Posted on 06/27/2003 2:19:02 AM PDT by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - Hours after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas sodomy statute, homosexual activists proclaimed their next target would be to overturn a host of laws they view as discriminatory, including those that limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Even before the court's 6-3 ruling extended privacy rights to homosexuals, conservatives and pro-family advocates warned that such a decision would lead to an erosion of traditional values. Now, they said, it is even more important to fight back.
"This is a major wake-up call," said the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition. "This is a 9/11, major wake-up call that the enemy is at our doorsteps."
Sheldon predicted that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage would be one of the first targets, followed by efforts to spread the homosexual message to public schools and force the business community to hire a sexually diverse workforce.
"This decision will open a floodgate," Sheldon said. "This will redirect the stream of what is morally right and what is morally wrong into a deviant kind of behavior. There is no way that homosexuality can be seen other than a social disorder."
For the legal team that convinced the Supreme Court to reverse its 17-year-old decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, Thursday's ruling was a long-awaited and much-welcomed relief. Homosexuals and their supporters celebrated the ruling in 35 cities Thursday night.
Among the 13 states with sodomy statutes before Thursday, only four singled out homosexuals, including the now-defunct Texas law. The two men arrested for having sex, John G. Lawrence and Tyron Garner, were caught in the act after a neighbor filed a false report that an armed man was "going crazy" inside Lawrence's apartment. The 1998 incident worked its way to the Supreme Court.
Now that the court has ruled that these sodomy laws are unconstitutional, homosexuals are prepared to eliminate other forms of discrimination, said Ruth Harlow, lead attorney for Lawrence and Garner and legal director at the homosexual advocacy group, Lambda Legal.
Harlow said discrimination in marriage laws and by the U.S. military would be two of their targets.
"By knocking out both sodomy laws and the justification of morality, this decision makes it much harder to defend those discriminatory schemes," she said. "The actual answer for those issues will be saved for another day."
Even though the decision was based on the right to privacy and not equal protection under the law, Harlow still called it a resounding victory. She said it "very strongly recognizes gay people's equal humanity" and guarantees homosexuals the equal rights under the Constitution.
While disappointed by the decision, Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy for Focus on the Family, said the fact that the court relied on privacy might be the "silver lining" for conservatives.
"The court based all of its decision on the right of privacy," he said. "It did not find a fundamental right for homosexuals to commit homosexual acts. We feared they would find that, and they did not. It's the same flimsy principle they used to decide abortion is constitutional."
Still, there are threats to traditional family values as a result of the ruling, said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America's Culture & Family Institute.
"Expanding the right of privacy indefinitely will lead to a challenge of marriage," he said. "It will jeopardize all the other sex-based laws, everything pertaining to incest, bigamy and prostitution. There really is no logical stopping point.
"They have given away the premise that a community can govern itself and set up a moral foundation for how people live," he added. "It's really a sweeping and radical decision."
Some conservatives said it was especially disappointing that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, one of President Ronald Reagan's appointees, wrote the decision. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, another Reagan appointee, filed a separate concurring opinion.
"This case today, I think, provides a prime example of the court rewriting the law based on their own understanding of the prevailing winds of cultural fashion rather than actual precedent in the Constitution or the law," said Peter Sprigg, director of the Family Research Council's Center for Marriage and Family Studies.
Conservatives pointed to Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent as one of the lone highlights. In it, Scalia warned that the court's reasoning "leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples."
Harlow said Scalia was out of touch with most Americans. She also said people with strong Christian views are outnumbered by a majority of Americans who opposed these sodomy laws.
"They are more and more being pushed to the sidelines," she said. "We don't have any problems with individuals making their own choices and having their own religious views. But in our country, a minority of individuals cannot dictate those views for the whole country."
E-mail a news tip to Robert B. Bluey.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
I remember you now. You're the guy who in his attempt to disassociate the Christian Identity Movement from its Christian inspiration was reduced to claiming that Muslims acting in the best interest of Christians (by making them Muslims) were acting in the best interest of Christianity. At least your thinking is consistent.
I explained the reason that bestiality was different in #110. You acted as if you couldn't process it and repeated your comparison a couple of days ago. I pointed you back to #110, and here you are again, repeating yourself without addressing the logical defeated that claim. I also logically defeated your incest comparison due to health issues with the offspring, and you had no reply to that.
Additionally, unlike like homosexuality, there are not millions of citizens who can only find love and intimacy only in sex with relatives and animals. Just people pushing past boundaries for whatever reason.
Also, unlike homosexuality, there's no evidence of a genetic predisposition to bestiality or incest. No one knows the combination of factors creating homosexuality. All studies to date seem to suffer from sampling problems. Frankly I struggle even to follow the reasoning of those attempting a meticulous analysis of the data that exists. One is at Colombia & Yale and another at Cambridge. One concludes that, " it seems reasonable to conclude that male homosexuality, or, at least, some 'types' of male homosexuality, are under some degree of genetic control, although various problems with this data prevent more precise conclusions from being drawn.
The other goes a step or two further toward environment and says that the data is inconstant with a simple genetic influence model", that "there's substantial support for the role of social influences ", and that"its consistent with a general model that allows for genetic expression of same-sex attraction under specific, highly circumscribed, social conditions.""
Whatever the reality, it's not in the same league as bestiality and incest. There's nothing indicating that people are ever born into those.
Also, if your think America is close to impeaching these judges, you're seriously out of touch.
Huh ?
What are you babbling about ?
I explained the reason that bestiality was different in #110. You acted as if you couldn't process it and repeated your comparison a couple of days ago. I pointed you back to #110, and here you are again, repeating yourself without addressing the logical defeated that claim. I also logically defeated your incest comparison due to health issues with the offspring, and you had no reply to that.
You have rejected the Bible as your moral foundation for law. You did not explain how bestiality was torture and more painful for the animal than killing it and eating it. You simply regress to claiming it is more beneficial for society to kill and eat animals than to use them for sexual pleasure. Incest is not a problem when combined with birth control and abortion, which you already preach. I reassert that all three are equally decadent and evil. There is no significant moral difference between incest, bestiality, and homosexuality. The are equally loving as you call it, and equally to be condemned as God calls it.
Additionally, unlike like homosexuality, there are not millions of citizens who can only find love and intimacy only in sex with relatives and animals. Just people pushing past boundaries for whatever reason.
I assert all those millions of citizens can find love and intimacy without resorting to sex with their own gender, their immediate family relatives, or animals. They are "pushing past boundaries for whatever reason." Just like in Sodom and Gommorah, they will not stop until some external force stops them.
Also, unlike homosexuality, there's no evidence of a genetic predisposition to bestiality or incest.
There is no evidence of genetic homosexuality.
No one knows the combination of factors creating homosexuality.
Lust and rebellion
All studies to date seem to suffer from sampling problems. Frankly I struggle even to follow the reasoning of those attempting a meticulous analysis of the data that exists. One is at Colombia & Yale and another at Cambridge. One concludes that, " it seems reasonable to conclude that male homosexuality, or, at least, some 'types' of male homosexuality, are under some degree of genetic control, although various problems with this data prevent more precise conclusions from being drawn.
Homosexuals themselves, and their compromised allies, search in vain for a way to lie about the obvious. Their behavior is deviant.
The other goes a step or two further toward environment and says that the data is inconstant with a simple genetic influence model", that "there's substantial support for the role of social influences ", and that"its consistent with a general model that allows for genetic expression of same-sex attraction under specific, highly circumscribed, social conditions."" Whatever the reality, it's not in the same league as bestiality and incest. There's nothing indicating that people are ever born into those.
The social taboos against incest and bestiality are stronger. Once they get their student clubs in the high schools, the kids will think it is as cool as being gay.
Also, if your think America is close to impeaching these judges, you're seriously out of touch.
It is the best constitutional remedy. It would strike fear and awe in the hearts of those who usurp our Constitution and make a mockery of our nation.
There you go genius. Try laying off the booze until bed time.
I said that it's more of a violation of liberty to outlaw eating meat. (Therefore, It doesn't matter if it's equally traumatic to animal rape.) The Constitution protects people, not animals.
"Incest is not a problem when combined with birth control and abortion"
Birth control fails. If two siblings want to get themselves fixed and have sex, (must be at least a one in a million incident), I don't care.
"There is no evidence of genetic homosexuality. Lust and rebellion [creates homosexuality]. "
The twin data in the above referenced studies (including separated at birth twins) tends to contradict you. But I guess the twins were in on the conspiracy as well
[snicker]. I suggest you visit this site . I'm sure you'll find comfort in it.
Will you give up your support for homosexuality ?
Do it for the children.
You lose points for bringing an unrelated thread into this one. I will try to make your link and comments germane to this thread.
"The terrorists believe they have a divine mandate to cleanse the land of Jews and that they are acting in the best interests of both Jews and Christians because they alone have the truth."
True statement
You're telling me that acting to further the interests of Christians (in making them Muslim) is the same as acting in the interest of Christianity?
No, you are using your own words to confuse yourself.
I'm making the point that neither the Unchristian Identity movement nor the the Islamic terrorists are acting in the interests of Christianity.
But then neither are homosexuals or their clerical enablers.
And to be more precise, Christian Identity terrorists are "motivated" by the furthering the interests of Christianity as they understand it.
So are homosexuals who infiltrate various groups to push their new religion, homosexuality. They are fchurches, but they are heretics.
"With particular virulence Nazi theology has attempted to create a Christianity divorced from its Jewish roots. They were acting in furtherance of Christianity as they understand it."
I don't think so. Your link describes Nazism as having pagan roots. It's someone else's opinion that it was "attempting to create a new "Christianity". As far as I know, they make no claim to doing so themselves, much less Christianity being their motivation.
Yes, it was a Catholic cleric's opinion that it was "attempting to create a new Christianity." You don't agree. You also support homosexual movement which is "attempting to create a new "Christianity". They also attempt to create a new marriage.
Typique
The Constitution protects whoever the six unrighteous judges say it protects. They can do whatever they please as long as they can sell it to the compromised and unwashed masses.
"Incest is not a problem when combined with birth control and abortion"
Birth control fails. If two siblings want to get themselves fixed and have sex, (must be at least a one in a million incident), I don't care.
Of course you don't care. There is no moral difference between homosexuality and incest. You approve the former so you can't consistently condemn the latter.
"There is no evidence of genetic homosexuality. Lust and rebellion [creates homosexuality]. "
The twin data in the above referenced studies (including separated at birth twins) tends to contradict you. But I guess the twins were in on the conspiracy as well
[snicker]. I suggest you visit this site . I'm sure you'll find comfort in it.
Were there a homosexual gene, then anyone could have their fetus tested for the homosexual gene and terminate the pregnancy for cause. There is no homosexual gene. I suggest you raise your son not to be a homosexual.
More importantly they are intruding on an institution that the Federal government has no right to define. A better solution to this mess is to get the government out of marriage and return it to the social and religious institution it originally was.
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.