1 posted on
10/24/2005 12:27:05 PM PDT by
Hunterb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
To: Hunterb
Was the U.S. Supreme Court fooled by a make-believe sodomy case in Lawrence v. Texas one manufactured by homosexual activists to entrap police and ensnare the judicial system in a conspiracy to change the law of the land? Why not? The USSC was fooled by a make believe rape and pregnancy in Roe v. Wade...seems they'll believe anything.
2 posted on
10/24/2005 12:28:52 PM PDT by
pgkdan
To: Hunterb
Here in Texas, we get a chance to nip same-sex marriage in the butt next election.
To: Hunterb
4 posted on
10/24/2005 12:33:01 PM PDT by
Michael.SF.
('That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy Sheehan")
To: Hunterb
So you would prefer to have government in your bedroom?
To: Hunterb
This is pretty common for the left. Stage 'crimes' to advance an agenda. The left can't do anything honestly, they must manipulate.
To: Hunterb
Griswold was a setup too.
7 posted on
10/24/2005 12:37:49 PM PDT by
Cboldt
To: Hunterb
10 posted on
10/24/2005 12:41:04 PM PDT by
mlc9852
To: Hunterb
Eveyone knows that ruling just sucked!
12 posted on
10/24/2005 12:42:05 PM PDT by
funkywbr
To: Hunterb
In other words, this case captures the gay agenda in a nutshell. For the most part the world doesn't care what happens in bedrooms behind closed doors so they fabricated a reason for the authorities to HAVE to come into their bedroom and get an eyeful.
15 posted on
10/24/2005 12:43:37 PM PDT by
Gator101
To: Hunterb
If "Lawrence v...." is acceptable to the USSC then my thought the other day that it is up to the Chief Justice to control the USSC docket in the mailroom is certainly workable.
19 posted on
10/24/2005 12:48:29 PM PDT by
muawiyah
(/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again? How'bout a double sarcasm for this one)
To: Hunterb
It's common to challenge a law by finding someone willing to deliberately get arrested for violating it. Regardless of your view of the Lawrence decision, this is a non-story.
20 posted on
10/24/2005 12:49:01 PM PDT by
ThinkDifferent
(I am a leaf on the wind)
To: Hunterb
24 posted on
10/24/2005 12:50:59 PM PDT by
wsack
To: Hunterb
"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.
31 posted on
10/24/2005 12:53:04 PM PDT by
Moral Hazard
("Now therefore kill every male among the little ones" - Numbers 31:17)
To: Coleus
And yet women have a reputation for faking it.
34 posted on
10/24/2005 12:54:38 PM PDT by
Calpernia
(Breederville.com)
To: Hunterb
Who was the idiot prosecutor who decided to go ahead with this case?
35 posted on
10/24/2005 12:54:48 PM PDT by
sinkspur
(If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
To: Hunterb
This has been common knowledge for quite some time.
36 posted on
10/24/2005 12:54:48 PM PDT by
Wolfie
To: Hunterb
When a court departs from the law and becomes a promoter of social agendas, it invites manipulation.
39 posted on
10/24/2005 12:55:40 PM PDT by
Spok
(Est omnis de civilitate.)
To: EdReform; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; stage left; Yakboy; I_Love_My_Husband; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Just because it's WND doesn't mean it's wrong. Read the article - we who keep track of such things on FR knew this was a set up at the time it went before the SCOTUS; now here are more facts.
Rick Santorum was right. Just because you've heard the words "slippery slope" gazillions of times doesn't mean they're not true.
We're living in perilous times.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
To: Hunterb
47 posted on
10/24/2005 1:02:39 PM PDT by
Old Professer
(Fix the problem, not the blame!)
To: Hunterb
I don't get it. What's the story? Were the men having consexual sodomy? Yes. So they staged it, so what? The implication here is that the Supreme Court was somehow bamboozled. Bamboozled into what? One man was sodomizing another, and they were arrested for it. How does the contituionality of it matter whether or not the men planned to get caught?
Maybe I should go on a bank robbing spree, and call the cops myself while I am robbing the place. Then, if I get caught, I can say "hey, I staged the whole thing, therefore you can't arrest me for it!".
Think that will work?
50 posted on
10/24/2005 1:06:01 PM PDT by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson