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

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban
FOXnews

Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0amanreapswhathesews; 0bedroomkgb; 0godwillnotbemocked; 1aslimmeyslope; 1scrotus; 1slimmeyslope; 3branchesofgovt; activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ageofconsentlaws; aides; aidesincreasetaxesup; aidesintheusa; aidesupinsuranceup; aidsalert; antibiblecountry; antichristiantrolls; antirelgiontrolls; antireligion; antireligionbigots; antireligiontroll; aregayapparel; arroganceofscotus; ascrotus; assthumpingidiots; biblethumpingmorons; biggovernmentcorrupt; bluenose; blueoyster; bohica; bowtothesecularstate; bowtothewelfarestate; bugger; buggered; buggerer; buggery; busybodieslose; buttpirate; buyvaselinestock; catsdogsmice; celebratesin; chickenlollipoppers; christianbashing; civilrights; clintonlegacy; constitutiontrashed; crazyfundies; culturewar; davidsouterisafaggot; deathoftheusa; deathofthewest; degeneracy; depravity; destructionofusa; devianceuptaxesup; deviantsex; donwenow; downourthroats; downwenoware; druglaws; endofcivilization; evilinactivistcourts; evilinrighttoprivacy; falalafalalalalala; falalalalalalalala; farkinqueers; fecalcontact; fools; fudgepackersdelight; fundiesinthecloset; fundyhysteria; gay; gayagenda; gayarrogance; gaybashing; gaycheese; gaycivlrights; gaydar; gaygestapo; gaykeywords; gaymafia; gaymarriage; gaymoose; gaynarcissist; gaypride; gayrights; gaysarevictimtoo; gayscelebrate; gaysholdusacaptive; gaysoutofcloset; gaysremakeamerica; gayssuppressthetruth; gaystapo; gaytrolldolls; gaytyrants; gayvote; getoutofmyroom; goawaymrsgrundy; godless; godsjudgement; godswrath; governmentschoolsex; hatecrimelegislation; himom; hitlerywins; homeschoolnow; homoapologists; homophobes; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexualagendawins; homosexualvote; hyperventilating; ihavearighttosin; ihaverights; incestlaws; indoctrination; itsjustsex; itsunatural; jeebuslovesgays; keywordwarsaregay; kitcheneducation; kneepadbrigade; lawrencevtexas; legislatinghate; legislatingsin; legislaturemakeslaws; lewinksys4all; lewinsky; lewinskys; liars; liberalagenda; libertariansareevil; libertines; lotsdaughters; lpcausesbo; makejeebuscry; manboylove; manboyloveassoc; manholeinspectorjoy; menwithmen; moralrelativism; moralrelativistinusa; msgrundypatrol; mycousinknowsclay; nambla; namblawillwinnext; onepercentrulesusa; oralsex; ourgayapparel; paulwellstone; pcdecision; pederasty; peepingtomgovt; perversion; perverts; preverts; prisoners; privacyprotection; prostitutionlaws; publichealthhazard; puritanslose; readtheconstitution; relgionbashing; religionbashing; romans1godswrath; rosieishappytoday; rosietypes; rumprangers; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage; samesexmarriages; scotusknowsbest; scotusmakeslaw; scotustrumpsgodslaw; scotustrumpstate; scotustyranny; scrotus; sexeducation; sexindoctrination; sexpolice; sin; singlorified; slimmeyslope; slipperyslop; slipperyslope; slouching; slurpslurp; snitchonyourneighbor; sodomandgomorrah; sodomites; sodommites; sodomy; sodomylaw; sodomylaws; spyinthebushes; statesrights; stronginthesouth; supremecourt; swalloworspit; talibanintheusa; talibannedtrolls; texassodomylaw; thefunpolice; thegayelite; thegayvote; thisisevil; tisseasontobeunhappy; tistheseason; tobejolly; usathirdworldcountry; vicesnowvirtues; victimlesscrime; victimsofaids; victimsofhepatitus; weakinthehead; whatstatesright; womenwithwomen; zscrotus; zslimmeyslope; zzgoodruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 751-800801-850851-900 ... 1,701-1,734 next last
To: OWK
I thought the purpose of a discussion forum was to exchange ideas.

Are you new around here? :) Interesting times.... interesting times.
801 posted on 06/26/2003 11:14:29 AM PDT by Daus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 773 | View Replies]

To: huck von finn
That's just what they want you to believe.


802 posted on 06/26/2003 11:15:04 AM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
A right exists regardless of whether, or not, it can be guaranteed by the govm't.

a question: then how is it created and how does it exist? just as an idea in your mind?

803 posted on 06/26/2003 11:15:55 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment...."

..."as the second Justice Harlan recognized"...

Therein lies the rub...whose "interest" and "broad" definition of the "continuum" of freedoms is not "arbitrary", but rather "reasonable and sensitive"?

Is it the proper role of the U.S. Supreme Court to determine this?

804 posted on 06/26/2003 11:16:12 AM PDT by 88keys (proudly posting without reading all the other posts first!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
The problem many of us our having is that to get the result you wanted (remove sodomy from the books) you have gutted the ability of states to pass any laws that restrict sexual habits. Privacy will trump everything else.

Laws that restrict sexual habits that violate rights, like laws preventing adults from having sex with kids, or rape, will be perfectly legitimate.

There are many rights that trump the right to privacy.

805 posted on 06/26/2003 11:16:22 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: dead; MineralMan
It seemed that indeed the truth would be 'forever on the scaffold, and ... wrong --- forever on the throne'. With great eagerness he listened to the query, 'How long shall be the vision?'(Daniel 8:13)."
806 posted on 06/26/2003 11:18:20 AM PDT by f.Christian (( Shock -- revelations (( designed universe )) ... AWE --- you haven't seen anything - yet ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 799 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
If a bisexual man with AIDS impregnates a woman and the baby she delivers has the AIDS virus, I suppose you would advocate euthanizing that child, wouldn't you.

Taking care of that child should fall under the provence of charity.

It’s sad that you think socialism or death are the only options.

807 posted on 06/26/2003 11:18:32 AM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 759 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
The problem many of us our having is that to get the result you wanted (remove sodomy from the books) you have gutted the ability of states to pass any laws that restrict sexual habits.

That's ridiculous. The typical apocalyptic rhetoric about how nothing will be illegal anymore fails because every example given somehow violates someone else's right (i.e. pedophilia or rape) where consensual homosexuality between two adults does not.

And beyond that, for those who might be captious enough to quibble with semantics, most reasonable adults can and do discern between different sex acts. Most reasonable adults would reject the spurious premise that a dog can engage in 'consensual sex' with a human.

808 posted on 06/26/2003 11:19:06 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
There is NO right to PRIVACY in the CONSTITUTION. Those words DO NOT exist in the 4th amendment.
809 posted on 06/26/2003 11:20:12 AM PDT by PISANO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone
... Your history is manifest, and that point has already been reached.

In other words, you can't compete so you're running away.

Laz is right, ridicule is the answer!

810 posted on 06/26/2003 11:21:14 AM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 0311, 68-69)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: jethropalerobber
How many billion dollars did we send to Africa to fight AIDS? How much do we spend on it here? How much do we spend telling people how to have safe sex? Isn't that the same thing but you just agree with the moralizing in that case?
811 posted on 06/26/2003 11:21:15 AM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: OWK
What are rights? What are their extent? Define them for me.

I'll take a shot, since no one else seems interested.

A right is anything you must do to sustain/better your life - but only if that action does not run counter to another person's ability to do the same. Your rights are the same as everyone else's, and you need ask no one for permission to exercise them. You could choose to collaborate with other individuals if you feel your collective actions will better your life, or you can choose to act alone.

Incidentally, a right can never be a claim on another person's time, intellect or property. Rather it can only be actions you take yourself or with consent of another person.

812 posted on 06/26/2003 11:21:27 AM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
to get the result you wanted (remove sodomy from the books) you have gutted the ability of states to pass any laws that restrict sexual habits.

Laws concerning non-consensual behavior will be unaffected.

Privacy will trump everything else.

What's wrong with privacy?

it could have been done at the state level by the court returning it the Texas

I agree. My only concern is that this violates the 10th Amendment.

The correct ruling would have been that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress no power to create a federal law concerning sodomy, and that private consensual activity is a protected right under the 9th Amendment at the federal level.

