Judge orders city: Fly the 'gay' flag

WorldNetDaily ^ | June 8, 2005 | WND

[OB1kNOb]

Hmmmm...."they" also say flag burning is protected by the constitution as a freedom of speech, right? Match anyone?

[m1-lightning]

Gay is not a race, religion, or ethnic group. Gay is an action. It is a sexual preference just like fist-f**ing is. So what this judge is saying is that the public is forced to recognize someone's sexual behavior. Will the oral sex club be flying their flag next week? What about the porno club or the orgy club? The masturbation club? When will we see the strap-on flag? Why is gay sex viewed by liberals as some kind of significant culture? This is outrageous!

[threeleftsmakearight]

She's the den mother of Shrub-Scouts Troop 69

[andyk]

Wow, thanks for the pics!

[sandbar]

>>>Does this mean the Confederate flag can be flown as well?

Why no way!! That represents a group of people that aren't revered by the left, so no go.

[blueblazes]

I dunno about that, I think some of our Southern FRiends might disagree. It's part of their heritage.

[sarasota]

Guess I should have put in the sarcasm tag.

[kittymyrib]

The Christian Flag is certainly of historical significance and will be flying from the bridge soon, I hope.

[Condor51]

Another Willard appointed activist anti-American 'judge' strikes again!

Adams, Henry Lee Jr.
Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
Nominated by William J. Clinton on October 29, 1993, to a seat vacated by Susan H. Black; Confirmed by the Senate on November 20, 1993, and received commission on November 24, 1993.

Education:
Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, B.S., 1966 (Wow, I'm impressed)
Howard University School of Law, J.D., 1969 (Whoopee!)

Professional Career:
Reginald Heber Smith Fellow, Duval County Legal Aid Association, Duval County, Florida, 1969-1970
Assistant public defender, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida, 1970-1972
Private practice, Jacksonville, Florida, 1972-1979
Circuit judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Florida, 1979-1993

Race or Ethnicity: African American
Gender: Male (I doubt that)

I'm gonna take a wild guess that this 'judge' also thinks OJ actually was innocent was being screwed with by 'da man' just because he was black and Nicolle was white.

[Disambiguator]

She reminds me of Elaine Benes.

A much uglier, very butch Elaine Benes.

Maybe it's the glasses.

[little jeremiah]

Another article about this worse than stupid judicial crap:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1418920/posts

[blueblazes]

Elaine on steroids? Hmmmmmmmm.....

[95 Bravo]

I was just thinking that very thing. If one can burn an American flag in protest, and it is considered a form of free speech, why not a fag flag?
But first, wrap the maggot judge in it.

[SPOTTEDOWL]

Another Clinton appointee strikes. We sure need to keep getting Conservative judges confirmed to balance the destruction the Clinton appointed judges have been raining down on the Nation!

[muawiyah]

I'm saying this judge has ulterior motives. You all think the judge is a homosexual enabler, yet when the same judge approves the Ku Klux Klan flags it will be clear that was what the judge was after all along.

Besides, why canot Ku Kluxers be homosexuals? Here you have a bunch of guys pretending to be macho running around in women's robes ~ give me a break ~ all same thing!

[sandbar]

>To me she looks like a young Groucho Marx without the >mustache.

You know she does!!

[MindBender26]

Looks like she should be a guy named "Lou" working as a dispatcher for a poorly financed airport limousine company.

[wyattearp]

"Permitting a group to fly their flag from the Bridge of Lions enables that group to say 'We exist and this is what we stand for,'"

while allowing the local residents to say "you're just a bunch of perverts" and giving them something to shoot at.

[andyk]

Ah, thanks. I searched for "judge orders city"...

[MissouriConservative]

"By denying this application, these city administrators are denying my clients their constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of speech and equal access under the law. That violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments."

Another perversion of our Constitution....

14 Amendment

"If the 14th Amendment empowered federal courts to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states, this was one of the best kept secrets in American history. There was no clue to this intent in the four enforcement Acts that Congress passed contemporaneous with the Amendment. Furthermore, the Supreme Court itself was totally unaware of this sweeping new power a scant nine months after the Amendment was ratified. The Court decided Twitchell v. Pennsylvania on April 5, 1869.

Mr. Twitchell had been convicted of murder under a process which his lawyer claimed violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Supreme Court (unanimously) disposed of the case by citing the original understanding that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government, not the states. Nobody mentioned the 14th Amendment. If the 14th Amendment was intended to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights against the states, you would think that nine months after it was ratified somebody would have known about this intent, either the plaintiff's lawyer, or one of the nine eminent constitutional lawyers on the 1869 Supreme Court [14].

A law professor named Stanley Morrison reviewed a dozen different cases between 1868 and 1947 in which various defense lawyers asserted that the Bill of Rights should restrict the states as well as the federal government. In the first few cases, the 14th Amendment wasn't even mentioned. It wasn't until 1887, nineteen years after the Amendment was added to the Constitution, that a resourceful lawyer decided to try the "incorporation" story line [15].

The Court rejected this arguement unanimously until 1892, twenty-four years after the Amendment was debated, passed, and ratified. At that point, a few dissenters began to sign on to the fraud. A few years later the Court decided to "incorporate" the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment in order to develop a scam for use in protecting corporations from regulation by the states [16].

In 1876, Congress debated, and almost passed, a resolution to recommend to the states a proposed constitutional amendment to impose the First Amendment's religious freedom mandates on the states as well as the federal government. The so called "Blaine Amendment" said,

No State shall make any laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect, nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.

Many of the folks who voted to adopt or ratify the 14th Amendment were (still) in Congress when it debated the Blaine Amendment. They surely remembered what they had done, and intended, a scant eight years earlier. They would not have bothered with a new Amendment to redo what they had already accomplished with the 14th [17].

Charles Fairman, a colleague of Professor Morrison's, performed an exhaustive review of historical material which might illuminate the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment with respect to the "incorporation" claim. He studied the debates in Congress, speeches by congressmen campaigning for reelection in 1866, proceedings in the various state legislatures which ratified the Amendment, and relevant articles in the major newspapers of the time. Then he wrote a lengthy article reporting what he found [18].

In summarizing, Professor Fairman wrote that he found a "mountain of evidence" debunking the incorporation story line and only a few "stones and pebbles" to support it. That probably explains why it took the Supreme Court a generation to learn about the story [18]."

14th amendment link