Stand with Scalia and Texas

Dead bodies have rights and so do kids and so do animals. None can grant consent. The state has the power to sanction contracts. Marriage is such a contract. The state can decide gay people can't marry. They can decide that people can't have more than one wife. Slavery is illegal, but even if it weren't, an idiot could see that an adult person has the right to independence and the right to grant consent. Murder and rape are both crimes which take away someone else's rights. That's why the government can punish offenders.

Yep. too bad you can't ask justices questions.

Yep, I think we'd absolutely love to watch you match wits with Scalia.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 US 186 (1986) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.

BURGER, C.J., Concurring Opinion Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law…. During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed…. Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." W. Blackstone, Commentaries . The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816, the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

Thomas Jefferson on Sodomy Sect. XIV. Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy* with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least. Peterson, Merrill D. "Crimes and Punishments" Thomas Jefferson: Writings Public Papers (Literary Classics of the United States, Inc. 1984) pp. 355, 356.

Fairness, Accuracy and Honesty in Discussing Homosexuality and Marriage, by Lynne Marie Kohm & Mark A. Yarhouse is an introduction to this issue and ties in the social science articles with the law. ---Lynn Marie Kohm is the John Brown McCarty Professor of Family Law, Regent University School of Law.---Mark A. Yarhouse, is an assistant professor of psychology, Regent University School of Psychology and Counseling.
Talking Points: How Homosexual 'Civil Unions' Harm Marriage The eminent Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin argued that no society has ceased to honor the institution of marriage and survived.
Same Sex Marriage: Til Death Do Us Part? Homosexual marriage is nothing like traditional marriage. Homosexual unions are not built around lifetime commitments, nor are they good environments to raise children.
What Is "A Homosexual" Kinsey reported that those who engaged in homosexuality were exceptionally sexually flexible, intensely sexualized, and highly venturesome. Kinsey's published data reveal that homosexuals are much more willing to "try it" with an animal, a child, a man, many women, or for that matter "something completely different."
What Homosexuals Say About Homosexuals - Is This Gay Behavior Sick?
Compared with their heterosexual peers, homosexual men were at greater risk for psychiatric disorders, including mood and anxiety disorders, bipolar disorders, major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorders, panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, and simple phobia. ---Theo G. M. Sandfort, Archives of General Psychiatry Vol. 58, Number . , 2001. Page(s) 85-91. SO MUCH FOR HOMOPHOBIA
Relationship violence was found to be a significant problem for homosexuals. Forty-four (44) percent of the gay men reported having experienced violence in their relationships; 13 percent reported sexual violence and 83 percent reported emotional abuse. Levels of abuse ran even higher among lesbians: 55 percent reported physical violence in their relationships, 14 percent reported sexual abuse, and 84 percent reported emotional abuse. Susan C. Turrell,Journal of Family Violence Vol. 13, Number . , 2000. Page(s) 281-293.
Violence and Homosexuality The top six U.S. male serial killers were all gay.
The median age of death for those who regularly engage in homosexual behavior leaned in the direction of less than 50. The data suggest a "20- to 30-year decrease in lifespan" because of "substantially evelated rates of sexually elevated diseases . . . cancer and heart conditions, and violence among homosexual men and women." Paul Cameron, Psychological Reports,Vol. 83, Number . , 1998. Page(s) 847-866.
Almost one-third (29.7 percent) of gays and nearly one-half (47.5 percent) of lesbians reported being or having been the victim of relationship violence. In addition, 22 percent of gays and 38 percent of lesbians admitted using violence against their partners. Lisa Walder-Haugrad, Violence and Victims Vol. 12, Number . , 1997. Page(s) 173-184.
Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do FECAL SEX About 80% of gays (see Table) admit to licking and/or inserting their tongues into the anus of partners and thus ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. Those who eat or wallow in it are probably at even greater risk. In the diary study,5 70% of the gays had engaged in this activity--half regularly over 6 months. Result? --the "annual incidence of hepatitis A in...homosexual men was 22 percent, whereas no heterosexual men acquired hepatitis A." In 1992,26 it was noted that the proportion of London gays engaging in oral/anal sex had not declined since 1984.
Gay Foster Parents More Apt to Molest
Talking Points: Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse
Studies of Homosexual Parenting: A Critical Review, by George Rekers & Mark Kilgus illuminates the flaws of the leading social science studies on homosexual parenting and child development that are relied upon by courts, legislators, and lawyers in advocating homosexual adoption of children. ---George Rekers, a Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, is author of The Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems. He was the recipient of the 2000 Sigmund Freud Award for Pioneering Research.--- Mark D. Kilgus is a board certified child and adolescent psychiatrist who presently serves as the Medical Director of Northpointe Behavioral Healthcare Systems in Michigan.