And that the 10th Amendment reserves the power to regulate sodomy to the many states, as their respective constitutions allow.

813 posted on 06/26/2003 11:22:43 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: Grando Calrissian
How insidiously evil of them!
814 posted on 06/26/2003 11:23:14 AM PDT by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 802 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone
Well, some will. For one thing, nobody can threaten them with exposure to the cops anymore.

You mean bitter spouses in the midst of a divorce can't use sodomy laws to get their estranged other thrown in jail while they gain custody of the children?

Damn.

815 posted on 06/26/2003 11:24:27 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
"It seemed that indeed the truth would be 'forever on the scaffold, and ... wrong --- forever on the throne'. With great eagerness he listened to the query, 'How long shall be the vision?'(Daniel 8:13)."
"

And your point for this irrelevant post is what? You've quoted someone else from some other thread, and there is no relevance to the current thread.
816 posted on 06/26/2003 11:25:23 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
That's ridiculous. The typical apocalyptic rhetoric about how nothing will be illegal anymore fails because every example given somehow violates someone else's right (i.e. pedophilia or rape) where consensual homosexuality between two adults does not.

Then answer me this one. So far no one has on your side.

My daughter turned 16. She is by our state's law a consenting adult. She and i agree to have consenual sex. Our right to privacy trumps the state's right to forbid us.

817 posted on 06/26/2003 11:25:26 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 808 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
If the issue of "What is a Right?" ever becomes a major public debate, that would be an important discussion

You are so right about that, no pun intended, and it might be one of the most "enlightening" things that could happen in this day and age, LOL!

818 posted on 06/26/2003 11:25:27 AM PDT by 88keys (proudly posting without reading all the other posts first!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 664 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
"The main reason against incest and rather obvious is the detriment to the child being sexually abused or used by the adult parent"

But what if the daughter is over 18? Consenting adult, right? What if your adult daughter wanted to hook up with your 40 year old brother? No problem, right?
819 posted on 06/26/2003 11:25:46 AM PDT by bk1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
You must be pulling yer hair out!

I taught her that all guys are scum bags until she reaches 25.

820 posted on 06/26/2003 11:26:25 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
There is no right to privacy in the 14th amendment. It was invented by leftists to protect certain immoral behaviors, like abortion, and will eventually be used by the left to support overturning laws against child molestation and pornography.

Which is exactly what the commielib perverts want, especially those who come on the FR and make a great pretense of being Christian and conservative just to argue for the side of darkness.
821 posted on 06/26/2003 11:26:36 AM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Do you really think a single person who wouldn't have had oral or anal sex when it was illegal will change their behavior because of this ruling?

Most of the people who think the sky is falling know that is not the case. They are just mad that there is now one more area where they can not use the force of law to punish people who engage in behavior that, albeit private, disgusts them. I think its that simple. Heck, one poster even said something like "Why is it wrong to have laws that demean people". The law is their last means of punishing those they dislike without having to use the tactics of people like E.R. Rudolph. Without their wishes for retribution being codefied in law, they have to look inside themselved and realize that harming others is wrong. Too many people rely on government to dictate and enforce their morality. When they as an individual are forced with either leaving the person they dislike alone, or handing out punishment themselves, they back down.

822 posted on 06/26/2003 11:26:43 AM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]

To: Bisesi
There is NO right to PRIVACY in the CONSTITUTION. Those words DO NOT exist in the 4th amendment.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

823 posted on 06/26/2003 11:26:53 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 809 | View Replies]

To: huck von finn
Never underestimate the perfidy of the Gay Mafia. Mark my words, in 10 years the new national anthem will be "Believe" by Cher.
824 posted on 06/26/2003 11:27:17 AM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | View Replies]

To: jimt
"Laws that restrict sexual habits that violate rights, like laws preventing adults from having sex with kids, or rape, will be perfectly legitimate"

Indeed they will. It is a straw man to suggest that this narrow decision affects anything but sodomy laws where such activity takes place in private.

The sky, despite all reports from the religious right, is not falling.
825 posted on 06/26/2003 11:27:47 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies]

To: jimt
Laws that restrict sexual habits that violate rights, like laws preventing adults from having sex with kids, or rape, will be perfectly legitimate.

how so if they are done in the privacy of our own homes ?

