Posted on 12/27/2003 3:08:49 PM PST by Federalist 78
In Massachusetts, historic cradle of American liberties, the state Supreme Court has become the contemporary incubator of libertines, decreeing that the Legislature, like it or not, must draft a law to legitimize homosexual coupling.
In Washington, DC, just a few weeks before, the U.S. Supreme Court had set the predicate for the Bay State's perversion of marriage when it decreed that states may not criminalize private and consensual adult homosexual acts.
Such radical departure from the norms of society has provoked an overriding majority of Americans to demand a constitutional amendment or something to undo what the people see as unwarranted and dangerous mischief by a willful gang of sanctimonious judges Hell bent to turn the culture upside down and inside out.
The President and most Republicans in Congress, being ardent heterosexuals and astute politicians, have threatened to push for Constitutional change and affirm unequivocally that marriage is exclusively for a man and a woman. That course of action, however, is no snap to accomplish.
Two-thirds of the House and Senate must agree on the proposed amendment before submitting it to the 50 states, 38 of which must approve the change before it becomes the supreme law of the land.
There is a faster way to neutralize the black-robed troublemakers: Articulate and use a quaint concept called "Popular Sovereignty," serially postulated by philosophers Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and, most importantly, John Locke, and adopted enthusiastically by American colonists.
Popular Sovereignty is the notion, in Thomas Jefferson's words, that the mass of mankind was not born "with saddles on their back, nor a favored few [born] booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God." (The grace-of-God phrase is a swat at the supreme arrogance of monarchy, a boast still found on British coins [Dei gratia, rex, or, if the ruler is a queen, regina.].)
To the contrary, colonial Americans demanded that any government (whether a republic or a monarchy or any other concoction) must recognize that it may rule only with the authority and at the pleasure of the people.
Even residents of tiny, unsophisticated Pittsfield, Massachusetts, expressed that simple idea powerfully in a resolution they passed in May 1776. "The people are the fountain of power," they proclaimed.
"But precisely because men are not so foolish as to risk being devoured by lions, they will not delegate, and the government therefore will not receive [in Locke's words] an 'absolute arbitrary power,' " wrote Georgetown Professor Walter Berns (Taking The Constitution Seriously, Simon and Schuster, 1987).
"The people will want to put bounds or limits to the powers they hand over." That is, the people will establish a constitution that determines, defines and delineates the specific powers and trust they will extend to the lions.
How would the people know if the trust they had given their rulers had been broken, thus allowing the people to rebel within the framework of a constitution?
Locke's words on that subject were quite readily understood and endorsed by the colonists: When rulers ignore settled law in favor of "inconstant, incertain, unknown, and arbitrary government," then the point of rebellion is reached.
Clearly, when it comes to society's understanding of what constitutes marriage today, settled law is severely being ignored in favor of the uncertain, the unknown and the arbitrary. Even devotees of the homosexual agenda would be hard pressed to disagree with this matter-of-fact assessment.
The people's right to rebel within the framework of the U.S. Constitution is tacitly recognized by every member of Congress, for it is the legislative branch, not the judicial and executive, which directly feels the biennial exercise of Popular Sovereignty (called "elections"). If Congress does not act swiftly and decisively on a major issue, Popular Sovereignty will remove unpopular incumbents and replace them appropriately.
Because of John Locke's influence on the drafting of the U.S. Constitution (although he had died 80 years earlier), Congress is "first among equals."
The document's very drafting sequence indicates this priority, for Article I deals with the legislative branch (Articles II and III, with the executive and judicial branches, respectively).
--While the judiciary cannot control Congress, Congress certainly can control the judiciary. In Article 1, Section 8, Congress has the power to create (thus, the implicit power to eliminate) any federal court beneath the Supreme Court. That power is reiterated in Article 3, Section 1. Congress, it would seem, also may remove lower federal judges who subvert Popular Sovereignty by abolishing the judge's court. The Constitution says a judge may hold office during "good behavior" and that his compensation shall not be diminished during "continuance in office." If there's no office to hold, a judge will be back in private practice or teaching at Harvard Law.
--While the Supreme Court cannot control Congress, Congress certainly can control the Supreme Court by denying it the right to hear certain appeals. (Article III, Section 2: ". . . the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make" [emphasis added].)
If it wishes to expedite and underscore its commitment to Popular Sovereignty and fire a massive shot across the bow of unjust and unjustifiable judges, Congress as soon as possible should convene, draft a bill (not a constitutional amendment), pass it, and submit the legislation at once to the President for what likely would be an immediate signature.