More than a dozen briefs filed at the United States Supreme Court this week oppose the declaration of a new constitutional right in Lawrence v. Texas.

Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah (State Attorneys General)

American Center for Law and Justice
Jay Alan Sekulow, Counsel of Record

American Family Association
Stephen M. Crampton, Counsel of Record

Center for Arizona Policy
This brief refutes the errors expressed in the opposing amicus submitted by the American Psychology Association.
Len L. Munsil, Counsel of Record

Center for Law and Justice International
Pat Monaghan, Counsel of Record

Center for the Original Intent of the Constitution
Michael P. Farris, Counsel of Record

Concerned Women for America
Janet M. LaRue, Counsel of Record

Family Research Council & Focus on the Family
Robert P. George, Counsel of Record

Legislators, State of Texas
Kelly Shackelford, Counsel of Record

Liberty Counsel
Mathew D. Staver, Counsel of Record

Pro Family Law Center
Richard Ackerman, Counsel of Record

Texas Eagle Forum; Daughters of Liberty Republican Women of Houston, Texas;
Spirit of Freedom Republican Women's Club
Teresa Stanton Collett, Counsel for Amici Curiae

Texas Physicians Resource Council, Christian Medical and Dental Association, Catholic Medical Association
Glen Lavy, Counsel of Record

United Families International
Paul Benjamin Linton, Counsel for the Amicus

Is Same-Sex Marriage Good for the Nation?

John Rankin was raised a secular humanist, an agnostic Unitarian prior to converting to biblical faith in 1967. He holds graduate degrees in theology from Gordon Conwell and Harvard, is author of the three-volume set, First the Gospel, Then Politics..., and is host of the Mars Hill Forum series. He and his wife have been married for nearly twenty-five years and have four children. Website: www.teihartford.com

The first thing I want to read is something I wrote about seven, eight years ago called "Human Sexuality and Civil Rights." I wrote this quite a bit prior to the debate over same-sex marriage. And it's a non-binding resolution that I desire to see politically debated. And again, it's entitled "Human Sexuality and Civil Rights." And it goes accordingly.

Whereas:

All persons hold the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, and therefore they hold equal dignity and protection under due process of law; [all people]

And whereas:

The historic family unit, rooted in heterosexual faithful monogamous marriage and the raising of children is the basic institution in society;

And whereas:

There are those who by choice, circumstance, or the brokenness of adversity who are unable to participate fully or partly as members of the historic family unit;

We affirm: [and there are three points of affirmation]

1. Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman in mutual fidelity;

2. No punitive laws shall exist to restrict private association, whether heterosexual or homosexual; [And there are people on the conservative Christian right that Norm's been talking about tonight who disagree with me on that. You'll find a very strong libertarian ethic, but it's based on a prior definition of equal life for all.] and;

3. All persons shall accept accountability for the public consequences of their private associations and actions, and they shall in no way deprive others of life, liberty, or property.

What I'm saying here is that I disagree with same-sex marriage. I disagree with homosexual relationships. Nonetheless, all people are free to disagree with me as I am with them, so long as we have an understanding of unalienable rights, that everyone has life, liberty and property, free not to be violated by other people. So the real debate comes down to those boundaries. And many acts of a homosexual or heterosexual nature, or other forms of sexuality, do violate life, liberty and property. And I'm equally opposed to all of those because I'm in favor of life, liberty and property. But for those acts of any nature that do not violate them, then people have that freedom in a civil society. And you will not see me pursuing those matters.

