BLAME THE GOP FOR PRO-SODOMY COURT DECISION

The Heustis Update ^ | June 27, AD 2003 | Reed R. Heustis, Jr.

[TheCrusader]

"All you need is for Congress to exercise its Article III, section 2 power to regulate and make exceptions to the appellate power of the Supreme Court. Amend the Judiciary Act to read, "The appellate power of the Supreme Court does not extend to judicial review of state laws pertaining to marriage or sexual behavior"

Thanks, great idea.

[Grut]

Living with laws that reflect Christian morals...

Ah. You mean, no defense budget, no punishment for crime, no rich people, all that stuff?

This whole thread is just a classic example of the Christian Viciousness movement in action

[sinkspur]

These are only a few examples of how we all get the shaft by the politicians, even when we do vote them out. They just get replaced by other snakes.

America has the politicians it wants, and the fact that you're still here means the situation doesn't upset you all that much.

[Natural Law]

The problem is that this never was a federal or SCOTUS problem, it is a state legislative issue. The Constitution does not provide any power to regulate private behavior.

[unspun]

VERY interesting and thought provoking.for your reading pleasure or Displeasure!

Right on, CL! Especially fit for those who would make a superman of Ronald Reagan.

I tend to believe that W. knows that "this will not stand;" I suspect his stomach has turned and his eyes dampened over it, too, at least virtually, too.

[AlexW]

"I didn't want to bail, either, but the sad part is that if you don't, nothing will ever change."

Oh yeaaaa, if you bail out on the Republicans, things certainly WILL change... Like maybe President Hildabeast, and her Marxist Senate...Think of all the lovely judges SHE will put in power.

Yea, keep your nose stuck in the air, and see what you will soon be smelling.

[sinkspur]

Especially fit for those who would make a superman of Ronald Reagan.

It's not Ronald Reagan's fault either.

[Arthur McGowan]

The Congress could have done the same thing on abortion on January 23, 1973. But they know that only a minuscule fraction of the public knows they have this power, and they would rather wring their hands and pretend that the Supreme Court is entirely to blame for the fact that we have "legal" abortion.

[Jorge]

You didn't see a problem with the law in that it was legal for a man and woman to do it but wrong for two men? It was a bad law...

Exactly.
The fact that these sodomy laws were only applied to homosexuals, yet heterosexuals were given a pass reveals their hypocritical and bigoted nature...just as the hypocrisy and phoniness of the those sounding the alarm about this ruling is obvious in these threads.

Clearly the majority of Americans in both major political parties do not want to live under a theocracy...especially a self styled cafeteria Christianity brand of theocracy promoted by those who think they can selectively enforce only those Biblical morals they choose and only against those they find personally offensive.

Who wants people like these influencing any public policy? Not most Americans, that's for sure.

[Ahban]

When you are ready, there is a place for you to go. We have been working hard to make it a truly viable alternative, but we could do it better if you decide to throw in with we who are preparing you a place of political refuge.


www.constitutionparty.com

A journey of 1,000 miles begins with the first step.

[Jim Noble]

It has suited the poltroons who pretend to represent us that they have no power over the Court since 1954.

It is a fraud, and they should be called on it.

[ExSoldier]

I just visited the jbs.org site and Global Tyranny is no longer available, but there are enough books there to keep you reading until the dawn of the next century. I really like the one on the Fed called The Creature From Jekyll Island but there are so many others.... These books will open your eyes to reality. Whether or not you choose to use the vision to see the truth is up to you.

[Enough is ENOUGH]

I am astounded that so many people here have drunk the PC kool-aide and can't see the difference between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy. Duh!

[marajade]

I wouldn't of had an issue with the law if it had been applied to both though...

Either people can do it or they can't... you can't enforce it if its not equally applied...

[marajade]

Where in the platform for the constitution party does it state a law like this would be appropriate?

[deport]

I am astounded that so many people here have drunk the PC kool-aide and can't see the difference between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy. Duh!

---

Under Texas law was heterosexual sodomy okay? Seems like they only specified same sex partners....

[marajade]

You are correct... I believe...

[deport]

I think so.......

§ 21.06. Homosexual Conduct

(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

[marajade]

Stupid law...

[squidly]

Down here on the tail end of this I'd like to add that it does seem odd that some people would like Dubya to get blame for this, seeing as how he hasn't appointed a single SC judge. The lower court judges he's appointed are pretty darn conservative, hence the filibuster against them.