Legislation must contain unmistakable language that 1) marriage and any other permanent, two-person sexual union throughout the United States shall be recognized at all levels of government only if the marriage or union is between a biological, natural-born man and a biological, natural-born woman, and 2) the Supreme Court and, arguably, the entire congressionally constituted judiciary may not review the law.
Meantime, in anticipation of the predictable howls by Laurence Tribe, The New York Times, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Michael Jackson, Rosie O'Donnell, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, et alia, White House speechwriters should be ready with an appropriate soundbite or two for President Bush's news conference.
Perhaps he could say something like, "How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?" and, "I am referring all questions to my favorite lawyer, John Locke, who is out of town and not expected back anytime soon."
Mike Thompson is author of Preying In School: How Homosexuals Recruit Your Kids, available from Xulon Press, 1-866-909-2665.
More on Preying in School: The world's first referendum on homosexuality was barely 25 years ago, in sunny Miami-Dade County, where in 1977 Florida's official orange-juice saleswoman (and popular country/gospel singer) Anita Bryant led the voters in a thumping repeal of "gay rights" legislation.
At Anita's side as chief political strategist, debater and advertising man was Mike Thompson, a powerful figure in Republican and conservative politics since the mid-1960s.
Now Thompson has packaged a blockbuster and highly readable book on how homosexual activists have opened a new front in their war to demand society's full approval.
"In the midst of a gay-embracing frenzy by bipartisan politicians, the news media, the entertainment world, academia and the other usual suspects," writes Thompson, "there are nevertheless tens of millions of Americans (the familiar Silent Majority) who don't embrace homosexuality. Indeed, they consider homosexuality to be perverse and adverse personal behavior.
"What most of these parents don't realize is that in addition to naïve educators, there are powerful forces inside their children's public schools who skillfully scheme to intimidate heterosexual students into silence or, worse, recruit them into homosexuality itself."
Thompson then lays out factually the strategies and gross propaganda materials employed nationwide by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, to penetrate classrooms, amazingly, from kindergarten to college level. (GLSEN also organizes after-school sex clubs [Gay-Straight Alliances] that meet on campus to facilitate "safe dating.")
Quoting extensively from the GLSEN-approved study list of special "children's" literature, the author reveals that much of the group's material, if depicted in a movie, would be considered X-rated, obscene and actually constitute child pornography.
Thompson also cites various medical, scientific and criminal-justice sources to debunk a litany of homosexual claims regarding their lives and alleged danger from heterosexuals.
Particularly compelling is a chapter dealing with the need for full disclosure, in which Thompson masterfully compiles chilling numbers on the longevity of homosexuals and the heavy burden of disease, illness and substance abuse inherent in their choosing "a deathstyle, not a lifestyle."
Thompson's multifaceted solution to driving homosexual propaganda out of public schools is both solid and creative, and boils down to this: Parents must demand that schools fight homosexual behavior just as vigorously as they fight alcohol, drugs, reckless driving and other life-threats to our children.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1036631/posts?page=130#130
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1041494/posts?page=160#160
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1042523/posts?page=161#161
Let the record show you cannot answer simple questions about the definitions used or the conclusion reached in just 1 article stating that 73% of all homosexuals are child molestors.
Let it be recalled that marriage does not need protection nor is it in danger.
Your protestations about my information because you fail in basic reading comprehention do not constitute a failure on my part to make the point.
I've had my say. Good bye.
That is the most ridiculous explanation for the cause of homosexuality that I've ever heard. Why would someone want to masturbate over something that didn't bring them sexual pleasure in the first place?
That's indeed sad. But there aren't any organizations like GLSEN in the schools teaching kids to smoke tobacco. There aren't any television programs celebrating the homosexual lifestyle. There isn't anybody in the schools asking kids, how do you know you wouldn't like smoking if you've never tried it, as we have them asking kids the same question of homosexuality.
You haven't done anything to support a reason for why people shouldn't be allowed to live their lives as they please. You have only shown that you disapprove of people who have different sexual orientations than the norm. You have also shown that you believe your disapproval of their lifestyle is sufficent grounds to inhibit their pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.
You're not listening very well or you're poorly informed. AIDS targets homosexual behavior. That's a fact. AIDS is contagious and deadly and can contaminate the blood supply. When somebody tries to commit suicide we put them on 72 hour watch, so why don't you try to discourage a behavior that results in a deadly contagious disease?
In the long run their rights to those pursuits will prevail. Its only a matter of time.
Not when they try to push it off as some legitimate lifestyle that doesn't harm anybody, because it does. It can affect you and me. It can affect anybody.
