BLAME THE GOP FOR PRO-SODOMY COURT DECISION

The Heustis Update ^ | June 27, AD 2003 | Reed R. Heustis, Jr.

[Polycarp]

BLAME THE GOP FOR PRO-SODOMY COURT DECISION By: Reed R. Heustis, Jr. June 27, AD 2003

With one stroke of the pen, [homosexuality] has triumphed at the Supreme Court.

And guess what?

Republican-appointed Justices are to blame.

With a convincing 6-3 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the United States Supreme Court on June 26 overturned a 1986 case, Bowers v. Hardwick, which had upheld the legitimacy of an anti-sodomy law. Sodomites and perverts all across America are hailing the Lawrence decision as the biggest gay rights victory in our nation's history.

Mitchell Katine, the openly gay attorney representing John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, the men whose arrest in 1998 led to the decision, proclaimed, "this is a day of independence."

Whereas homosexual deviancy has long been celebrated in the media and on our university campuses over the last two decades, the Johnny-come-lately Supreme Court now joins the orgy. As dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia correctly stated, "The court has taken sides in the culture war...."

How could this have happened?

Weren't Republicans supposed to be the champions of traditional values?

Weren't Republicans supposed to be the stalwart defenders of our nation's Christian heritage?

Seriously, just think:

Every four years without fail, the Republican Party instructs Christians to elect Republicans to office so that we can thwart the left wing agenda of the Democratic Party.

Every four years without fail, the Republican Establishment warns its rank and file never to vote for a third party candidate, lest we elect a Democrat by default by "giving him the election".

Every four years without fail, Christians are told that third party candidates cannot win, and that a vote for a third party candidate is somehow a vote for the Democrat.

Every four years without fail, Christians are bamboozled into believing that their beloved Republican Party will restore this nation to its Christian heritage.

Every four years without fail, we are told that only a Republican can appoint a conservative Justice to the high bench so that liberalism can be stopped cold.

Without fail.

Christians, wake up!

It is the Republican Party that is responsible for moronic decisions such as Lawrence. Quit blaming the liberals and the Democrats. Blame the GOP!

Out of the six Justices that formed the horrifying 6-3 Lawrence majority, four were appointed by Republicans! Four!

Justice John Paul Stevens was nominated by President Gerald Ford - a Republican.

Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy were nominated by President Ronald Reagan - a Republican.

Justice David Souter was nominated by President George H.W. Bush - a Republican.

Two-thirds of the majority opinion were Republican-appointed!

"I believe this needs to be trumpeted," says Tim Farness, 1st District Representative of the Constitution Party of Wisconsin.

Indeed it does.

A 4-2 majority of the six Justices forming the Lawrence decision was Republican-appointed.

Republican President George W. Bush intends to run for a second term in 2004. Don't be too surprised when we start hearing the same-old song and dance all over again: "Elect Republicans so that we can defeat the Democratic agenda."

Mr. President: the Republican Party is the Democratic agenda.

© AD 2003 The Heustis Update, accessible on the web at www.ReedHeustis.com. All Rights Reserved.

[tpaine]

Look, I think the Texas sodomy law was perfectly stupid. But where in the Constitution is the federal interest in seeing it overturned? Do you think the people in the several states are to be barred from arranging their local affairs in ways that seem sensible to them (whether we who live elsewhere approve or disapprove of their judgment) unless a federal court approves? Where is the limit to this sort of thing? Can you find it, logically speaking? (If you can find it, I'm dying to be instructed by you.
-BB-

You know where "its" to be found Betty. - In the 14th.

[betty boop]

Freedom is always worth celebrating.

Can you perceive any difference between freedom and license? No court in the land is in the "freedom-granting" business. Freedom, liberty, is not theirs to "dispense." (Neither does the Constitution dispense it; it merely tries to preserve it by keeping government functionaries and judges off the people's backs.) But courts and legisslatures can grant "license." But that's the cheap counterfeit of the genuine article, and basically only fit for slaves-by-nature, who wouldn't know true freedom if it bit them in the butt.

Kindly take a moment to contemplate my tag line and see if it makes any sense to you.

As far as the so-called culture war is concerned, not only is it not over; it has hardly been joined -- yet. Stay tuned....

[First Amendment]

The fact that you're ignorant of the normal sexual practices of the huge vast majority of Americans is very, very telling.

Let's see some figures showing how many married or at least heterosexual couples practice sodomy, especially anal sex. Put up a link or shut up.

Please note that saying "huge vast" doesn't help your case.

[wcbtinman]

I understand the argument for strength in numbers, but continuing to vote for "Republicans" meets the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. I don't really know what the practical answer is, but I can tell you that it ain't coming from the GOP.

The only thing that history can teach us is that to continue along this path is laying the foundation for a bloody revolution/civil war.

[betty boop]

You know where "its" to be found Betty. - In the 14th.

Ah, tpaine...that magical, mysterious 14th -- which basically holds: the federal government can do absolutely anything it wants, so long as it can find a majority of justices to approve.

I don't know how you can take any comfort in this fact. But then, you're pretty magical and mysterious yourself....

[tpaine]

The states have aways had the constitutional power to tell the feds to go flush on 'lowflow toilets'.

-- They lack the political will.
- There is nothing wrong with our constitution. - There is everything wrong with our political system.

[betty boop]

The government, from the highest court in the land, has imposed itself in our beadrooms and not stopping there, even into wombs, and now, excuse me, has established itself in rectums throught the nation.

LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! Brother Arlen -- you is baaaad!!!!

Hey, the "slave mentality" gets what it deserves, I suppose. Next thing you know, the feds will find the 14th Amendment says that our "privileges and immunities" as United States citizens requires that we all be tattooed and "registered"...that way they could positively ensure that we'd all be getting "what's coming to us" -- er, by way of our (ahem) rights.... Hey, who knows? Maybe then they could "own" our foreheads, too (or some other bodily piece of real estate, site ID TBA)....

[Jorge]

I am astounded that so many people here have drunk the PC kool-aide and can't see the difference between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy. Duh!

Meaning what? That you think gays should be jailed for the exact same acts that heterosexuals are given a pass for?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"SCOTUS just undermined every law in the country based upon public morals."

A law which decriminalized sodomy for 97% of the population in spite of the fact that sodomy is labeled in Texas statutes as being "deviant sexual intercourse", is your idea of upholding public morals?

[tpaine]

You know where "its" to be found Betty. - In the 14th.

Ah, tpaine...that magical, mysterious 14th -- which basically holds: the federal government can do absolutely anything it wants, so long as it can find a majority of justices to approve.

Hyperbole Betty, as you well know.
The 14th can, and I perdict will, protect us from a federal government that IMAGINES it can do absolutely anything it wants.
States can force the feds to comply with our constitution, if they choose.
Our Rinocrat political system enables ALL levels of government to ignore our rights, far to often.

I don't know how you can take any comfort in this fact. But then, you're pretty magical and mysterious yourself....

I see political realities; -- far too many FReepers are blinded by their own single issue agendas.

[betty boop]

sexual rights....

Sexual rights??????? Jeepers, tpaine -- think about what you're saying here -- "rights" is a freaking political term. Do you actually approve of the "politicization of sex???" If the politician gets a toe-hold there, how can he be stopped from intruding anywhere else? Can you spell: "B-I-G_B-R-O-T-H-E-R"?

[betty boop]

Where do you stand on such prohibitory type laws, Betty?

I'm for: Vermont Carry; legalization (and taxation) of drugs; and getting the federal government completely out of the "sin" business.

[DAnconia55]

Let's see some figures showing how many married or at least heterosexual couples practice sodomy, especially anal sex. Put up a link or shut up.

LOL you sad little person.
Just gotta embarass yourself more, huh?
Must be my day for polling data.
Okies...

---

In their 1977 Redbook Report on Female Sexuality, C. Tavris and S. Sadd found that 93% of wives responding reported having engaged in cunnilingus and 91% had engaged in fellatio. They concluded from this response that, "Today it is clear that if the sexual revolution has occurred anywhere, it is in the practice and acceptance of oral sex. Among people under age twenty-five, it is virtually a universal part of the sexual relationship."

---

P. Blumsteln and P. Schwartz have reported similar statistics—93% of heterosexual couples had engaged in cunnilingus and 90% had engaged in fellatio. See also W. Masters, V. Johnson, and R. Kolodny, Human Sexualily 393 (1985).

---

NS: What kind of figures do we have on the prevalence of anal sex among heterosexuals? Daniel, you've just published on this, right? DH: There's not a tremendous amount of data but we do have a fair amount. It varies, of course, from country to country and population to population. In this country, probably the best data we have is from the study by Laumann and his colleagues at the University of Chicago. That was the large Sex in America study conducted a few years back on a sample of over three thousand men and women representative of the general U.S. population. What they found was that approximately 25% of the sexually active adult population reported having experimented with anal sex (defined for this discussion as penile-anal penetration) at one point in their lives.

---

In various surveys, nearly 20% of heterosexual men and 40% of women have reported engaging in anal sex during their lives (5). Surveys of teenage women have found that more than one in five report having had anal sex.

---

40% of 270,000,000 people is a LOT more than the number of gays that exist, oh leader of the loyal order of Ayatollahs.

Lastly, I was disturbed in my searches to find out that oral sex among monkeys increases their AIDS risk. I won't even ask how they made the monkeys do it....

[Polycarp]

Maybe some true conservatives will start running for office and give us the chance to vote for them?

I'm already working with my local Republican party members towards a run for state senator in several years, and I've obtained pledges of funding from several sources, including my state medical specialty society. I just hope the GOP doesn't abandon me by abandoning social conservatives first.

To the dismay of some "conservatives" on this "Conservative" Forum, social conservatives aren't going to shut up, and we aren't going to surrender our party to them without a fight.

[DAnconia55]

You, who would condone and approve lewd displays and foul language in front of parents and their children in public places, are in no position to make pronouncements about freedom and its responsible use

Uh-huh. Guess I said all that somewhere. Don't remember it. But whatever.

There's a big difference between not wanting to be ruled by Theocrats and practicing self restraint.
Now personally, I ignore all laws that are immoral.
But I watch myself, so I don't curse in front of children. Not because the law says so, but because I do.

you know only license, only self-indulgence, only how to cheapen and demean human existence.

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

[DAnconia55]

I just knew that somebody was going to cite the 14th Amendment at me.

Since when was sexual activity a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States?

;nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Note the semicolon. Test later.

[DAnconia55]

Can you perceive any difference between freedom and license?

You mean the made up concept used by Ayatollahs to squelch debate?
Who owns my body? ME OR THE GOVERNMENT?

Pick one and only one answer.

[DAnconia55]

social conservatives aren't going to shut up, and we aren't going to surrender our party to them without a fight.

Fight. You'll still lose.

The outcome has already been decided by the voting public.

[Ahban]

Due process of law is more than just legal procedure. The law itself cannot be arbitrary & unreasonable.

Nope. Due process is legal procedure. 17 years ago the Supreme Court decided that laws against sodomy were reasonable, now they decide they are not? Your argument destroys all basis for a fixed standard of law, without which we shall descend into ever increasing chaos.

It is true that some actions of the federal government must be done in a reasonable manner (ie no "unreasonable search and seizure",) but that has no impact on what the state might be seaching for. Could be crack, child porn, moonshine, cuban cigars, whatever. In this case they had a bogus report of a crime when the police burst in, but they had reasonable cause to bust in. You are in error when you claim that every law passed by every state is subject to change as soon as a new court takes over and redefines the law as "arbitrary" and "unreasonable".

Betty Boop quotes from the 14th amendment in #220, with a great explanation, and you respond by saying "14th amendment" witout any reason behind it. Come on. Do you even what to reason, or just rationalize at any price?