The second thing that I want to share with you is a petition that I've circulated around the state. I led off the testimony this year in the statehouse February 11th saying "no" to same-sex marriage. I was part of the same panel last year. And this is actually the summation of my testimony one year ago. And I'll walk through the definition of terms as I go. It's entitled, "Petition to Members of the Connecticut General Assembly."

Yes to man and woman in marriage.

No to same-sex marriage.

[Now an important predicate is, I don't say "no" to anything unless I first say "yes" to something. I think you will find that my agenda is a positive one, and my only concern is to protect life, liberty and property, or should I say, to affirm a government that protects life, liberty and property. I seek to do that myself to begin with. And so the real question is, can we honor these unalienable rights while also coming to a place of difference of interpretation. So my "no" is predicated on a prior "yes."]

As a resident of Connecticut I affirm the following: [and there are four affirmations]

1. In the United States, the civil rights which we all enjoy are rooted in the laws of nature and of nature's God, in the unalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. [I have been in contact with all 187 legislators on this matter, at least five to eight times. I've heard back from 48 of them, and none of them will dispute the statement I just gave to you.]

2. The only source for unalienable rights in all human history is the Creator, the God of the Bible. [I've had a couple of people try to dispute me on this. And some years ago one was Nadine Strossen, who is president of the ACLU. And I said that the only source is the God of the Bible, and she started off that evening, and the topic was homosexuality and civil rights that evening. And she quoted the language from Jefferson, that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And as she quoted that, I said you started at the same source that I started: unalienable rights. And so I just have one simple question. Who is the Creator that Thomas Jefferson was referring to? And Jefferson was a rationalist. He was not by any stretch an evangelical Christian as myself, and yet he and those with him who were from an orthodox Christian background in a Protestant context, appealed to a source higher than King George III. They appealed to the Creator. So I asked Nadine Strossen, who is the Creator? She looked at me and said well, you have your Creator and other people have their Creators. I said no, you've just described polytheism. In other words, that's not the context to which Jefferson was referring to. And if you look at every polytheistic culture in all of human history, they have no concept of unalienable rights. Rights go to those who are in power, whereas the concept of unalienable rights upon which this nation is founded, are rooted in the biblical understanding of the Creator, that says that all people deserve the same rights because they are people, and not because of any other secondary reason.]

3. The God of the Bible defines true marriage as one man, one woman, one lifetime. [This is the order of creation, the image of God.] The health of society is rooted in this foundation.

4. In human history, no society has ever affirmed both homosexuality and unalienable rights. [So here is an intellectual challenge, to track out history, to find out where unalienable rights are affirmed. And if you can find any society that ever has affirmed homosexuality and unalienable rights together, you won't find it.]

I'd just like to hear him answer a simple question. Scalia seems to think there's hardly any limit on a state's right to regulate a citizen's life. Watch out when that state is controlled by Liberals. Watch out when all the states are. It could happen and we'd know that we allowed them to have the precedent to exercise power in such Orwellian ways.

"The government needs to keep out of our personal lives. I don't understand why freedom-loving Americans can't see this...."

Then what about all laws to protect one from oneself,
such as bicycle helmet laws, using drugs at home, keeping contraband at home, etc. etc.?????

And how is this different from sharia other than the specific religion that is enforced at gunpoint?

There is only one moral Law, which everyone is obligated to adhere to regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof. Non-believers are not free to lie, to cheat, to steal, to rob, to rape, to murder, or any number of other cruel acts with impunity.

There will be a time when such judgments will come upon the earth . .

No there won't; risk says their won't.

So, feel free to go pork a pig or three and splash in the moral filth the dissemblers and atheist libertines such as risk have loosed in this country.

their=there

Atheist libertines have a constitutional right to turn this nation into an open sewer. Didn't you know that?

I would tend to think a laches argument might work well here, given that the government attempts to track down and prosecute less than 0.01% of the acts which violate the sodomy statute.