There is no scientific evidence supporting any homosexual gene. None. You won't find any as it's all been discredited. All the evidence points to environment. Did you read that? The major factor behind homosexuality is environment. That means homosexuals can change. And the fact that thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle supports the environmental factor. Yeah, we should base rights on a behavior, and a behavior that can change. That's nonsense.
Why do you hate homosexuals so much you don't discourage this behavior that results in a contagious deadly disease?
I've asked you many times to list the study you reference, to show where I've referenced any study that states anything more than 30%, but you run away each time. I've asked you to get specific. To support your statements. You can't and you run away. Stop supporting the homosexual agenda.
However, you and your minions don't do that. That's why you are considered fanatics and zealots by many folks here.
You can ask me to be specific all you want. I already did that and you keep ignoring it. In fact your criticism of me that I support the agenda was answered several times by me on the other threads. YOU JUST DON"T GET IT! So I don't know why you repeat the same charge after I explained it several times. What's wrong with you? Do you think if you accuse people often enough it will suddenly be true?
I did say good-bye, but I just want the record clear here so that others can realize the tactics you use to excoriate all homosexuals.
I'm out, You're pathetic!
Okay, your point is that some people CHOOSE to act in certain ways which are destructive because there' some pleasure involved. So those people therefore may suffer. Where does it follow that such people should enjoy special legal protection, thus allowing them "karma free" enjoyment? People choose poorly, let them take responsibility for their actions.
Some of those people are injured, killed, or have their health impaired because of their behavior.
Take drinking and driving. Such people not only (sometimes) kill themselves, but they kill OTHERS and therefore restrictions are put on such acts that adversely affect other people (i.e. society - which means LOTS of other people.)
and sometimes the rest of us end up paying the bill for their behavior.
If you're such a libertarian, why do you want to take responsibility for other peoples' destructive choices? I sure as he!! don't want to. It is neither right, nor kind.
Limiting someones rights because they are a subset of that group isn't a valid excuse for a Constitutional Amendment.
This statement is gobbledygook posing as rational speech. Whose rights are you talking about? And what rights? I suppose you mean the right of two men or two women to "marry". That is inventing "rights" out of whole cloth. Let's invent some more "rights" - I'd like the "right" to bulldoze my neighbor's house because they were mean to me. I'd like the "right" to make it so that no one will call me stupid or ugly. I'd like the "right" to marry my three cats, etc etc.
(The rest of your statements will be defeated in my next post.)
It's obvious he has none.
I think you have a serious problem, break them. You are clearly the one ranting, scripter is posting very rationally and politely. You are the one who is being unreasonable and using personal attack.
I DON"T SUPPORT THE AGENDA! I deal with issues on an issue by issue basis. I treat people as individuals and recognize their rights as free individuals. I don't put people in a bad light because some of them are extreme. I deal with extremists and leave the others alone.
For someone who does not support the homosexual agenda you do a good job of impersonating one who does. You remind me of the Moslems who say that they are not jihadis, they are just moderates. But they don't criticize the jihadis, in fact, they have 9-11 parties. You never "deal with the extremists" - at least not on any threads I've ever seen. All you do is attack those of us who are attempting to put the truth out about the gay agenda.
I think you are vainly attempting to force a libertarian radical "personal freedom uber alles" philosophy on the reality of the homosexual agenda, and it just won't fit right. In your frustration, you attack scripter and others. It is childish, it is wrong, and it is unFreeperlike.
On this forum you don't deal with any issues involving homosexuality. Instead you engage in games and try to denigrate the facts. And in doing that you support the homosexual agenda.
You can ask me to be specific all you want. I already did that and you keep ignoring it.
Even when they are I try not to call people liars. So I won't, just provide the post where you got specific. That is, provide a URL to the study I cited that states anything more than a 1/3. You can't, and that's why you post and run.
I'm out, You're pathetic!
Thanks, guy, that means a lot to me.
It's something you do, over and over. You can't support your statements and when we call you on it, you get all bent out of shape.
I thought this person was able to understand some basic concepts but they could not.
C'mon, are you going to support your statements or continue with this charade?
This radical "personal freedom to pursue untrammeled hedonism trumps over social good" philosophy is utopian and unworkable. No one can live life as they please". Ever heard of property taxes? Flu? Lice? Bad teeth? Taking care of elderly sick parents who are not in a good mood? Taking care of young children who aren't well-behaved? Etcetcetc.
You have only shown that you disapprove of people who have different sexual orientations than the norm. You have also shown that you believe your disapproval of their lifestyle is sufficent grounds to inhibit their pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.
