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 ... 901-950951-1,0001,001-1,050 ... 1,701-1,734 next last
To: I_Love_My_Husband
This is a big big loss for our side.

The homosexuals and liberals on the Supreme Court who were appointed by Republicans lost this one for us.

This isn't a game. This is a matter of the U.S. Constitution. It's far more important than any "us versus them" mentality!

951 posted on 06/26/2003 12:11:37 PM PDT by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 902 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
You're right. Make that 21.
952 posted on 06/26/2003 12:12:14 PM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 925 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband
This is a big big loss for our side.

Is it really a loss for our side? I mean seriously, your talking about a law that was not easy to enforce to begin with, that had no victims. Sodomy laws weren't stopping anybody in the (great) state of Texas or anywhere else from committing sodomy (whether they be man and man, or man and woman). There were few cases even prosecuted in the past decade.

The sodomy laws never made any sense to me, because of the above mentioned reasons, and from a Constitutional perspective and the fact that there were no victims. You and I weren't victims of this, nor was anybody else or the state or the nation. I may disagree with homosexuals or men and women who engage in sodomy, because I'm a Christian, but I seperate my religious beliefs from my Constitutional beliefs.

953 posted on 06/26/2003 12:12:14 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 902 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
I hope that the SCOTUS uses the same 'privacy' logic to apply to 2nd Amendment issues

I was thinking the exact same thing while I was jogging 45 minutes ago.

If there is a right to privacy, what gives the government the right to come into my home and tell me whether or not I can own a gun that I never use against any human being?

954 posted on 06/26/2003 12:12:35 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona
Um, I don't recall saying that. I mean that some child molestor will get caught abusing a child and will challenge the laws against molestation on the bases of this ruling. And I'm willing to bet there are some federal judges who would strike down the laws.
955 posted on 06/26/2003 12:14:12 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
I thought Libertarians were all into garnering an impressive less than one half of one percent in election after election, while considering themselves the cutting-edge wave of the future.

LOL!
956 posted on 06/26/2003 12:14:22 PM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 934 | View Replies]

To: yonif
There is a federal law that states you must be 21 to drink.

No there isn't.

957 posted on 06/26/2003 12:14:39 PM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 946 | View Replies]

To: IowaHawk
I dunno why I picked you to write this to. I guess this should be for all Freepers:

Bill Clinton was right. It was all about sex. He was persecuted for something that was noone's business. He didn't force Paula Jones to do anything to him. The only injured party wasn't aware of her injury, so we should now have the SCOTUS reverse the impeachment by the House of Representatives. (not that they could) The Senate was correct in not kicking Bubba out of office. No?

Now what that has to do with homosexuals having the right to sodomize each other, I'm not sure.
958 posted on 06/26/2003 12:14:42 PM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband
"Funny. Since you're pro-homos I'd think it'd be right UP your alley.
"

No, I'm not "pro-homo." I just don't care what adults do with their genitals, as long as everybody's consenting. I do care when government steps in to such situations.

Me, a Libertarian? No, not really.
959 posted on 06/26/2003 12:15:48 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 938 | View Replies]

To: Grando Calrissian
Regardless of the type of person that wants to have sex with their daughter, is there really any serious consideration being given to overturning the Incest laws in this country?

Not yet, and hopefully never, but you know it could be done now, with the establishment of this "right to absolute privacy among consenting adults"...

960 posted on 06/26/2003 12:16:06 PM PDT by 88keys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 928 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
No one is saying anyone has a right to child abuse or bestiality- only the common sexual practices of consenting adults.

I understand that, but this case will be used by NAMBLA, the ACLU, et al to challenge state laws against child molestation, and, depending on the state they sue in, they may get an appeals court to side with them (the 9th circuit is probably salivating in anticipation).

As it is in America today, SCOTUS would allow laws against molestation, but give it 20 years of molestors bullying there way into the mainstream (just like the homosexuals started to do in the 1970s) and you may have a different verdict.

961 posted on 06/26/2003 12:17:04 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
Don't I have a right to free association? To not be affected by homosexuals? If homosexuals are going to claim a "right" to engage in their destructive behavior, can't I claim a right to not be affected by it?

Your rights afford you the opportunity to condemn homoesuality.

They also afford you the opportunity to discriminate against homosexuals in commerce, in association, and in any manner which requires your consent.

They afford you the opportunity to deny them access to your personal and business property.

They afford you the opportunity to protest, or boycott homosexuality.

They also afford you the opportunity to join with others to do likewise.

What they do NOT afford you the opportunity to do, is prohibit or mandate the peaceful, private, sexual actions of consenting adults by force.

For that is a violation of THEIR rights.

This seems to be the problem in America today.

Activist homosexuals snivel about "inclusion" and "diversity" and therefore seek to subjugate the legitimate rights of free association, and property rights, in the name of false civil rights which are not rights at all. No one has a right to access the property of unwilling owners, or to force their unwanted association on others.

Likewise, no one has a right to mandate or prohibit the otherwise peaceful and private actions of consenting adults.

But rather than leave each other alone, left authoritarians, and right authoritarian wrestle for control of the big-government stick with which to beat their neighbors into submission, destroying legitimate rights in the process.

And so it goes.

962 posted on 06/26/2003 12:17:12 PM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 934 | View Replies]

To: bk1000
The question is what are the consequences of a law against lying. How do you prove lying vs merely difference of opinion vs mistake? Should one have a court case when a politician makes a campaign promise?
963 posted on 06/26/2003 12:17:20 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 926 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Many other Rights came into being thanks to the Supreme Court, such as the Right to Privacy, Miranda Rights,

...abortion 'rights'. Aparently you like being governed by an unelected judicial Nonumvirate. Ave Souter.

964 posted on 06/26/2003 12:18:04 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: vin-one
Did you read the post I was replying too? He said the government shouldn't regulate morality. I was merely pointing out that all laws are based on moral principles, and thus all laws must be repealed if we don't want the government engaging in moral regulation.
965 posted on 06/26/2003 12:18:31 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband
"Godless atheist HOMOSEXUAL? Is that you?
"

Nope. Just a godless atheist. I'm a happily-married straight guy. But, if you want, you can gossip about me, since you seem to enjoy such things.
966 posted on 06/26/2003 12:18:32 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 943 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
So in your opinion Bill Clinton is innocent?
967 posted on 06/26/2003 12:18:44 PM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 959 | View Replies]

To: jimt
Seriously, if under the age of consent, it violates the child's rights as they're not capable of consenting, if over the age of consent, because the state has a compelling interest in preventing the types of disabilities prevalent in births from incestual sexual contacts.

Birth control covers the birth problems. 16 is age of consent.

968 posted on 06/26/2003 12:19:15 PM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 941 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
The problem with your "two guys having poop-sex in their own appartment doesn't harm anyone" argument is that they leave that appartment frequently with diseases and social behaviors that we all have to finance. Now, if they lived on their own island maybe you would have an argument.

The cure for socialism is not more socialism. As has already been pointed out if you would bother to read what has already been posted.

969 posted on 06/26/2003 12:19:35 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 950 | View Replies]

To: HurkinMcGurkin
There's no federal law that raises the drinking age to 21. However, buried withing congressional transportation appropriation bills are riders which specify any state without a drinking age of 21 will not receive money highway funds. I believe Lousiania is the only state with an 18 drinking age.
970 posted on 06/26/2003 12:19:39 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 957 | View Replies]

To: jethropalerobber
The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.

Yes, but just like Roe, it will be expanded to allow those behaviors.

971 posted on 06/26/2003 12:19:47 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
I don't think she can. Literally. I don't.
972 posted on 06/26/2003 12:19:50 PM PDT by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 897 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
They are necessarily arbitrary sometimes, but as I said, most of us accept that as the natural state and have no problem accepting that. Being arbitrary doesn't exactly create the slippery slope into a moral wasteland that all the doom and gloomsayers on this board predict.

The ridiculous reasoning offered here, and put forth in all seriousness, is asinine. It's more typical of leftists usually, but I guess some 'conservatives' have no problem adopting leftist rhetorical tactics when it suits them.

Since society's rules are arbitrary, what's to stop me from speeding at 100 miles an hour through a school zone? If an intoxicant like alcohol is legal, why not heroin? It's an arbitrary distinction. If I have the right to own a gun, why not a bazooka, why not a tank, why not a nuclear bomb? It's all arbitrary afterall.

We know you don't agree with the ruling, but don't be so daft.

973 posted on 06/26/2003 12:20:09 PM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 927 | View Replies]

To: HurkinMcGurkin
No there isn't.

"The National Minimum Drinking Age Act is perhaps the law that has the most impact on the day-to-day lives of America's youth since it was signed into law on July 17, 1984."

(sources at the bottom)

http://www.asfar.org/zine/5th/cover.html

974 posted on 06/26/2003 12:20:53 PM PDT by yonif
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 957 | View Replies]

To: yonif
There is a federal law that states you must be 21 to drink.

What I think the federal law does is to deny federal funding to states that don't enact a drinking age of at least 21. That's not the same thing.

975 posted on 06/26/2003 12:20:55 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 946 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Your rights afford you the opportunity to condemn homoesuality...

Honest question OWK...do I and people like me have a right to secede from a society that condones homosexual behavior and form our own society?

976 posted on 06/26/2003 12:21:54 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 962 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
But I'm sure you'd agree as a libertarian that people have the right not to associate with people they don't like or of whose behavior they do not approve.

Absolutely.

You say: aberrant behaviors by small groups of people affect the whole.

And give examples of: Court systems, the military, roads and so on.

While I agree those are legitimate public works, I'm curious, how does sodomy affect any of them?

If someone is a serious heroin addict, and blows through their money and ends up at the door of the county hospital with a severe OD and can't pay for it, the hospital will treat that person and society will have to pick up the tab.

Wait a minute, you just switched from legitimate public works to socialist entitlement. The two are not the same. Not even close, no matter how much Democrats say they are. If the OD guy can't pay, and private charity won't pay, out the door and into the gutter he goes. Tough. Personal responsibility is necessary for libertarianism. (BTW, I'd prefer this not turn into a drug thread)

What if I want to secede from homosexuals? Don't I have a right to free association? To not be affected by homosexuals? If homosexuals are going to claim a "right" to engage in their destructive behavior, can't I claim a right to not be affected by it?

The only cost incurred to you by homosexuals is in health care. Being in that I wouldn't make you pay a thin dime for their care, you would be free to entirely disassociate yourself from them. Fire them, shun them, refuse to do any sort of business with them for all I care.

I think you're starting to get the point: in the absence of socialism, their behavior is none of your concern.

977 posted on 06/26/2003 12:22:03 PM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 934 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
There's no federal law that raises the drinking age to 21. However, buried withing congressional transportation appropriation bills are riders which specify any state without a drinking age of 21 will not receive money highway funds.

Yes, I am quite aware. It just bothers me that there are people out there who actually think that there is as law, and that its not just bribery and blackmail at the tax-payer's expense.

978 posted on 06/26/2003 12:22:24 PM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 970 | View Replies]

To: Grando Calrissian
And it won't end there, no sir! It will begin with naked people atop pianos, and it will end with a plague the likes of which the world has yet to imagine.
979 posted on 06/26/2003 12:23:02 PM PDT by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 866 | View Replies]

To: OWK
This is not an issue of religious police. The 10th amendment guarantees to the states and the people themselves all powers not granted to the federal government. The Constitution does not give the power to the federal government to regulate in this area. But the courts did a huge power grab today.

The portion of the 10th amendment reserving non-federal powers to the states has been de facto repealed by this ruling and others like it over the past 70 years.

And with political correctness run amuck, the move is already under way to remove the non-federal powers reserved for the people, and that means all our liberties.

980 posted on 06/26/2003 12:23:16 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: yonif
That's an act that makes States have the 21 year old law or they don't get highway funds from the feds. There is no federal law prohibiting States from changing their laws.
981 posted on 06/26/2003 12:23:51 PM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 974 | View Replies]

To: sakic
I'm saying that this right to privacy has never been interpreted by the government to allow homeschooling, yet it has been interpreted to allow abortion and sodomy.

982 posted on 06/26/2003 12:24:19 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Do I have the right, freeee, along with like-minded citizens, to secede from a society that embraces homosexuality. Yes or no.
983 posted on 06/26/2003 12:24:20 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 977 | View Replies]

To: OWK
But rather than leave each other alone, left authoritarians, and right authoritarian wrestle for control of the big-government stick with which to beat their neighbors into submission, destroying legitimate rights in the process.

The post this came from gets my "Post of the Year" award - I saved it for posterity. Excellent.

LQ

984 posted on 06/26/2003 12:24:29 PM PDT by LizardQueen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 962 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
I hope that the SCOTUS uses the same 'privacy' logic to apply to 2nd Amendment issues based on the 5th & 9th Circuit Courts' recent decisions, should the high court ever stop ignoring the issue.

Let's see...

Affirmative Action? Check.

Sodomy? Check.

Dang! Why is it getting so hot, and how did I get on this bobsled?

Seriously, my discomfort at the thought of a SCOTUS decision on the 2nd Amendment has risen exponentially over the past week.

985 posted on 06/26/2003 12:24:34 PM PDT by Charles Martel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: Pahuanui
Libertarians may pretty much all disapprove of sodomy laws. I would hazard the guess that there are many of them who do not approve of the reasoning of today's decision.
986 posted on 06/26/2003 12:24:54 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 936 | View Replies]

To: jimt
Yes, but where in the Constitution does the government have the right to regulate in this area? The 10th amendment reserves that power to the states and the people.
987 posted on 06/26/2003 12:25:11 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
Honest question OWK...do I and people like me have a right to secede from a society that condones homosexual behavior and form our own society?

You have the right to join with others who believe as you do, buy common property, and prohibit homosexuals to access that property, or to engage in commerce with your like-minded compatriots.

What you do NOT have the right to do, is restrict their otherwise peaceful behavior in THEIR homes, businesses, and associations, by force.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

988 posted on 06/26/2003 12:25:42 PM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 976 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband
"So in your opinion Bill Clinton is innocent?"

Innocent of what, exactly? What does Bill Clinton have to do with this Supreme Court ruling. Clinton was an idiot to have messed around with Monica Lewinsky. It almost cost him the Presidency. Almost. He was an idiot to lie about it, too.

However, he broke no law in fooling around with Lewinsky. He may have broken the law in lying about it.

Innocent is a matter of the law. He was a bad husband, and cheated on his wife. I condemn him for that. Once, in a previous marriage, I committed adultery myself. I'm ashamed of that, but I broke no laws. It took a long time to regain the trust of my wife, and I was simply wrong to do it.

No, I wasn't innocent in a moral sense, but in the legal sense, I was innocent.
989 posted on 06/26/2003 12:26:30 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 967 | View Replies]

To: 88keys
My point is that if there will never be a concerted effort to legalize incest, why does it always get brought up in these threads?
990 posted on 06/26/2003 12:26:34 PM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 960 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
What I think the federal law does is to deny federal funding to states that don't enact a drinking age of at least 21. That's not the same thing.

Oh, if that is the case, then I have mistaken.

991 posted on 06/26/2003 12:27:08 PM PDT by yonif
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 975 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
Do I have the right, freeee, along with like-minded citizens, to secede from a society that embraces homosexuality. Yes or no.

Of course you do. Nobody owns you. You don't even need a reason. Secede all you want.

992 posted on 06/26/2003 12:27:16 PM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 983 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
How about my first three answers?

I do know that were I your employer and I found you were having sex with your sixteen year old daughter, your services would no longer be required.

Perfectly legal in Texas.
993 posted on 06/26/2003 12:27:19 PM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 968 | View Replies]

To: LizardQueen
Thanks for the kind words.
994 posted on 06/26/2003 12:27:47 PM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 984 | View Replies]

To: HurkinMcGurkin
Actually, there are two substantive due process cases from the 1920's that are sort of the ancestors of the right-to-privacy cases and that Kennedy's opinion today cited with approval. They are Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (right of a parent to choose to send a child to a Catholic school, despite a state law against it), and Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) (right of a parent to send a child to a German-language school, despite a state law against it).
995 posted on 06/26/2003 12:28:00 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 981 | View Replies]

To: HurkinMcGurkin
That's an act that makes States have the 21 year old law or they don't get highway funds from the feds. There is no federal law prohibiting States from changing their laws.

OK. Thank you for that clarification!

996 posted on 06/26/2003 12:28:01 PM PDT by yonif
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 981 | View Replies]

To: yonif
1000 post
997 posted on 06/26/2003 12:28:37 PM PDT by yonif
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 996 | View Replies]

To: Grando Calrissian
Dogs always get brought up in these threads too.
998 posted on 06/26/2003 12:28:41 PM PDT by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 990 | View Replies]

To: yonif
let me try again....1000 POST!
999 posted on 06/26/2003 12:29:02 PM PDT by yonif
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 997 | View Replies]

To: yonif
LAST TIME 1000!
1,000 posted on 06/26/2003 12:29:27 PM PDT by yonif
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 999 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 901-950951-1,0001,001-1,050 ... 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