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.

[Bonaparte]

From your post 235:

[quoting Bonaparte]: "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..."

[DAnconia55]: "Uh-huh. Guess I said all that somewhere. Don't remember it. But whatever."

You don't remember? Permit me to help you out here.

From your post 190:

[quoting Bonaparte]: " Are you in favor of incest? How about polygamy? Does public indecency appeal to you? Is it ok with you if people parade themselves nude in front of parents and children in public parks? Engage in sexual activity in front of same?"

[DAnconia55]: "No. (but shouldn't be illegal either).
Sure, if anyone's that dumb they deserve two wives.
Be more specific.
Yes.
Tacky, but yes...

So you've stated that you're ok with adults exposing themselves to children in public places and engaging in sex acts in front of those children. Those were the questions posed to you and, as I've shown, you answered in the affirmative in both cases.

I hope this clears up your memory problem for you. I doubt I can help you with your morality problem.

[ExSoldier]

"Which obviously is globalist, no borders, no constitution, no sovereignty."

I like to HOPE that this is coming from Bush's close friends and advisors who are CFR all the way, rather than the President himself. Still...GWB has to bear some responsibility for allowing this agenda to advance. If I were King and had my way, membership in CFR or any other globalist organization would be an automatic disqualifier to any sort of government employment.

[tpaine]

Our constitutions principles are not 'slogans'.

Your hero claims:

"the moral structure of Texas society is heavily Christian",
therefore the people can say,
"these are our values, and thus we're expressing them by passing a law".

That idea directly challenges the basic rule of law in a constitutional republic which upholds individual rights to life, liberty and property.

They instead are the values of a democratic tyranny of the majority.
Insisting that such decrees are valid can void our social contract.

Thus, the issue must be resolved. Your attempt at 'moral' tyranny will lose, - you can bet on it.

[First Amendment]

They instead are the values of a democratic tyranny of the majority. Insisting that such decrees are valid can void our social contract.

It's better to have a tyranny of a 2% minority?

[Bonaparte]

"Nobody wants this nonsense."

I want to be sure I understand you, Jorge...

The state of Texas went to all the trouble and expense of arresting, arraigning, and incarcerating these two, then went to the much greater trouble and expense of fighting their appeal through the court system all the way up to the US Supreme Court, all because "nobody wants this nonsense"?

Is that your argument?

[expatguy]

Ok so lets say Im smoking crack in my kitchen with my penis in my brother's butt.

If the police try to arrest me I can claim my "right to privacy" has been invaded?

[DAnconia55]

So you've stated that you're ok with adults exposing themselves to children in public places and engaging in sex acts in front of those children

You're twisting. I didn't say CONDONE.

I said that there shouldn't a law against it. That's the difference between you and me.

Just because I don't feel like being a nudist, doesn't mean I'm going to try to stop others from doing it.

[DAnconia55]

Be that as it may, this is still a "Conservative News Forum," right, Jim Robinson?

This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one.

Or has it become a least-common-denominator and apatheistic libertarianism News Forum, Mr. Robinson?

What it certainly is NOT is a gathering place for Fred Phelps types. Which there's been a lot of here recently.

Appeal to authority, tsk tsk... means you lost. :)

This site has been overrun by homosexual apologists and amoral libertarians

Yeah. Well some of us believe in this:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens 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.

[Bonaparte]

Oh, no, I am most certainly not "twisting," DAnconia. And you know it. I asked you if you were ok with those acts of exhibitionism and with those sexual acts in front of children and you answered "yes" in both cases. You are the one who is "twisting" -- in your attempt to whistle back your own clear and unequivocal statements. Read it again -- and this time, put down the bong.

[DAnconia55]

You, sir, or ma'am, are my political opponent. Hello there. Only on some issues. I assume you have no problem with low taxes, concealed carry permits, separation of school and state, homeschooling, capitalism and property rights.

Thoroughgoing, politically active Evangelical Christians and other moralists may be only about 15%, but there is much more ground for us take...

I rather doubt it. Your numbers are dwindling and will continue to do so.

Totalibertarian stomach and crotch worshippers are fewer, because those who want the freedom to feed all their appetites and whims, are chiefly those most willing to sell their true freedom for the fulfillment vices.

Well, I don't have anything against people eating fast food if that's what a 'stomach worshipper' is. That's a new one on me.
You misunderstand freedom, then. Just because I want crack legalized doesn't mean I'm going to run out and smoke it. I don't need the law to restrain me. It doesn't anyway when I want to do something that is illegal while not being immoral. (No force/fraud,etc.)

The idea that libertarians (small l) or liberty oriented people argue for freedom simply for the ability to 'do' something themselves is wearing a bit thin.

Perhaps you'd like to accuse some of the liberty defending GOPers on this thread of wanting to sodomize a gay man?

That's consistent with your argument after all.

[DAnconia55]

Only someone who has been ideologically brainwashed would even think to ask a question like that.

Oh?!? Run it by some of the Pro-WODdies and see what answers you get :)

[DAnconia55]

The idea that we are going to start arresting consenting adults for private acts of adultery or homosexuality is over the edge.

Some posters on FR do.

Look they already have their War on Drugs.
Next, they'll start a War on Gays. WOG.

Then they can get all the cute uniforms with all the leather and invade gay bathhouses in SWAT formation.....

[DAnconia55]

Law is a moral teacher, in its first priority

Thanks, Hammurabi, but no.
The duty of law is the protection of rights.

[DAnconia55]

Homosexuality should be so heavily tabooed in society that society itself does not tolerate it.

You're speaking out of the wrong oriface again.
How would 'society' (Which does not exist) not 'tolerate' something?

Nah, you don't want to lock them. You want to kill them all?

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.

