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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court citing more foreign cases Scalia: Only U.S. views are relevant (Watch Out)
usatoday.com/ ^ | 07/09/03 | Joan Biskupic

Posted on 07/09/2003 7:33:36 PM PDT by youknow

Edited on 04/13/2004 1:40:53 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court's reference to foreign law in a ruling last month that overturned state anti-sodomy statutes stood out as if it were in bold print and capital letters.

Writing for the majority in a landmark decision supporting gay civil rights, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that the European Court of Human Rights and other foreign courts have affirmed the ''rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct.''


(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: achillwindblowing; activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; anthonykennedy; bang; canada; chilling; constitution; ec; europeanunion; firstammendment; freespeech; globalism; gunlaws; lawrencevtexas; maryrobinson; pc; politicallycorrect; righttobeararms; samesexmarriage; scotus; secondammendment; soverignnation; supremecourt; transjudicialism; yourfreedoms
This week, five of the nine justices -- O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg and Breyer -- will be in Florence, Italy, for a forum with foreign judges on a proposed new European constitution
1 posted on 07/09/2003 7:33:37 PM PDT by youknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
There's A Better Way To Beat The Media Clymers (And You Don't Have To Skate)!

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 AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

2 posted on 07/09/2003 7:34:28 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: youknow
Roosevelt was right about multilateralism

Looking to the future, the United States should seriously consider the consequences of a go-it-alone policy that would leave behind the international institutions it has nurtured.

It is worth remembering that just two days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, former US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke not only of winning the war, but also of winning the peace that would follow.

Roosevelt’s purpose was to promote the enactment of rules to govern international behavior and the creation of institutions to foster international cooperation. The United Nations Charter was negotiated and ratified in San Francisco, and a meeting in Bretton Woods set up the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to guide international economic cooperation and investment in reconstruction and development.

Then followed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to foster international commerce, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the creation of NATO, the Marshall Plan and the birth of the European Union. The generous Marshall aid averted the dangers that “hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos” posed to the newly freed nations of Europe, and it helped remake the world.

American and other world leaders in the 1940s and 1950s devoted so much energy and so many resources to building international institutions because they had seen the destruction that results when nations are divided and pursue only their own self-interest. So they sought to create a system ­ anchored in freedom, openness and the rule of law ­ that would support the security and prosperity of all its members.

How well has this system worked? International institutions have fostered a greater convergence of values than has ever before occurred in human history. For the first time, most of the world’s governments are democratic. The multilateral order has also presided over mankind’s greatest period of wealth creation. The impressive economic expansion achieved by the United States and other industrial countries would not have been possible without the multilateral economic system. In the developing world, millions of people have been lifted out of poverty, though much more remains to be done.

Today, however, the international system appears to be in crisis.

Deep disagreements have emerged about how best to combat new threats to international peace and security and how best to preserve and extend prosperity in the world. Contempt for the multilateral system can be seen in the marginalization of the UN, the transatlantic rift, the division in NATO and in the European Union and the current resentment among old friends, neighbors and partners.

The question is this: At the beginning of this new century ­ one marked by unquestionable unipolarity ­ does the US need the multilateral system? The only reasonable answer that can be given is: Yes, all nations, even the most powerful, need the multilateral system. Certainly the weaker members of the international community would prefer to navigate in the international arena according to agreed international rules and by means of institutions in which their voices can be heard and their legitimate interests represented and recognized.

For the United States, the true hyper-power of our era, the case for multilateralism is no less compelling despite being more subtle. Of course, Washington must look after its national interests, but unilateralism may actually undermine those interests. The world in our time may be unipolar, but it is also interdependent.

At this hour of global interdependence, even the mightiest power has limits to its influence, to its capacity to control how others react to its actions. For unipolarity to be more than a moment in history, others must perceive it not as a threat but as a true anchor of peace. Aggressive unipolarity will set the world in search of a different equilibrium, one in which other powers can balance the military strength of the United States. This process would prove tragic and expensive. A world with so much poverty cannot afford another arms race or the conflict it could unleash.

