages. On its face, the Scriptures do appear to take a neutral stance - neither condemnatory nor approving.

42 posted on 07/07/2003 8:14:19 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Shall I stand alone, a lone voice in the wilderness, to call this decision wrong?
To make the absolute perversion of normal human sexuality acceptable, is wrong.
What degree of unreasonable,goal related, education makes it societally incorrect?
The law is not capable of changing an innately human, universally held aversion, to a human deviance universally decried as abnormal and intensly destructive to any and all functional societies.
Welcome the ugly backlash, or accept the downward spiral of humanity.
It is an Us vs Them issue.
Choose.




43 posted on 07/07/2003 8:25:43 PM PDT by sarasmom (Punish France.Ignore Germany.Forgive Russia..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
care to give the source of the cut and paste?
44 posted on 07/07/2003 10:23:54 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
None of that was cut and paste. The source is my own text on the social constructions of masculinity across history and cultures... Is there any particular aspect regarding which you would care for further sourcing?
45 posted on 07/07/2003 10:44:47 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
I agree that Bush and Rove will prevent this. Rush was, and I am interpreting now, basically saying that for all PRACTICAL purposes, passing an amendment will never happen, and that's the only recourse we have to overturn the Justice's decision.

The amendment will require 3/4 of the legislature to pass.

In my opinion, Bush has just become very beatable at the wrong time. If Rush Limbaugh is asking, "Why do we elect Republicans if this is what you get?", then there is room for a more principled conservative to come along and run to his right.

R's vote for far different reasons than D's. R's don't see a vote for a more ideological conservative as a wasted vote. They see it as behavior modification. Bush 41 got the cattle prod, and Bush 43 is assuming the position now.

I'm not saying its going to happen, but if you read Laura Ingraham's column this AM, you'll likely agree that his base is beyond angry with him. The damage SCOTUS has done culturally this session leaves you speechless. There is no practical recourse for what's been done, and what's more, this is damage that has accumulated over past republican administrations. When it comes to SCOTUS justices, you go all the way to the wall, like we did with Thomas, and you don't stop until they are in. D's are going to object to any candidate you put up there, so you might as well lock in conservative ideologues like Scalia.

Breyer yesterday on his musings about the obsolescence of he Constitution. The arrogance and bland indifference of such a thing is frightening.
46 posted on 07/08/2003 10:12:34 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

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