Please explain why my 16 year old daughter and I cannot have sex.

826 posted on 06/26/2003 11:28:58 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies]

To: Daus
Good to see you.
827 posted on 06/26/2003 11:29:31 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 801 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
First of all, you're careering into Fourth Amendment jurisprudence here, and your missing my point. First off, if you want to talk about the 4A, I can point you to the recent SCOTUS decision in the case of Kyllo v. US, the majority opinion written by none other than Antonin Scalia, which upheld a kind of "my home is my castle" standard in terms of 4A privacy. In this case, the court found that the infared imaging and detection of marijuana plants being grown by Kyllo from outside his home by the cops was unconstitutional because it represented an unreasonable 4A search. Again, Scalia wrote the majority opinion (which I wholly agree with), the same Scalia that wrote today's dissent (I haven't read it yet) in Lawrence v. Texas.

You seem to believe that I'm pushing for the right of cops to employ some kind of infared HomoCam to root out homosexuals engaging in sodomy in their apartments. You're missing the point completely. First, in the case of Lawrence the 'fruits basically set the police up to come into their apartment while they were in flagrante dilecto. It was a set-up. The purpose, of course, was to challenge this law.

The point here is that these laws are rarely enforced, and mostly when they are it's for some kind of public sex. It is impossible to enforce these laws in private. I'm sure if you went back through arrest records well into the 19th Century, you'd see that these laws were lightly enforced and applied even then. The purpose these laws serve is to reflect the underlying moral structure of society. This law, and others like it, is saying that the community itself disapproves of homosexual conduct. And rightly so. It's a dangerous, disease-spreading, sexually profligate behavior. And so, basically society is saying that they don't want it happening. Does it still happen, even in the teeth of these laws? Of course. But society expresses it's disapproval of this behavior through the law. And now it can't, because the SCOTUS is more attuned to the opinions of the NYT editorial page than it is to the opinions of the people.

The best way for this law to be 'enforced' is to have the people enforce it themselves by shunning homosexuals. And, by the way, that's why it was passed in the first place. Everyone more or less agreed that homosexuality was wrong, and therefore they decided to formalize that sentiment by passing a law proscribing it. If the mores of society change, then the law gets repealed. Your 4A argument is a red herring because you misunderstand the purpose of this law.

Homosexuals, however, do not misunderstand its purpose. They know all too well what laws like this mean. They want their behavior 'normalized'. And so they want the laws that express social disapproval of their disgusting behavior removed. As Rush Limbaugh always says, "don't listen to what they say; watch what they do." Libertarians seem to be listening to what homosexuals have to say. Dupes.

828 posted on 06/26/2003 11:29:46 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 675 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
You are trying to rain on somebody's (gay) parade. How beastly of you! (/sarcasm}
829 posted on 06/26/2003 11:29:59 AM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
A sensible precaution.
830 posted on 06/26/2003 11:30:16 AM PDT by ffusco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 820 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Please explain why my 16 year old daughter and I cannot have sex.

Please explain why you want to have sex with your sixteen year old daughter.

831 posted on 06/26/2003 11:30:20 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: Grando Calrissian
Mark my words, in 10 years the new national anthem will be "Believe" by Cher.

At that point, it’s “Hello Canada!” for me.

Oh wait, their national anthem will probably be something by Celine Dion.

Hello Iceland! (I love Bjork.)

832 posted on 06/26/2003 11:30:58 AM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 824 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Laws concerning non-consensual behavior will be unaffected

Non-consenual is in the eye of the beholder. Who can consent ? At what age ? Who can judge acts done in privacy ?

833 posted on 06/26/2003 11:31:25 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 813 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Hey, he asked first. It's only fair that his question is answered first.
834 posted on 06/26/2003 11:31:31 AM PDT by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 831 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone; OWK
There are five degrees of fool in the Proverbs. I think you've hit #5.