It would be dangerously naive to think that terrorism ­ today’s biggest security concern ­ can be fought single handedly. Combating terrorism requires the support of friends, allies and sometimes adversaries. Besides security, the United States and all countries face other problems that respect no national boundaries, and therefore require global cooperative solutions. Consider global warming, destruction of bio-diversity, depletion of fisheries, ocean pollution, infectious diseases, drug trafficking and human smuggling just to name a few.

Not one of these dire challenges can be met by a nation acting alone. Only through international cooperation can there be any hope of success in combating them.

Equally, in the pursuit of prosperity and the prevention of evils such as international financial crises, recessions and now deflation, international cooperation is vital to success. Economic cooperation is needed now more than ever. There is a danger that the multilateral trading system could become the battleground of unsettled geopolitical disputes, with disastrous consequences.

Some in the unilateralists’ camp are mindful of these arguments. They are ready to concede that the United States must swallow a dose of international cooperation in the pursuit of legitimate national interests. And so they propose to live by double standards. That is an interesting approach, but it does not convince anyone.

Could international cooperation coexist with aggressive unipolarity? A useful multilateral system depends on negotiations, compromises and agreements. None of these can be cultivated in a soil of acrimony and resentment. From that soil only spring the weeds of antagonism, envy and fear ­ weeds that can crowd out inclusive globalization and constructive interdependence.

It is time to stop bashing multilateral institutions. They are no better or worse than what the major powers put into them in terms of leadership, diplomacy and resources. The right way to proceed is not to undermine these institutions but, where needed, to reform them so that they can better serve the good causes of human rights, security, peace and prosperity.

Going forward, this enterprise will require the enlightened rather than the aggressive leadership of the United States. But the pursuit of this endeavor should assuredly be guided by the same vision that Roosevelt outlined in 1941: the vision of a world order founded upon “a cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.” Above all, by the vision of a world order founded upon the essential human freedoms.

Ernesto Zedillo is the director of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization and former president of Mexico. This article is adapted from a speech that he delivered on June 5, 2003, at the 352nd commencement of Harvard University

3 posted on 07/09/2003 7:45:36 PM PDT by youknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: youknow
package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a325b3f5d31.htm
Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court &Congress/is believed to be unprecedented.http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm
4 posted on 07/09/2003 7:50:24 PM PDT by youknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: youknow
And let me tell you, I've read the first couple of rounds of the draft EU constitution posted in various places. It's absolutely chilling.
5 posted on 07/09/2003 7:53:48 PM PDT by ysoitanly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: youknow
This is very disturbing. There was a thread about this yesterday, and it was disturbing yesterday, and it's still disturbing today.
6 posted on 07/09/2003 7:55:35 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius


Breyer: Foreign Law Trumps
Constitution In U.S. Supreme Court


By
Bob Ellis























Perhaps Judge Breyer, along with co-conspirator Judge Sandra Day O´Connor, felt the need for this rare television appearance because of the growing sentiment for impeachment of judges who cannot or will not uphold their oath to support and protect the U.S. Constitution. Or perhaps in keeping with their recent predisposition to follow the herd in the dictates of pop culture, they just felt the need to get out there and pump up their popularity.

In any event, though his candor is somewhat surprising, the conclusion of Judge Breyer´s statement comes as no real revelation, since we are becoming accustomed to the Supreme Court putting any trendy liberal agenda ahead of the Founders intent for the Constitution. It seems a 1981 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights regarding homosexuality played a significant role in the recent Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas to overturn Texas´ sodomy law. Breyer said that the ruling by the European court showed that the Supreme Court´s prior decision in the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick that upheld state sodomy laws was not founded in Western tradition. Since when did a single ruling from some Euro-Socialist court in the 1980´s become “Western tradition?” What about all the sodomy law and rulings both before and after the swank European one? No problem; we can just ignore those inconvenient ones.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the few in his court who takes the oath of office seriously, is correct in his assertion that the views of foreign courts are irrelevant under the U.S. Constitution. Despite the lust of the globalists to subvert American sovereignty to the barbarians of the world, America is answerable to no other nation or body. We determine how we will live our lives, and by definition we are supposed to do so according to the Constitution; no other nation has a say in how we govern ourselves. I seem to recall that the War of Independence some 200 years ago had something to do with American sovereignty. No wonder the Founders warned against foreign entanglements; they saw them as threats to our sovereignty.

The Supreme Court´s job is not to make sure its rulings are in compliance with those of some foreign nation or coalition of nations. The Supreme Court´s job is not to make sure its rulings meet with the approval of pop culture and politically correct agendas. No, the Supreme Court´s job is to determine if the laws of the United States, and the rulings of lower courts, are in harmony with the United States Constitution. The pathetic state of affairs we now find ourselves in was foretold by John Story (Supreme Court Justice, 1811-1845), who said, “The truth is…the danger is not, that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defence of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be too ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day.”

This admission certainly exposes the naiveté or outright attempts at deception of those who are trying to claim Lawrence v. Texas has no bearing on homosexual “marriage.” Guess what? Canada recently made homosexual “marriage” a reality. How long until this rogue Supreme Court decides that Canada´s decision proves our laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman are “not founded in the Western tradition” of the moment?

Our national sovereignty and our stability as a people is being seriously undermined by a group of nine rulers who are appointed and, if beyond the power of impeachment through a lack of will to use it, are unaccountable to the people of the United States. Could we really have sunk so far as to, while rejecting a king in the 18th Century, accept an oligarchy in the 21st Century? I guess that depends on whether the people will rise up and defend their Constitution, or sit in mute inaction as a great nation slides into ruin.

7 posted on 07/09/2003 7:57:21 PM PDT by youknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: youknow
The globalist turd way
Getting ready to administer "world" law
8 posted on 07/09/2003 7:57:43 PM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ysoitanly
Globalization
9 posted on 07/09/2003 7:58:48 PM PDT by youknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: youknow
Representation without taxation - not to mention the many many foreign countries that still outlaw sodomy. It could be all downhill from here.
10 posted on 07/09/2003 7:59:42 PM PDT by AD from SpringBay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ysoitanly
And let me tell you, I've read the first couple of rounds of the draft EU constitution posted in various places. It's absolutely chilling.

Understandable..as the EU's inspiriation is straight from the pit of hell.... The US Constitution from a group of strong Christian men...and Christ breathed.. there in lies the difference..though there be many who dispute it... the results of both will speak for themselves

11 posted on 07/09/2003 8:00:41 PM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
European Union Influenced Supreme Court Sodomy Ruling

NewsMax.com's Fr. Michael Reilly says there may be more than meets the eye behind the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last week in the Texas sodomy case.

As the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Texas' sodomy law continues to generate controversy, Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute reveals a disturbing new element.

The high court used foreign precedents in formulating its decision.

In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy referred to a "Friend of the Court" brief submitted by former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson.

"This Court should not decide in a vacuum whether criminalization of same-sex sodomy between consenting adults violates constitutional guarantees of privacy and equal protection," said Robinson.

"Other nations with similar histories, legal systems, and political cultures have already answered these questions in the affirmative. This Court should pay due respect to these opinions of humankind."

Robinson warned also that "To ignore these precedents virtually ensures that this Court's ruling will generate controversies with the United State's closest global allies."

In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia expressly condemned this apparent reliance on foreign precedent, writing, "Constitutional elements do not spring into existence ... as the Court seems to believe, because foreign nations decriminalize conduct."

Scalia argued that the high court "should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans."

Warns Ruse, "If the Supreme Court continues to be guided by the decisions of the U.N. and the [European Union], U.S. recognition of same-sex marriage could eventually follow suit."

12 posted on 07/09/2003 8:02:07 PM PDT by youknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: youknow; 4ConservativeJustices
Check out this AMICI CURIAE the Supreme Court accepted. It does not cite any law or precedent on the books in America or anywhere else.
13 posted on 07/09/2003 8:06:15 PM PDT by DPB101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay
Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
14 posted on 07/09/2003 8:13:28 PM PDT by youknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
thanks
15 posted on 07/09/2003 8:14:22 PM PDT by youknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay
I guess that depends on whether the people will rise up and defend their Constitution, or sit in mute inaction as a great nation slides into ruin.


16 posted on 07/09/2003 8:15:22 PM PDT by youknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: youknow
I see more mute inaction between slides these days and since I haven't seen too many rise up I won't hedge my bets.
17 posted on 07/09/2003 8:18:22 PM PDT by AD from SpringBay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: youknow
Long live Scalia. The most brilliant person to be on the Supreme Court in a long, LONG time. And thank GOD that Thomas and Rehnquist actually read and follow the Constitution. May they all live long, and healthy lives.

As for the other six - who the hell knows what they read or where they get their ideas from.
18 posted on 07/09/2003 8:20:40 PM PDT by pittsburgh gop guy (now serving eastern Pennsylvania and the Lehigh Valley.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: youknow
LAW INTSUM
19 posted on 07/09/2003 8:49:00 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: youknow
Geeeeeee ... using foreign case law - hmmmm? Sounds like ammunition for an appeal to me ...??
20 posted on 07/09/2003 8:53:02 PM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ysoitanly
"absolutely chilling"

Can you give us a small sample of what you mean ...??
21 posted on 07/09/2003 8:54:42 PM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; Luis Gonzalez
Some more socialist poison spewed by your "enlightened" activist unelected superlegislature SCOTUS heroes.

Just invited you over to applaud your pro-sodomy saviors.

22 posted on 07/09/2003 9:00:35 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
Appeal to who? This was a Supreme Court ruling! Although, the way things are going, it won't be too long before the World Court has ultimate jurisdiction over the US and our clueless, Oprah-watching masses o' sheeple.
23 posted on 07/09/2003 9:01:21 PM PDT by StockAyatollah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

bttt
24 posted on 07/09/2003 9:05:15 PM PDT by Kudsman (LETS GET IT ON!!! The price of freedom is vigilance. Tyranny is free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
The true pro-sodomists were the 1973 Texas legislature who created the right to sodomy for the majority of the people of Texas.
25 posted on 07/09/2003 9:10:58 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Cuba será libre...soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
You're out of your mind curry.

The sky is not falling just because a bunch of queers have established the right to close their bedroom doors from prying snoops like you.

Get a grip. We should all enjoy our right to a private life, liberty under law, and the pursuit of private property.
26 posted on 07/09/2003 9:17:50 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
For what it's worth they cite Jewish laws. From the brief [emphasis mine]:
The relevant passages from the Talmud demonstrate that the rabbis sought -- with the scientific knowledge and means available to them in their time -- to formulate the quickest, least painful, and least disfiguring methods of execution that the technology of the day would allow within the framework of Biblical texts.
Then they list the 4 acceptable forms of punishment, of which one is "stoning". To that end they write,
A. "Stoning" Was Intended To Be a Quick and Relatively Painless Form of Non-disfiguring Execution.

The Mishna in tractate Sanhedrin (45a) describes execution by "stoning." The condemned defendant was pushed from a platform set high enough above a stone floor that his fall would probably result in instantaneous death. [emphasis mine, citation omitted]

Yet the Bible states otherwise,
[KJV] Numbers 15:
35    And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36    And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
It doesn't say anything about building a platform and PUSHING the guilty party off.

Finally, they conclude,

If execution by the electric chair, as administered in Florida, results in unnecessary pain and disfigurement, it would be unacceptable under the principles underlying the traditional Jewish legal system applied 2000 years ago, and should also be unacceptable under the Eighth Amendment today.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Rev. 6th ed. (1856) notes that, '[t]o attain their social end, punishments should be exemplary, or capable of intimidating those who might be tempted to imitate the guilty.' Electrocution certainly fits that definition. Capital punishment is just that - punishment - not a pat on the back.
27 posted on 07/09/2003 9:20:01 PM PDT by 4CJ ("No man's life, liberty or property are safe while dims and neocons are in control")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Just thought it weird the court would even accept it. It was a first. No U.S. law or precedent cited. What is next? We going to have Jerry Falwell submit briefs based on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans and Baba Ram Das submit them based on the Brhadaranyaka?

Oh wait..we won't have to worry about Falwell. Armed guards will take him away because the ACLU will have an injunction ready for him when he walks in the door. We might have to worry about Baba Ram Das however.

28 posted on 07/09/2003 9:36:24 PM PDT by DPB101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: youknow
In theory, that could mean the currently conservative court someday might be influenced by other countries' opposition to the death penalty,

Since when is this court conservative? Why do they keep saying that? The SCOTUS decision and their kowtowing to European and other like laws, attitudes and what not is the depth of evil.

And now the five of nine are going to Europe to show and tell. Where's the sixth - I thought the Lawrence decision was 6/3.

29 posted on 07/09/2003 10:03:09 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: youknow
But the pursuit of this endeavor should assuredly be guided by the same vision that Roosevelt outlined in 1941: the vision of a world order founded upon “a cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.” Above all, by the vision of a world order founded upon the essential human freedoms.

You know - you know you signed up on FR today (or is it tomorrow?) and you post this horse s**t! Actually horse s**t is good stuff compared to the communist, leftist, Orwellian doublespeak above. Get thee hence to the bowels of socialist moral relativist one world order "human rights" homonazi dungheap where you slithered from!

30 posted on 07/09/2003 10:09:04 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: youknow
I humbly apologize for my rude comments. I thought you agreed with the junk you posted. I should have read farther down the thread. So sorry! You should have put "Barf Alert" or something!
31 posted on 07/09/2003 10:11:21 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Get a grip. We should all enjoy our right to a private life, liberty under law, and the pursuit of private property.

Please comment on the justices' taking note of what other countries' laws are and kowtowing to them.

32 posted on 07/09/2003 10:14:34 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: pram
When compared to the Warren Court, this is a very conservative Court.

The Warren Court looked at British Common Law in it's criminal procedure and right to council cases. Miranda was influenced by British practices.

We can be thankful that the gay case was not decided on equal protection grounds (for which there is a plausable arguement) but on the much less established right to privacy -- whatever that is.

In short, my feeling is that the Court is moving generally in the right direction but needs a couple more justices not over influenced by social arguments.

Just my two bits.

33 posted on 07/09/2003 10:30:39 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA
American law is founded on our Constitution and previous English law. What the British (or anybody else in the world) are doing now should not have any basis. Once the Supreme Court decided they were going to rewrite the Constitution, rather than just interpret it, it has been down-hill ever since. Now they need to rewrite the Constitution based on what is going on in Europe --- I seem to recall that we fought a war to solve that and two more wars to fix their other mistakes. We don't need to allow much of their influence on our laws.
34 posted on 07/09/2003 11:02:46 PM PDT by Jerr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
The Court should have
1. Politely reminded the applicants that they generally support a "seperation of Church and State" As such, their brief is worthless.
2. Our courts are law courts, not religious ones. As such, the brief has no standing.
35 posted on 07/10/2003 12:59:01 AM PDT by rmlew ("Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
I agree. That amicus was out of line. Everyone is going to line up to file similar briefs and there is not point to it at all. The National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs does file some good stuff. This amicus for one. Catholic schools face a similar problem Kiryas Joel does. The city contracts with Catholic educators to provide services to handicapped kids. But the children have to walk across streets to mobile classrooms because of an insane interpretation of the First Amendment.
36 posted on 07/10/2003 1:42:38 AM PDT by DPB101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Thud
fyi
37 posted on 07/10/2003 4:09:33 AM PDT by Dark Wing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StockAyatollah
I believe that would be the legislature - they could pass a law undoing what the USSC has done.

Plus ... can't the Chief Justice bring a previous matter before the court ...?? I seem to remember reading about that somewhere.
38 posted on 07/10/2003 4:34:11 PM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html go read it
39 posted on 07/10/2003 8:36:06 PM PDT by youknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: youknow
bump
40 posted on 07/11/2003 6:12:51 PM PDT by youknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Some people show up to defend sodomy on every available thread without invitation. It's interesting to note who the big pervo-defenders are. Interesting to note and move on, my friend. Disturbed and twisted people cannot be reasoned with.
41 posted on 07/12/2003 2:17:40 AM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: youknow
bump
42 posted on 07/12/2003 6:35:16 PM PDT by youknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | 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