Non-Procreative Sex IS THE NORM.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're utterly clueless about reality.
Most people - brace yourself, this will be hard - HAVE SEX FOR PLEASURE.

How can anyone who thinks read that rubbish and not understand the contradictions. It reads like something Hitler or Stalin would have written.

T, man, sigh....ow. My head hurts....

[DAnconia55]

The folly of libertarianism is its atheistic denial of Original Sin

Yes, we're horrible people. We don't believe babies are evil monsters.

How shocking that we think they are innocents.

[DAnconia55]

Ok so lets say Im smoking crack in my kitchen with my penis in my brother's butt. If the police try to arrest me I can claim my "right to privacy" has been invaded?

Which of those things you are doing are force or fraud?

None.
So no. They shouldn't be able to arrest you, or enter your house.

But we've got a long way to go before we get to that state of freedom.

(We won't actually... it's one step forward two steps back.)

[DAnconia55]

Oh, no, I am most certainly not "twisting," DAnconia. And you know it. I asked you if you were ok with those acts of exhibitionism and with those sexual acts in front of children and you answered "yes" in both cases

I am ok with nudity in front of children. If you don't teach them to be ashamed of their bodies in the first place, then you won't have the hang ups on nudity.
I don't see any reason why we can't have nude beaches around the country, instead of just in a few places.
That said, I have no overwhelming desire to run and join a nudist camp. See how that works? I let other people alone to do what they want to do, and then I do what I want to do. Neat, huh?

Sex is similar but more complicated. Our society is so screwed up, we've turned something NORMAL into something dirty. WHEN we undo all that mental damage, I see no reason why it should be a big deal if a kid catches a couple having sex on a beach somewhere.
I'm far more concerned about kids watching PBS, CNN, and leftist political indoctrinating crap over the TV than I am about them seeing something that is perfectly normal for humans to do.

So yes, you're twisting.

[Bonaparte]

Keep tap dancing, DAnconia. But the questions I asked were crytstal clear and so were your answers --

[quoting Bonaparte]: " Are you in favor of incest? How about polygamy? Does public indecency appeal to you? Is it ok with you if people parade themselves nude in front of parents and children in public parks? Engage in sexual activity in front of same?"

[DAnconia55]: "No. (but shouldn't be illegal either).
Sure, if anyone's that dumb they deserve two wives.
Be more specific.
Yes.
Tacky, but yes...

So you've stated that you're ok with adults exposing themselves to children in public places and that you're ok with adults engaging in sex acts in front of children in public places. It's right there in black and white for anybody to read and understand.

I didn't ask you about what should or shouldn't be legal. I asked you what you were ok with and you told me.

Frankly, your answer didn't surprise me. On this thread, you've repeatedly stated that you want all laws pertaining to public morals abolished [posts 186, 205]. IOW, you don't believe that a community has the right to enforce its own standards of public decency. What more can be expected of a man who boasts in a public forum that he routinely sodomizes his wife [post 208] or who fails to make a distinction between freedom and license [post 237]?

[DAnconia55]

Is it ok with you if people parade themselves nude in front of parents and children in public parks?

Yes. Here I was thinking of the nude beach type setting. Sure. No problem there at all. And I think you understand me clearly.
But I'd also have no problem with it, if a mall owner wanted to go nudist either.
Not saying I'd shop there, but...

Engage in sexual activity in front of same?"

I'm arguing against your absolutism.
The question should be : Should there be a law against kids seeing two people have sex.
My answer is no.

So yes, it is ok if "Engage in sexual activity in front of (snip) parents and children". Because to say no would give you license to create criminals out of something that is normal, and not dirty no matter how much you want to make it.

Sex is part of human life like eating, sleeping and breathing. Your fundamentalist drive to hide it, to make kids curious, to teach them that something that is normal for their bodies (and don't give me crap, I remember being a teenage boy) - is far more harmful than seeing a naked couple on a beach. Or even a naked couple having sex.

If we were mentally healthy about sex, and came upon a couple on a beach somewhere having sex - then the parents and kids would see the couple and move away to give them privacy. And no doubt the kids would giggle about it....

There is nothing good in a society that treats sex as dirty. In fact, I'd bet that part of the overabundance of sexuality - the 'obsession' if you will, is DUE to the puritanical societal mores.

We're not on the same plane.
I'm advocating extreme social and functional change. And you're trying to use your current (and Puritanical, if I may) mindset now to frame the cultural reaction to the events. I seek to change the cultural reactions.

Never had sex outside, have you?

[Bonaparte]

More tap dancing. But once again, your answers were as clear and unequivocal as my questions were. You can go back and "re-write" your answers all you want, qualify them into something else till the sun comes up but, as I said, your answers to those questions couldn't have been more clear.

And your views on exposing children to sex and nudity place you way over on the far lunatic fringe with people like Larry Flynnt. Americans do not want their children exposed to these things. In fact, practically every community in the United States has laws against them and when people who think like you do flash youngsters or commit lewd acts in front of them, parents summon the police -- just as any responsible and moral person would.

I don't know what appalls me more -- your immorality or your dishonesty. Maybe it's a toss-up.

In response to your indelicate remarks about your wife [post 208], pram suggested you might want to seek a more appropriate forum for such confessions [post 216], to which you responded that your perversions were shared by "the huge vast majority of Americans" [post 218].

When pram challenged you on that claim, asking you for your source on percentage of heterosexuals practicing sodomy [post 223], you could only present equivocal data of 25% from a University of Chicago study and a cumulative figure of 30% from other surveys [post 233]. These numbers you somehow transmuted into 40%, a figure still far short of "the huge vast majority of Americans" who purportedly share your enthusiasm for sodomy. Having failed to prove your claim, you mocked pram for a fool. But there was only one fool in that exchange and it sure wasn't pram.