Free Republic

Are you actually saying that when you were growing up, you were unsure as to whether or not you were sexually attracted to men or women, and you had to mentally choose to only be attracted to women?

What kind of reverse psychology is that? If homosexuality is a choice then we all must be latent homosexuals?

No. What I'm saying is that, like becoming a doctor or a rapist, homosexuals choose the lifestyle they live.

We've all been raised in a world where heterosexuality is the norm and the accepted. This makes the choice much easier for most of us. Others contemplate the situation deeper. But make no mistake about it, we all choose to either be or not be homosexual.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality (a theory that has been debunked by most all but the most livid to prove it) one can look around and realize that homosexuality is religiously offensive, socially destructive and naturally irrelevant then choose to be heterosexual.

Besides, most homosexuals I know are more accurately bisexual, a purely hedonistic choice.

Conservatives "write their messages with crayons,"

Truth from the mouths of babes :)

Ralph is a fine name, IMO

I loved and respected my grandpa but I just couldn't get over the thought of my son going through adolescence with the guttural emphasis placed on the pronunciation, especially after giving him my last name:)

My grandpa's name worked well for him in his day and age but just doesn't translate well these days: Ralph :) I considered naming my son this but settled on my dad's name.

You can basically take most of the posts on this thread, remove "gays" and replace with "blacks", grab yourself a time machine and go back 60 years, and you'd have pretty much the same thread.

Mixing blacks and gays is mixing apples and oranges. Homosexuality is a choice and character defect. Having homosexuals ride the shirt tails of the civil rights movement was the biggest mistake the minorities of this country made in gaining legitimacy of their cause.

Back to the subject of this thread, it reminds me of one day in my Navy hitch when we were directed to turn south to Grenada. About 5 to 10 (of about 200) of my shipmates all of a sudden remembered they were gay now that we were heading in harms way. No, not every one of them ran but I suspect it was a large percentage of them. There were no others that decided they were pacifists or such.

This lends itself to countering the $200m argument. How much did the military spend to train the replacements in this and I'm sure many other similar situations. Moreover, how much did it cost our country when they left us in the lurch like that?

My kind of guy, but then I don't live in NM and I don't know the politics of the state.

I can't say I kept up with NM politics much since I've left the state but dad and mom (both open minded Republicans) don't care much for him. We haven't had exhaustive discussions about it but they elude to doubts of his integrity.

Looks like the bad guys took 90-100% casualties...

Umm... 83-125% ? Numbers seem fish but it's still quite a can of whupass.

For all the times I've been thanked for spending others money by supporting government programs here on FR let me be the first to thank you for spending my money by driving up the cost of gasoline:) (please disregard the hypocrisy of this post as I drive a 25 mile commute).

MLK had about as much to do with Albuquerque as Nelson Mandela had to do with Glasgow.....

Yep. When we kids were told to stay away from Roosevelt Park back in the 60's/70's it had noting to do with black civil rights. I think MLK Blvd. in Albuquerque should have been named 'Jose Angel Gutierrez Demarcation' or 'Cesar Estrada Chavez Crossroads' instead.

So you are saying that court orders are not the rule of law they can be ignored.

No, I wasn't saying that but that's what it equated to. When I made that comment I was under the impression that

"ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Authorization to 
Discontinue Artificial Life Support of Michael Schiavo, Guardian of the 
Person of Theresa Marie Schiavo, an incapacitated person, be and the same 
is hereby GRANTED and Petitioner/Guardian is hereby authorized to 
proceed with the discontinuance of said artificial life support for Theresa 
Marie Schiavo."

meant that MS was the guardian. To my consternation I've come to understand that the court was acting as guardian. My mistake.

How about just the ones where a judge orders all the sherrifs in his jurisdiction to mount an armed stand against the Governor and his LEAs to prevent the performance of their duties under the same State's laws that the judge is sworn to uphold?

Here in Ohio our judges don't order around our deputies, our sheriff does (well yes they do but by the direction of our sheriff). I expect something similar holds true in Florida. I would expect that the deputies (I'm assuming that's what they were) were taking orders from their boss, who agreed with the judge, not the judge himself.

Is it legal for a sheriff to defy a state organization? I don't know. I'm not in law enforcement and I can think of no historical cases.

Then your solution is to let it pass whenever some lower court judge summons up a private militia out of local LEAs to enforce his orders?

Of course not. My solution is for the Governor to use his available force when it is required but be absolutely sure of his legal standing when doing so. If the Governor would have stormed the hospice there surely would have been inquires into it. When answering to these inquiries the Governor would have to justify his actions. I don't see (and apparently neither did Jeb) a legal standing by which he could have justified his actions.

The whole incident surprises me because one would think that Jeb Bush would be the type of man that's well aware of the old axiom that you never pull a gun unless you're ready to use it.

Interesting how you didn't mention that two of the "experts" were chosen by Michael Schavio - Pardon me, your biases are showing.

I didn't mention the 5th independent that diagnosed PVS either. That wasn't the point. I was only stating that when two of the experts are chosen by the Schindlers you can expect that they will favor their side, which is why Greer had to determine which to lend more credence to.

As far as my bias goes, I didn't know I was biased. I have been doing my best to see this case from both sides.

You are wrong on whether a change of heart by Michael would have stopped the madness.

Yes I was. I no longer stand by my statement in post #160. I will modify it to: ...The Legislature couldn't have enacted the law unless they were elected. Judge Greer made the decision to pull the feeding tube in accordance with those laws. He was given that opportunity by the voters of Florida. ...

How about just the ones where a judge orders all the sherrifs in his jurisdiction to mount an armed stand...

Could it be possible that when Jeb realized that this could turn into another Waco that he decided to get his ducks in a row and decided he didn't have legal grounds to intervene. It's one thing to use your military and another to justify it's use to those who gave it to you.

The court order said "shall" pull the feeding tube not "may."

Oh come on. it said "...the guardian, MICHAEL SCHIAVO, shall cause the removal of...". You know as well as I that if MS would have had a change of heart and decided not to pull the tube Judge Greer wouldn't have cited him for contempt of court or sent in marshals to execute the order. The whole case stared when MS filed a petition for the court to determine if the feeding tube should be removed; MS asking the courts to determine if the legal requirements existed. I stand by my statement.

...FL statute requires certain conditions be met before life support may be removed...

Judge Greer relied on testimony from medical experts to determine PVS, he didn't make the decision on his own. He did this not once but twice. In the first decision of 2000 he relied entirely on the testimony of 2 experts without any other consideration. In the second finding of 2002 Judge Greer used the testimony of 5 experts to come to the determination, although he did use some judicial discretion in this case because 2 of the experts argued against PVS (something expected when 2 of the experts we chosen by the Schindlers).

While the medical experts' opinions of what constitutes PVS differ from what you and I (and possibly Judge Greer) feel it is, what was Judge Greer to do? Say he knows better than them? Do you really want judges to to be making those kinds of decisions?

Again, I'll state that we have all, to some degree, become blinded by emotion on this issue which is what I think this article is trying to point out. Lets fix the problem rather than tear down the system/party.

Did I say send in troops?

Sorry. When someone says Civil Rights and Federal intervention I get an image of George Wallace standing on the doorsteps of the University of Alabama:)

Her Civil Rights may have been violated, I can't see it but I'll concede to your opinion. If they were, what's the answer? Take the decision away from the individual/family and give it to the government?

These same people who are so afraid of this precedent apparently have forgotten all of the intrusions into so-called States Rights during the Civil Rights Movement. As with this case, States and local authorities were depriving their citizens of their rights under the US Constitution and the Federal Government actually had the obligation to insert itself to protect and maintain those rights.

So the answer is that we send in federal troops on every right-to-die case in America? Or maybe just this one? I don't have a solution for the problem but I don't think this is it.

And the Constitution guarantees the right to life, a right that was ruled against by a district court judge, who in effect was making law from the bench in violation of the Consitution.

Let's not let emotions get in the way of logic here. Greer could not have ruled on the case if The Florida Legislature didn't enact right-to-die legislation. The Legislature couldn't have enacted the law unless they were elected. Judge Greer didn't pull the feeding tube, Michael Schiavo pulled it. He was given that opportunity by the voters of Florida.

For Greer to have ruled against MS on the grounds that "we have a constitutional right to life" would fly in the face of every right-to-die case that proceeded it. Judge Greer ruled on the case because 5 people, Terri's brother amongst them, testified that Terri wanted to die.

The right-to-die issue is a slippery slope that we are sliding down right now but that is no reason to call for anarchy. I'm as morally perplexed on the issue as anyone else but the process was followed correctly and the part that is broken that allows someone to starve to death should be addressed rather than shooting the messenger.

This case isn't at all complex.

I was in the middle of posting a reply to this comment when I heard the news of Terri's passing. I'll let it lie in peace as I pray that Terri does also.