Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BLAME THE GOP FOR PRO-SODOMY COURT DECISION
The Heustis Update ^ | June 27, AD 2003 | Reed R. Heustis, Jr.

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ageofconsentlaws; bigomylaws; catholiclist; consentingadults; consentingteens; downorupanyorifice; downourthroats; druglaws; homosexualagenda; houston; incestlaws; lawrencevtexas; marriagelaws; pc; politicallycorrect; polygomylaws; privacylaws; prostitutionlaws; protectedclass; republicans; rinos; samesexdisorder; sexlaws; sodomylaws; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 561-564 next last
To: breakem
My threads on this issue have together garnered thousands of posts. My agenda is served even by your posting insults at me ;-) You just bump my thread article back to the top.

Satan was often depicted as a rabid dog chasing and biting its own tail. How's that mangy tail taste, mutt?

261 posted on 06/29/2003 9:16:51 PM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I was comparing that post to your #231, where you ridicule the concept of sexual rights.
Is that a "thoughtful, deliberative position"?

262 posted on 06/29/2003 9:18:10 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weakn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
...[it was the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to] the federal courts that granted them power to rule on issues involving sexuality....

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?

263 posted on 06/29/2003 9:19:48 PM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
betty

Do you have a right to eat, provided you are eating your own food or food freely given to you? Do you have a right to breathe? Take a dump? Urinate? Wash your hands?

It may sound silly to say "you have a right to wash your hands" but, in essence, you do. That is why the 9th Amendment is there, it is no mere amendment to be forgotten but enshrines the very essence of the constitution.

There is a higher order above that of the Constitution and almost all of the Founders recognized that, even if they could not all agree on specific issues or even great moral ones such as slavery.

And telling government they can't regulate sexual activity that's consensual is HARDLY the beginning of Big Brother. BIg Brother would be upholding such laws and increasing their power and enforcement.
264 posted on 06/29/2003 9:20:28 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Who owns my body? ME OR THE GOVERNMENT?
-DA55-


That's an absolutely stupid question, Danconia55. Only someone who has been ideologically brainwashed would even think to ask a question like that.



Another thoughtful, deliberative position betty?

265 posted on 06/29/2003 9:20:59 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weakn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
"Let freedom ring! And render to God that which is God's."

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.

266 posted on 06/29/2003 9:21:35 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
The Feds are not INSERTING themselves, it was TEXAS that decided to do that, along with a bunch of other states.

How is saying that there must be an ABSENCE of law regarding these activities an insertion by the Feds, when the states were the ones imposing these laws on a generally unwilling public?
267 posted on 06/29/2003 9:21:43 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: breakem
Chew away, mutt.
268 posted on 06/29/2003 9:22:27 PM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
The state already went there "honey."

And if a law violating the 2nd or 1st Amendment or 4th were struck down by the Supreme Court, would you then say that the Feds were inserting themselves into that area of life? HUH?

It makes no logical sense, "honey."
269 posted on 06/29/2003 9:22:58 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Nations have to answer as well as individuals. Law is a moral teacher, in its first priority. Arguments such as you've listed about drugs have been made for legalized abortion and casinos, and for legal prostitution (see Nevada -- Montana too, is it? -- I don't recall). Special taxes on alcohol and tobacco have placed the perpetuation and promulgation of their use into the list of government interests. In Minnesota and Pennsylvania, alcoholic beverages are sold in state stores. That kind of socialist approach is the next step, just as Gov. Blago in Illinois is said to be entertaining a state takeover of Illinois casinos. Also at heart, gangs are more about growing up fatherless than about drugs.

I'd prefer not to have maryjane and cocaine sold at the corner Walgreens and 7-11 (or the corner state store) thank you anyway. ;-`
270 posted on 06/29/2003 9:23:39 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: All
for those so concerned about the violation of the 10th Amendment and state's rights, where is your concern for the 9th?

