Posted on 12/05/2004 11:27:47 AM PST by JustAnotherOkie
I agree that the whole Kerry/DNC/Left stuff about supporting states rights on this matter was and is utter garbage. Its completely disingenuous because they know full well that the Courts are making such a position untenable and impossible. And what makes it even more disingenuous is that they know such judicial interference is even more certain if they are in office because the types of judges who behave in such a manner are the very judges they appoint.
Its all about biding their time until the Courts do for them what they can't do legislatively in a fair democratic fight -- impose gay marriage or civil unions. Then they hope a SCOTUS decision would take on a weight and momentum and gravitas of its own (like Roe unfortunately has where people consistently say they don't want it overturned yet turn around and say they oppose the defacto abortion on demand that it imposed). They would say "the courts have spoken, its now a matter of settled law." That would be echoes by the Couric and Jennings of the press. And hopefully -- from the Left's perspective -- that would take on enough weight that it sort of inclines most Americans to just accept it and do nothing about it.
I am not shocked that the mainstream media or the debate moderators never followed up with such logical questions such as; "what then will you do to stop Courts from taking power away from the states Sen Kerry, and what would you do if the Sup Court imposes gay marriage/civil unions?", but I am sort of surprised that people like Chris Wallace don't even think to ask it of people like Pelosi?
Though I think more Americans are catching on to the Left's deceptive tactics, the full extent of it will never be known if the GOP isn't willing to point it out for them. Then maybe someday you'll actually hear a Katie Couric ask a Nancy Pelosi (or some other phony pro-states righter) ask what they'll do if the Courts destroy states rights on this just as they have with abortion. If that happens then things will be looking pretty good for our side.
They are going to let some liberal court judge make it the law of the land and spend the next forty years baiting us suckers with empty promises saying vote for me and we'll straighten out those crazy courts.
It will be law before this four years is up.
They dress it up in a fancy name like choice but it will men marring men and women marrying women.
Our Congressmen love to duck their responsibility and the judges who don't have to stand for election, love the power.
A win win for them and a lose lose for us.
If we don't change the liberal balance of the courts we're going to make Sodom and Gomorrah look like a church social.
And this is the mindset that the Democrats have
to offer??????? No wonder they are losing all the
way around....guess it is a left-over from the last
pervert they idolized..and some still do. Keep
bringing the liberal mindset up and then wonder
why they keep losing....nitwits... Jake
Exactly!
This wasn't about "consenting adults" "in private":
Two adults consent to pay/receive money for sex and they are prohibited (it is not the financial aspect that makes it a crime, you can pay a babysitter to come into your home and provide unlicensed child care and even violate child labor laws and avoid "payroll taxes"). In the absence of fornication laws and adultery laws (both of which criminalized sex outside of marriage), there is little that can be done to provide 100% enforcement. Same with regulating it. Disease will still spread as long as people can go to a bar, buy someone a bunch of drinks, and still make a booty call/one night stand.
If those two men had been caught smoking pot or crack in their bedroom when the police entered, that would not have overturned drug laws in America. At MOST the court would have dismissed the charges against the men for the manner in which their crime had been discovered.
As to "consenting adults", some pending cases against men who had sex with underage boys were tossed out as it was determined that they would be afforded the same protection of a lower age of consent (below 18, AKA MINORS AKA NOT ADULTS) INCLUDING Romeo & Juliet (now Romeo and Romeo) exceptions if the younger partner was below age of consent but "near enough" to the adult seducer.
"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Sunday that a proposed constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples would be "an act of discrimination" against gays."
Way to go Nancy! Make the part of the Demoncrats stance.
It sure is DISCRIMINATION! The majority DISCRIMINATES AGAINST PERVERSION. Too bad you can't but hey, push immorality and we'll have a complete Republican party in D.C..
All laws discriminate.
Heck, she'd encourage people marrying animals if she thought that would get the Demoncrat party votes in coming elections.
"Let's see... drug laws discriminate against crackheads... "age of consent" laws discriminate against child molesters... RICO laws discrminate against mobsters... Game laws discrminate against poachers... Homicide laws discrminate against murderers...
Ther's an awful lot of horrifying discrimination going on here!"
That was brilliant! I like how you think! ;)
Let us define another group on the basis of their sexual predilections and then condemn laws against aspects of such behavior as "acts of discrimination".
Laws against pedophilia or polygamy would then also be condemned as "acts of discrimination".
Pelosi sounds pretty stupid here, unless one buys into the whole gay agenda nonsense.
It was a misdomeanor in Texas that carried a fine and no jail time at the time of Lawrence and his pal's arrest. Don't know what they were arrested for (probably unwillingness to cooperate, when they continued the act of anal sex in the presence of the officer). They weren't arrested for "sodomy". That's for sure.
I don't know what CA Pelosi is talking about. The present situation for a lot in CA discriminates against straight couples. Straight married couples pay more in income tax than gay "partners" working for the state, county and many private employers in CA.
They can't "help" it, they were born that way.
I don't think I should have to justify this idiocy with the likes of the SCUM Pelosi. For whatever reasns, religious or otherwise, this is a sick lifestyle, rejected by the AMerican People. SHe and her ilk can go to Canada of France or where ever they feel their pholosophy is accepted.
I don't think I should have to justify this idiocy with the likes of the SCUM Pelosi. For whatever reasns, religious or otherwise, this is a sick lifestyle, rejected by the AMerican People. SHe and her ilk can go to Canada of France or where ever they feel their pholosophy is accepted.
It is also my God given Right to LOVE and to HATE!. The good Lord has given me the power to reason, to know what is right and what is wrong, To know what to love and to know what to hate, and the ability to know the limits.
This Hate Crime Legislation is nothing more than the undermining of our rights of Free Speech, to control our thoughts and how we express ourselves. These Laws must be recinded!
Of course. People elect democrats like Pelosi to have someone tell them what do every minute of their lives. What to think is part of it. They think they are entitled to tell us what to do and think because they descend from nobility. (Thats why they care so much for the little guy, without the little guy, who will till the fields and do the cooking?)
The world is full of discrimination and if we think about it, thats how we like the world. (I would not want to live in a world where I had every freedom taken away because some one did not want some one else offended or worried about becomeing offended some time in the future.
The PC world, carried to the conclusion the left would have is totallitarian Hell, but everyone would vote for democrats and Pelosi presumably would be happy there.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Homosexuals are mainly interested in acquiring spousal medical coverage for those expensive AIDS treatments.
.
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.