All of your so-called reasonings are nitpicking rationalizations. Not one of the founders who drafted the constitution, or those who passed the 14th amendment, would have agreed with your contention that they were trying to stop states from passing laws against sodomy (what the majority of their citizens knew to be sinful behaviors). Not one. I defy you. Show me from their writings that this is what they intended!

The law itself cannot be arbitrary & unreasonable. Government must prove a compelling need, a basis for the laws restrictions on liberty.

Shoving ones penis up the anal chute of another (ugh, I hate even typing this) is not by any stretch of the imagination the founders concept of "Liberty". Again, I defy you to show me in their own words they had that view. Liberty is not license. Every state in the union had what you call 'sin laws' on the books regarding 'private' behavior, including sodomy laws, and NONE of the founders spoke out against them.

If you followed your Creators precepts, You wouldn't be forcing your version of 'right' upon others.

the secularists who want us to shut up try to tell us that is what our religion teaches, but it has no relation to the God of the Bible. Jesus endorsed the whole of the Law, including that against sodomy. Romans teaches that government is God's minsiter to 'bring wrath on evil doers'. I have every right to say where I think the line should be drawn. It is the obligation of every believer, though many shierk it, to uphold God's standard of justice for civil law.

Your version of 'Liberty" would have me locked in my house in fear as bands of crazed druggies and desperate AIDS victims ransacked the crumbling remains of my home town.

Prohibitional 'laws' on sin have always bred contempt for the rule of law from my reading of history.

They didn't during the first 100 years of our history. And if so, Then why have laws against robbery and murder? Those are sins. As long as the laws don't get too far ahead of the culture, such laws reduce the behavior they outlaw. Our one point of agreement is that in a free society, the laws cannot be out of synch with the hearts of the people.

I could impose the most perfect set of laws, in total accord with Nature's God, on a country of tpaines and it would produce rebellion and friction. A country of tpaines must live for a time feasting on the fruit of their own ways. Once they produce the inevitable death and decay, the tpaines look up from the awful muck they find their culture mired in and say , "We must change this". At this point they become willing to turn authority over to a strongman to restore order.

What I am trying to do is get people, maybe even tpaine, to avert disaster BEFORE it strikes. Yet you are unwilling. You steadfastly, in the face of all historical evidence to the contrary,"we are all bound to support & defend its principles on where the lines are drawn." This over a decison where the Supreme Court reversed itself from a mere 17 years ago.

How come this principal was not discovered by any of the men who authoured the document, nor even this same court in the 1980's, but only now? THERE IS NO PRINCIPAL. They pulled this from their hindquarters. There never was a 'right' to sodomy, and all the founders knew it.

You're not the real Tom Paine. That much is clear.

[tpaine]

betty boop;
" -- would you kindly explain to me from what text in the Constitution have the federal courts received any grant whatever to rule on issues involving sexuality?"
-BB-



Our general rights to life & liberty pretty well encompress sexual rights Betty, - there's no need to enumerate them. Thus the courts powers granted under Art III apply to 'sexuality' issues, when such issues are violated.
The constitutional principle that life, liberty and property cannot be denied by fed/state/local 'laws' that violate due process, -- must be upheld.
Obviously, the court felt that the case in question defined that principle in private sexual matters.
Let us hope that the same principle can now be used to strike down the 'wars' on guns, drugs, and 'sin' that our prohibitionist brethren insist on fighting.
Where do you stand on such prohibitory type laws, Betty?
122 -tpaine-


Sexual rights??????? Jeepers, tpaine -- think about what you're saying here -- "rights" is a freaking political term. Do you actually approve of the "politicization of sex???" If the politician gets a toe-hold there, how can he be stopped from intruding anywhere else? Can you spell: "B-I-G_B-R-O-T-H-E-R"?
-BB-


Jeepers betty, here I kindly explained to you about what text in the Constitution applies to the federal courts that granted them power to rule on issues involving sexuality;

-- and the best you can do in reply is to play word games that such "rights" are "a freaking political term."?

You're slipping kid.

Maybe you've been hanging with FR's 'spinners' a bit too much.