Posted on 06/29/2003 11:26:04 AM PDT by 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.
Satan was often depicted as a rabid dog chasing and biting its own tail. How's that mangy tail taste, mutt?
I gather that means you don't have a single problem with the idea of the federal government "inserting itself" (so to speak) into this most intimate sphere of human life.... If they can "go there," honey, they can "go anywhere." Capice?
What does that do to human liberty, human dignity?
These are satan's idea's! LOL! What country are you posting from?
You can't take the heat when your errors are pointed out. You rail because your repetition is called idiotic. You have name-called your way through these threads, calling people fools and the like. You are a hypocrite and this is not the first time you have exhibited this kind of behavior.
The length of your post does not make you correct. It only shows the depth of emotion of those who oppose the freedom of their fellow citizens.
Render to God that which is God's and keep your religious beliefs out of the government.
I am one of the above mentioned types, and I am not planning to leave the party over something the Supreme Court did! I can't even understand why this is an issue! The individuals on the court hold responsibility for their actions.
From Professor Anthony O'Brien of Lehigh University --
"[W]e realize that there are certain industries which cannot now successfully compete with foreign producers because of lower foreign wages and a lower cost of living abroad, and we pledge the next Republican Congress to an examination and where necessary a revision of these schedules to the end that American labor in the industries may again command the home market, may maintain its standard of living, and may count upon steady employment in its accustomed field." [Direct quotation from the 1928 Republican Party Platform.] In a longer perspective, the Republican Party had been in favor of a protective tariff since its founding in the 1850s. The party drew significant support from manufacturing interests in the Midwest and Northeast that believed they benefited from high tariff barriers against foreign imports. Although the free trade arguments dear to most economists were espoused by few American politicians during the 1920s, the Democratic Party was generally critical of high tariffs. In the 1920s the Democratic members of Congress tended to represent southern agricultural interests -- which saw high tariffs as curtailing foreign markets for their exports, particularly cotton -- or unskilled urban workers -- who saw the tariff as driving up the cost of living.
The "johnny come latelys" are, in fact, the advocates of free trade. Just a little history lesson for you.
You're welcome.
Put another way:
"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, be finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing." - Lysander Spooner
We're ALREADY there.
>>>The problem with having homosexuality openly accepted in society is it tells society that the most radical expression of human sexuality is "o.k.". What that leads to is an attitude among heterosexuals that non-procreative sex is the norm, all social taboos on abberant sexuality begin to collapse and you have the disintegration of the nuclear family, the basis of stable society.
When you have strong Judeo-Christian morality, you don't need a hell of a lot of government, because there are natural constraints on people's behavior that are re-inforced by the culture. This is the idea that conservatives want the cops to 'knock down the doors' of homosexuals etc. No. Homosexuality should be so heavily tabooed in society that society itself does not tolerate it. If you have a strong culture, everyone acts as the "police dept" in a way, upholding standards and morals so you don't need much government. The more Judeo-Christian morality becomes the norm, the more abstinence before marriage becomes the norm so you have...less children born out of wedlock, and thus less social welfare payments to single mothers and less tax money needed to pay for foster children. You have less transmission of STDs and thus less need for public health programs. You have stronger marriages and thus...less court costs and social costs for divorce. You have less children being raised in unstable families and thus you have...less crime. And on and on.
Social conservatives don't want to 'use the government to enforce our private morality'. We want to stop the goverment from interfering with the natural way that people enforce morality on their own. The Texas sodomy law case is a perfect illustration. The moral structure of Texas society is heavily Christian, and thus expresses itself in the passage of things like laws forbidding homosexual sodomy. The people have said "these are our values, and thus we're expressing them by passing a law". The Feds, through the court system say "No, you're going to adopt our liberal morality, and we're going to strike down this law". And thus you get all the awful things that come along with homosexuality...disease, promiscuity and so on.
If you don't have a self-policing, moral society, forget about liberty. If everyone starts believing that acting in an anti-social manner is O.K., then the costs of all these anti-social actions begins to build up and you get more and more goverment. Look at how socially liberal Europe is. And look at how much government they have. There was a story recently published here on FR about the exploding rates of STDs in Britain, and how the government simply cannot cope with it. Well, a century ago, when Britain had a far more Christian culture, that wasn't a problem. Nor was crime. At the turn of the century in Britain, you could walk into a gun store, buy a gun and walk out with it. And the cops didn't have guns. And there was very little crime in Britain. Because the people were moral, far more moral than they are now. Now that Britain has discarded Christian morality, they have high rates of crime, high rates of out of wedlock childbirth, high rates of STDs and on and on. And they have a huge government, because when people start behaving in a completely irresponsible manner, someone has to pick up the cost.
This is the folly of libertarianism. The belief that you can have a society of people who are doing drugs, men marrying men, a laissez fair attitude to sex and so on, yet still have little government. It's impossible. And crazy. Social conservatism is merely advocating that people begin to self-police their own behavior. If that idea is unacceptable on FR, then I really don't know what to say about it.<<<
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.