Posted on 04/26/2003 12:28:27 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier
States don't have Constitutional rights nor is there a Constitutional right to sodomy, polygamy or incest, irrespective of the degrees of seperation.
This is a tenth amendment issue if ever there was one. The writers of the Constitution clearly endorsed laws outlawing sodomy.
If you want the Constitution to protect those things, you'll have to amend it. The 14th Amendment doesn't do it.
SCOTUS may once again follow the well worn path of Roe, overstep their bounds and the untintended consequences will surely follow. Homosexual marriage, polygamy, no degree of seperation incest, prostitution, these are all matters between consenting adults.
You and I may agree or disagree whether they are good, bad or indifferent but we will surely disagree on an overly strong central government finding rights in the Constitution that aren't, nor have ever been, in it.
And Santorum is both correct and courageous in addressing it now.
Source please.
True. Pointless, irrelevant, but true.
April 27, 2003
To the Editor
Seattle Times,
Leonard Pitts Jr. was shocked that Sen. Rick Santorum would compare homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest, adultery and bestiality. (‘The repugnant cynicism of Sen. Rick Santorum’ 4-27-03,Seattle Times)
I was too. While heterosexual bigamy, polygamy, and adultery are harmful and, I think, morally wrong, they are not sexual perversions. Homosexuality is. There is no comparison.
Mr. Pitts goes on to argue that just because Sen. Santorum may be an “all-right guy” or have friends and family who love him doesn’t mean that whatever he say’s or does is all right. I agree. Whether or not somebody is loved or whether or not they are “nice” should not be the litmus test for whether or not an action or a behavior they engage in is good, right or appropriate.
Yet, that’s exactly the line that homosexualists take in their efforts to normalize homosexual behavior. Don’t pay attention to the sexual act they engage in, even though, as Mr. Pitts rightfully states, to do so would be “to separate one’s identity from the behavior that defines it”, just pay attention to whether or not they are nice, a good employee or have someone who loves them.
This may come as a shock to you but pedophiles have people who love them too. Sexual perversions don’t become normal behavior just because the person who engages in it is nice or loved or witty. Just because they are someone’s mother, father, sister or brother.
Homosexualists have largely succeeded, primarily through bullying tactics, (Bigot! Homophobe! Hater!) at getting otherwise intelligent people to deny the obvious biology of heterosexuality, to suppress their natural revulsion to homosexual acts and to ignore the physical/mental harm caused by engaging in homosexual acts.
If a group of people had a desire to eat food by putting it in their ear instead of their mouth would they be able to convince Mr. Pitts that it was natural, normal and healthy? Probably.
From a quick Google search I found this:
The law was challenged after John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested Sept. 17, 1998, when police entered Lawrence's unlocked apartment and found the men engaging in consensual sex. They were charged with "deviant homosexual conduct."The officers entered the house after a third man falsely reported an armed intruder was inside. That man, Robert Royce Eubanks, who was Garner's roommate, was convicted of filing a false report and sentenced to 30 days in jail.
Robert Royce Eubanks, 40, has since been sentenced to 15 days for filing a false report with the police. He is said to know both of the men arrested. Speculation is that jealousy played a role in his placing the call to the police.At a hearing Nov. 20, John Geddes Lawrence, 55, and Tyrone Garner, 31, pleaded no contest to the sex charge, refused to pay the fine of $125 each, and will now challenge the law in a criminal trial.
Garner told the Associated Press that he felt his civil rights were violated, and Lawrence described the police raid as "sort of Gestapo." Lambda Legal Defense has entered the case on behalf of the plaintiffs. "We believe the law is an outrageous intrusion into the private liberties of lesbian and gay Texans," said Lambda´s Suzanne B. Goldberg. "It´s unconstitutional for this law to single out gays and criminalize their behavior."
Attorney Doyal had feared that there never would be another legal challenge that would get the Texas sodomy statute completely off the books.
If the homosexual lobbyists can speculate that he made the fraudlant call out of jealously, I can speculate that the 3 homosexual men who knew each other acted in concert to create the situtation they found themselves in. Houston isn't a safe city. I would not recommend leaving an apartment door unlocked; especially if you are in the bedroom having sex. But then again, who continues having sex after investigating officers have made their presence known? From the outset they made it clear that they planned to overturn the law.
Where was the third housemate when he made the call?
It's the same tired voices making the same tired arguments.
Since you forget the points that are established on these threads...
Age of consent laws are not uniform for homosexual and heterosexual conduct. Therefore in some states an act of homosexual sex (sodomy) between an adult (aged 18+) and a minor aged 16 years old could be "staturory rape" while the same activity with members of the opposite sex would not and would be quite legal, even if morally repugnant.
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.