How staged sex crime fooled Supreme Court

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | October 24, 2005 | Joseph Farah

[Paul C. Jesup]

That begs the question: Doesn't the very definition of "homosexual" (and the fight for "homosexual rights") put everyone into their bedrooms?

So you think government is going to force you to have a homosexual in your bedroom.

Whatever you are taking, lay off of it.

[muawiyah]

You do use, of course, USDA approved condoms, right?

Or, do you prefer those cheap propylene things down at Harbor Freight?

When you advocate getting the government out of the bedroom, there are no half-measures. In for a dime, in for a dollar.

[XJarhead]

Griswold was a setup too.

Yup. And yet Farah says: ....is that the Supreme Court, possibly for the first time in history, ruled on a case "with virtually no factual underpinnings."

It never ceases to amaze me when professional writers make unnecessary and inexcusable mistakes like that one. Sure, I can understand everyone not knowing about Griswold. But I can't understand someone tossing out "possibly for the first time in history" unless he's comfortable enough in the subject matter to have some confidence in what he's saying. Farah obviously wasn't, yet made the assertion anyway. It just makes people who know better lose faith in the accuracy of what he says.

[wsack]

Scopes was a setup too.

[mlc9852]

Prostitution remains against the law - at least where I live.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You do use, of course, USDA approved condoms, right?

I take it you a foolish enough to trust a woman when she says she is taking birth control pills.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You do use, of course, USDA approved condoms, right?

I take it you are foolish enough to trust a woman when she says she is taking birth control pills.

[KC_Conspirator]

Then why is sex and marraige outlawed between family members, like a brother and sister? Even if they are consenting?

[John Robertson]

"So you would prefer to have government in your bedroom?"

Your reflexive response is completely inoperable. The whole point here is, the cops were MANIPULATED into going into someone's bedroom through a ruse whereby they believed a criminal act that could take a life was about to happen. They could have been manipulated into...the basement...the attic...the linen closet. You miss the point. They didn't want to go into anyone's anything... someone set the cops up.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Prostitution remains against the law - at least where I live.

Not in the state of Navada.

[Moral Hazard]

"How staged sex crime fooled Supreme Court "

I don't get it. It was well known that the crime was staged for purpose of getting the SCOTUS to review the constitutionality of the anti-sodomy law. What's more the facts of the case were largely irrelevant, as the SCOTUS was only ruling on the constitutionality of the underlying law.

[vikzilla]

This charge should have been handled the same as if these degenerates had invited school children into this scene.

Baloney.

[rdb3]

So you think government is going to force you to have a homosexual in your bedroom.

Whatever you are taking, lay off of it

All right. I asked my question respectfully, which you sidestepped. So I'll ask it one more time: Doesn't the very definition of "homosexual" (and the fight for "homosexual rights") put everyone into their bedrooms?

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.

[Calpernia]

And yet women have a reputation for faking it.

[sinkspur]

Who was the idiot prosecutor who decided to go ahead with this case?

[Wolfie]

This has been common knowledge for quite some time.

[pgyanke]

You gonna argue your point or tell us about lunch meat?

[mlc9852]

Obviously I don't live in Nevada or I wouldn't have made that statement.

[Spok]

When a court departs from the law and becomes a promoter of social agendas, it invites manipulation.

[Wolfie]

So you would prefer to have government in your bedroom?

Of course they do. Haven't you been paying attention?