"...but whosoever shall say, 'Thou fool', shall be in danger of hell fire." ---Matthew 5:22

835 posted on 06/26/2003 11:31:48 AM PDT by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: dead; MineralMan
It seemed that indeed the truth would be 'forever on the scaffold, and ... wrong (( link )) --- forever on the throne'. With great eagerness he listened to the query, 'How long (( end of evil )) shall be the vision?'(Daniel 8:13)."
836 posted on 06/26/2003 11:32:25 AM PDT by f.Christian (( Shock -- revelations (( designed universe )) ... AWE --- you haven't seen anything - yet ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 799 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
It is. But you don't claim to have "an" answer, you claim to have "the" answer, which implies it's the only answer.

I claim to have an answer which is rationally sustainable and objective.

And I seek others who believe they can define the concept in a rationally sustainable, and objective fashion, so as to be able to test my assertions against alternate assertions.

837 posted on 06/26/2003 11:32:30 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 796 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Is there any doubt [marriage amendment] would pass???

imho, plenty of doubt.

in fact, i'm willing to say you will _never_ get it passed by 2/3 of the senate or 3/4 of the states. you should have tried it 10 years ago - so it goes.

838 posted on 06/26/2003 11:33:03 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
You're wrong. Trace answered that, but to recap, she is part of your family and as a father with authority over her, a sexual relationship with her is considered exploitation per se, to a criminal extent. Plus you're a sick man if you do that.

Got any other strawmen?

839 posted on 06/26/2003 11:33:25 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 817 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Personally, I'm not really worried if you have sex with your 17 year old daughter. It's sick and disgusting, but it's also not my problem (considering that 17 is within the legal age of consent in your area).

840 posted on 06/26/2003 11:34:20 AM PDT by LanPB01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Most reasonable adults would reject the spurious premise that a dog can engage in 'consensual sex' with a human.

So what physical union produced Chelsea Clinton?

841 posted on 06/26/2003 11:34:32 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine (Winning flame wars on the net is like winning a medal at the Special Olympics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 808 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
My daughter turned 16. She is by our state's law a consenting adult. She and i agree to have consenual sex. Our right to privacy trumps the state's right to forbid us.

You can't. While legally, she may be at the age of concent, she has not yet reached the age of majority. Until then, you are still the custodian of her Rights. Once she turns 18, she's all yours.

That's just plain icky even though I'm fairly certain you are bringing this straw-man up for illustrative purposes.

842 posted on 06/26/2003 11:34:33 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Gay agenda wins.

We lose.

I'm almost positive David Souter is a homosexual, Ginsberg is also a former dyke or a current dyke.

We need more conservative people on the Supreme Court.

And there's been rumors for years about Ted Kennedy's best friend Orrin Hatch being gay.

The Homosexual Agenda is here and WINNING like Jonah Goldberg said.

Disgusting.
843 posted on 06/26/2003 11:34:49 AM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 831 | View Replies]

To: OWK
The vitriol posted in response to your reasonable request is pretty revealing. It's clear those on "the other side" have given no thought whatsoever to this issue.
844 posted on 06/26/2003 11:35:03 AM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 770 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
If you lie, you are committing fraud. If this leads to harm done to another, or loss of their property, then yes... it should be a crime.

So, if no WMD's are found in Iraq, you will be leading the charge to try GWB before the World Court?

845 posted on 06/26/2003 11:35:15 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 789 | View Replies]

To: OWK
I claim to have an answer which is rationally sustainable and objective.

But who defines what is "rationally sustainable" and what is "objective"?

LOL! Never mind. Don't bother answering, at least not for my benefit. I've made my point, to my own satisfaction if to no one else's. Now I can stop.

846 posted on 06/26/2003 11:36:10 AM PDT by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 837 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Consent doesn't apply to minors in the same way they cannot enter into contracts.
847 posted on 06/26/2003 11:36:26 AM PDT by ffusco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 833 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
Well, the part of this I'm most concerned about is that the Court, in its quest to find some means by which to find this law unconstitutional, has now created a precedent by which homosexual marriage can be forced upon the nation. That's why I agree with Justice Thomas' dissent.
848 posted on 06/26/2003 11:37:27 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 828 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
So what physical union produced Chelsea Clinton?

Hillary and Web Hubbel, of course.

849 posted on 06/26/2003 11:37:30 AM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 841 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry; scripter
Liberals and Libertaltarians will be the death of our country.
850 posted on 06/26/2003 11:38:17 AM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 847 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 751-800801-850851-900 ... 1,701-1,734 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