And tell me this: If the SCOTUS doesn't stand up for the 9th Amendment and all of our unenumerated rights, who will? Shall we have a revolution or rebellion each time an anti-2nd, 9th, 4th or 1st Amendment law is passed? If the state's take upon themselves the right to make private activity unlawful it is THEY who violate the Constitution, not the decision to strike down their evil laws.

Would the State Supreme Court strike down a law based on the 9th Amendment? Perhaps, but damn, you gotta find justice SOMEWHERE, right?

ANd please stop quoting Scalia, he doesn't know when to quit when it comes to law and order, to the point where he forgets our actual Bill of Rights.
271 posted on 06/29/2003 9:26:21 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Without the social conservatives, the GOP is DOA at the polls.

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.

272 posted on 06/29/2003 9:28:15 PM PDT by ladyinred (The left have blood on their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
You are 'gathering' wrong, betty. ~Capice?~

[Straw man tactics really are beneath your abilities. Whats with your use of them on this subject?.]

And by all means, you tell me:
"What does that do to human liberty, human dignity?"
273 posted on 06/29/2003 9:34:50 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weakn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
"The republican party is conservative. Tariff loving, freedom hating, Revelation today desiring johnny come lately types are not going to steal this [Republican] party."
___________________________________________________________

From Professor Anthony O'Brien of Lehigh University --

    The Smoot-Hawley Tariff grew out of the campaign promises of Herbert Hoover during the 1928 presidential election. Hoover, the Republican candidate, had pledged to help farmers by raising tariffs on imports of farm products. Although the 1920s were generally a period of prosperity in the United States, this was not true of agriculture; average farm incomes actually declined between 1920 and 1929. During the campaign Hoover had focused on plans to raise tariffs on farm products, but the tariff plank in the 1928 Republican Party platform had actually referred to the potential of more far-reaching increases:

    "[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.

So it's clear that "tariff lovers" are hardly "johnny come latelys" in the Republican Party. Republican tariff planks go all the way back to the 1850s and continued, along with subsequent legislative measures, right up into the 20th century.

The "johnny come latelys" are, in fact, the advocates of free trade. Just a little history lesson for you.

You're welcome.

274 posted on 06/29/2003 9:41:45 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Do you have TV ads for state lotteries in Massachusetts?

A state that makes money from a vice is like a camel's head in the tent for mass merchandising that vice (one thing we do very, very well in this country).
275 posted on 06/29/2003 9:46:31 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
The points of this article are very valid and, sadly, the Republican Party in its present state is a diseased entity. If one presumes that the primary purpose of voting (in general elections, that is) is to find the candidate who most directly reflects our views, then conservatives have no choice but to vote third party in many cases around the country where the GOP candidate is a RINO like Souter and O'Connor. But I venture to say that this is NOT the primary purpose of voting (primaries excepted), which is premised on strategy rather than opinion.

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

276 posted on 06/29/2003 9:53:46 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I'm already gone, I have the curse or blessing of being far sighted. Reward the Republicans with a victory in 2004 for moving far, far, far, left and I can assure you conservatism is dead, our national sovereignty is dead, our constitution is dead. I'm not going there.

I'll write in Tancredo, a pro-controlled borders, evict the illegals politician that represents my family and my countries best interests.
277 posted on 06/29/2003 10:00:40 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
Reward the Republicans with a victory in 2004 for moving far, far, far, left and I can assure you conservatism is dead, our national sovereignty is dead, our constitution is dead. I'm not going there.

We're ALREADY there.

278 posted on 06/29/2003 10:03:07 PM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: breakem; Polycarp
This was posted the other day - I forgot to save the name of the poster. He explains why social libertinism leads to oppressive government. It's a little long but worth it.

>>>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.<<<

279 posted on 06/29/2003 10:28:28 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I do NOT at this time advocate leaving the GOP for a third party.

What will it take? How much more before it's too late?
280 posted on 06/29/2003 10:29:43 PM PDT by ETERNAL WARMING
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 561-564 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson