Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How staged sex crime fooled Supreme Court
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | October 24, 2005 | Joseph Farah

Posted on 10/24/2005 12:27:04 PM PDT by Hunterb

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 281-287 next last
To: Paul C. Jesup
This is why the bride and groom have blood tests before they get married, to check to see if their blood types will not conflict with each other if they chose to have children.

What State is that? My wife and I didn't have to take any blood test.


If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.

121 posted on 10/24/2005 1:42:00 PM PDT by rdb3 (Have you ever stopped to think, but forgot to start again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

Not EVER, have they! LOL


122 posted on 10/24/2005 1:42:46 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
people voted to have sodomy laws in place. To have judges overrule the will of the people is tyranny.

So if people voted to make being of white race illegal, your would support it. There is such a thing about 'mob rule'/ as in majority rule, which is why we have a Electorial College, to prevent 'mob rule'.

123 posted on 10/24/2005 1:42:50 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth

LOL. But if you make it a setup, then you get to take the shining light off of the actual issue and try to make it go away on totally unrelated grounds.


124 posted on 10/24/2005 1:43:23 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: dmz; pgyanke
I'm sorry, but that may be the silliest comment I've read today on FR ....
It's kind of hard to be publically lewd in your own bedroom. Unless you think that if the police were to come into your home while your wife/husband was in the shower, and to have him or her arrested for public nudity.

Actually, other than the rather absurd stretch that it should be treated the same as if the perverts had invited school children in to watch, pgyanke raised a pretty good point. If you open up your bedroom and expose the public to it and then engage in acts that would be considered lewd in public, then it is very easy to be "publically lewd in your own bedroom". If you don't believe this, try this little exercise and let us know how it works out: Buy a house right across the street from an elementary school with a front bedroom with great big bay windows. Open the drapes/blinds/shades so that the front bedroom is visible from the street (and school). At about 3:00 pm (or whenever school is letting out and the kiddies are waiting for their parents or the bus to pick them up) get naked and stand right in the big middle of those bay windows and pleasure yourself. I'll just bet you will find you can be charged and convicted of public lewdness (and even lewdness with a child or equivalent) right there in the "privacy" of your own bedroom.

125 posted on 10/24/2005 1:44:03 PM PDT by VRWCmember (hard-core, politically angry, hyperconservative, and loaded with vitriol about everything liberal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
Laws against adultery, are still on the books in Washington, D.C.!

Your imaginings are based on nothing factual.

126 posted on 10/24/2005 1:44:11 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Look, being obtuse isn't helping your position.

I have pointed out your hypocracy through logic. It is you are are being obtuse.

127 posted on 10/24/2005 1:44:29 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: middie
Test cases are nothing new, they have existed in virtually every area of civil rights doctrine, from integrated lunch counters, Florida beaches off-limits to blacks in the segregation era, to MLK's disobedience to an ostensibly lawful, if clearly unconstitutional court order in Birmingham. So what?

The "so what" is that in those cases, 1) those laws actually were being enforced, 2) some of those people were advocating legislative changes, and/or 3) they weren't seeking to have new rights read into the Constitution.

Farah missed this point completely, because he's a dunce. But the argument for invention of a "right to privacy" or expansion of substantive due process is asking the Court to expand its authority into areas where it should not go. And the fact that these cases were set-ups shows that the Court did not need to intervene. The changing social mores that allegedly justified the manufacture of new "rights" already had led to those statutes not being enforced in a manner that would concern the average person.

128 posted on 10/24/2005 1:44:35 PM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
Here in Texas, we get a chance to nip same-sex marriage in the butt next election.

Seems to where this all started in the first place. :)

129 posted on 10/24/2005 1:44:47 PM PDT by IamConservative (Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most times will pick himself up and carry on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
No, they do not!

Are you married?

130 posted on 10/24/2005 1:44:55 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Laws against adultery, are still on the books in Washington, D.C.!

Then we should use them to clean out government.

131 posted on 10/24/2005 1:45:16 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

Comment #132 Removed by Moderator

To: Khepera

Now that is an interesting comment.

How many legislators during that time that actually RAN on the plank that they would outlaw homosexual sex, sodomy, whatever? I'm guessing few, if any.

So they get the bill passed (who in those days would vote against), and the public shrugs their shoulders.

Nah, your argument doesn't work for me.


133 posted on 10/24/2005 1:48:32 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
The blood test, which brides and grooms take before they are allowed to take out a marriage license, are to determine whether or not either party has syphilis and gonorrhea.

And those tests have not been a requirement for a marriage license in Texas for at least 20 or 30 years.

134 posted on 10/24/2005 1:48:35 PM PDT by VRWCmember (hard-core, politically angry, hyperconservative, and loaded with vitriol about everything liberal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

Paul - I don't remember a blood test for marriage in Maryland. Life insurance, yes, but I really don't remember the blood test to get the marriage license.


135 posted on 10/24/2005 1:49:35 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
And on adultery, I thought that was legalized considering how many adulterers we have in government.

That is no reason for legislators to "legalize" it for the rest of us.

136 posted on 10/24/2005 1:49:36 PM PDT by VRWCmember (hard-core, politically angry, hyperconservative, and loaded with vitriol about everything liberal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
See the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


If the 4th amendment guaranteed a right to sodomy, why were 18th and 19th century sodomy laws never challenged on that basis? Why did it take 200 years for anyone to figure out that the 4th amendment has the meaning that you claim?
137 posted on 10/24/2005 1:50:02 PM PDT by irishjuggler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
people voted to have sodomy laws in place. To have judges overrule the will of the people is tyranny.

Nonsense. We are not a democracy - "the will of the people" only applies so long as the will of the people stays within Constitutional boundaries.

If the will of the people was to ban guns, would you be okay with that?

138 posted on 10/24/2005 1:52:52 PM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
I do not think that it is the government's place to regulate the actions of two or more adults entered into consentingly.

What about one or more "adult" and one or more non-adult adolescent?
What about one or more "adult" and one or more pre-adolescent who is really really curious and wants to try the experience?

Is it the government's place to regulate those actions?

139 posted on 10/24/2005 1:53:09 PM PDT by VRWCmember (hard-core, politically angry, hyperconservative, and loaded with vitriol about everything liberal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

...if you want tyranny in government, you should move to Europe or the middle-east.

but don't most of those places just not care what goes on in the bedroom? seems like leftist gov't wants to be everywhere except the bedroom.


140 posted on 10/24/2005 1:53:09 PM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 281-287 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