Why should someone whose pursuit of "happiness" involves recruiting children into homosexuality have the right to do so? This is not a rhetorical question.
Why would someone want to masturbate over something that didn't bring them sexual pleasure in the first place?
Just because an act gives some sexual pleasure does not enshrine said act as a worthy thing to do. No one is saying that people don't find any sexual pleasure in same sex acts. But sexual pleasure is not a yardstick to judge the worth of every human endeavor. Never has been, never will be. Except for the avowed hedonist. And a society composed of avowed hedonists is a society which will soon be chaos, then a very externally controlled society.
Let's make this really simple for you. To what study are you referring that you want to apply the above mentioned principles? I've asked you many, many times to cite this study but you never have.
I've told him before he should stop looking like a duck. He can say he doesn't support the homosexual agenda all he wants, that's not what his posts appear to imply; and that's why I call him on it.
You are misrepresenting my position. I repeated it tonight and I posted it here. Misrepresenting intentionally is a lie. Either you are a liar or you can't read some simple sentences. Now, do something honorable and call the moderator and explain that you were wrong.
To: scripter
Take notes. I pinged you so I don’t get asked the same questions and have to deal with the same BS every thread. THE AGENDA. lj thinks I support the homosexual agenda. In fact I have explained my position twice. I don’t deal with so-called agenda’s. I deal with issues on an issue by issue basis. I come to threads about gays in the military or marriage because these are issues I believe where the government should treat all citizens the same. The thread usually goes like this. Someone supports a homosexual serving in the military and one of you comes along and posts the agenda and calls the person an apologist, gaystopo member or some such propaganda label.
The problem is you are incapable of dealing with issues separately because you have dedicated yourself to fighting the agenda. So anything a homosexual wants or believes they have a right to you rail against it because it supports the agenda. You equate pedophilia with a person have sex with another adult or wanting to marry them. Because in your mind any gain or recognition of full citizenship for a homosexual is a loss to the agenda.
The agenda was developed by self-ordained leaders and extremists. I don’t have to say it, because I know some homosexuals who say the same thing. You are slamming an entire group, millions of people, because of an agenda some extremists push. In the US we believe in individual rights and responsibilities. Not excoriating people because someone like them is extreme.
Last time I looked, blacks commit an inordinate amount of murder per capita. Now we can yell all day about how violent blacks are or we can treat them as individuals so that the guy down the street can live peacefully and not have to worry about you shouting murderer when he leaves the house.
RESEARCH. You pride yourselves in your links to various studies and research. S says I can’t refute it with evidence. I mentioned a quote that lj used and the 73% child molester study you guys link to. I have asked questions about each. If you can’t answer questions about the study or the quote then it doesn’t stand up. You’re just using numbers because you can throw them on these threads and superficial people will adopt them. You are being intellectually dishonest.
In order for research to be useful it has to be reliable and valid. Reliability means that the results have been repeated in subsequent trials, preferably by other independent sources. Validity means it was executed with proper formalities, supported by objective truth, and has the power to overcome doubt. The ones I’ve seen so far do not meet either of these standards and your inability to answer simple questions does not invite the questioner to read more studies.
Let’s say that 73% of homosexuals are child molesters. That means there 4 million kids more or less who have been molested with no convictions. If this is true there is a pandemic of crime that is unaddressed. Why haven’t police groups or DAs spoken out on this most serious issue?
The obvious reason is that it’s not true. It is on its face incredible and raises doubt about the research or the researcher. When I took my masters research class, the instructor cautioned that if your results don’t seem credible, your first reaction is to question yourself, not go outside yelling the findings to everyone.
Lastly, when you see research funded by some group like American Family Values for Exiling homosexuals on the north slope of Alaska, it is easy to dismiss the research as starting from a bias point.
I have in the past posted critical analyses of various research showing the evils of homosexuality, but the owner deleted the posts. So you have the free run of the place, but don’t expect all freepers to go along and not point out what you are doing. Many have just stopped posting because they were called names, others stopped because they don’t have the patience to withstand constant barrages of propaganda, and others see these threads as a place to keep all the zealots corralled and make the other threads safe for dialogue. I choose, for now, to keep pointing out what you are doing. I know that people come here to read and learn about conservatism and I care what they see and take away about the FR. But I cannot keep up the pace of those more fanatical amongst you. So you can call it clock cleaning or whatever, but I have a short time period for staying with you.
102 posted on 12/18/2003 12:46:09 PM PST by breakem [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
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.