Skip to comments.Missing the Point on Gays
Posted on 09/05/2003 8:00:27 PM PDT by Recourse
Missing the Point on Gays
By Alan Simpson Friday, September 5, 2003; Page A21
For several weeks now a storm has been brewing in the Senate over just how homosexuals fit into the mainstream of American life. First, an honest debate on the criminalization of gay sex in Texas somehow gave rise to baseless fears about permitting bestiality and incest. Then, after the Supreme Court's reasonable ruling in Lawrence v. Texas that the government had no business policing people in their bedrooms, a panic developed. Some worried that the decision would lead to gay marriage, thus posing a threat to the survival of the American family.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Justice Scalia doesn't consider these fears baseless.
Homo's are on the fringe, nothing the senate, the courts, the fallen churches, or anything else does will ever change that.
Sorry pal, I strongly disagree with you. On the whole, I am convinced it is a serious mental disorder containing an element of evolving thought disorder which is being sold to the American public and which you have bought into.
The federal government should be protecting everyone's right to bear arms (2nd Ammendment of the Constitution).
Aborting children is as much a violation of civil rights as slavery and lynching is.
Marriages are licensed. Do away with marriage license and then there should be no fear of a federal "power grab", it would merely be a private set of secular or religous vows to another person holding no legal weight or governmental oversight.
Are we still talking "states' rights"?
Not to mention Simpson.
"The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. . . . And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard. . . . I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area."
Dick sees clearly the other reason why federalizing marriage is troublesome.
So same-sex-marriage is an issue for each state to decide but the right to commit acts of homosexual stimulation are federally protected. Same sex interaction is protected but adult incest is not. Consenting acts of prostitution are not. Polygomous marriage was barred nationally (wasn't this a condition of Utah entering the Union?).
Need I add that it is illegal to grow pot in your bedroom closet and smoke it only at home?
Privacy provisions of the constitution would appear not to protect a citizen against government interference in a number of "private" acts. The activist supreme court set bad precedent by okaying this one act in private but arguing that it did not necessarily permit a bunch of other acts (sexual or non).
I think this homosexual should try toting his "queer" Muslim sign around the block in a country ran by Muslims. He might just find them a bit inhospitable to his desire to proliferate GRID.
These people need to be demonized??? Wow, I see America's leftists aren't the only ones capable of irrational vitriol of a frightening degree.
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.