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.

[tdadams]

I think from this and your previous posts you have a psychological problem.

This, from someone who can't conceive that married couples would possibly engage in acts of sodomy.

[tdadams]

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

Since when does the government have the authority to give license to what sexual practices it will approve?

[First Amendment]

The question is idiotic, because it presupposes a total abstraction and reduction of what a human life is, and then sets up "relations" between the self and the body that do not exist in nature.

Actually, the topic is so deep that to dismiss it in a few sentences doesn't give it justice. Thinkers and seekers of the truth, as well as spiritual practitioners from all religions, have concluded that the self is the eternal soul/atma, and the body is a temporary vehicle or covering that is in our possession, for a time.

[tpaine]

Daft remark.
It's impossible to have a "tyranny of a 2% minority" in our constitutional republic.

[MaxPlus305]

Thomas Jefferson: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever"' (from his 1784 book, "Notes on Virginia"). Jefferson also wrote his own version of the Bible in 4 languages, (it's known as "the Jefferson Bible").

If I recall correctly, Jefferson's bible eliminated all references to the supernatural. If you are more than a nominal Christian, you probably won't find Jefferson's religousness to be all that convincing.

[tdadams]

Without the social conservatives, the GOP is DOA at the polls.

Without the social conservatives, the GOP looks a lot more attractive to middle of the road voters.

[First Amendment]

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

Thanks, Bonaparte!

It's been mentioned on FR lately - why are there so many homo-promoters and sodomy-promoters here lately? There's nothing conservative about one quarter (rough estimate) of the posters here. And the liberaltarians? Don't they have a forum where they can mentally play with themselves? They are so indoctrinated by their silly fantasy world they can't debate like rational humans.

Good steel is forged in a hot fire - so debate can help clarify one's principles and firm the backbone.

but people like DArconia (or whatever his name is) belong on some XXX kind of site.

[tdadams]

How delightfully fascist of you to tacitly call for the banishment of those who disagree with you (which happens to be nearly everyone on FR).

[First Amendment]

. But let's do it based on historical analysis and the use of inner sense and not the reactive resentment of such things,

I agree with your statements, unspun - the problem with liberaltarians (and I'm sure you know this better than I do - I've only been on FR for a half a year and before that I didn't really know much about them) is that they cannot think. Their decision to equate vice with freedom has polluted their hearts, so when they try to see reality they are only seeing a phantasmagoria.

They remind me of a guy I used to know slightly in my (long ago) drug taking days. He used to ingest quantities of belladonna, and it put him in a total alternate reality. He saw chairs that weren't there, didn't see the ones that were. Talked to imaginary people, didn't see the ones in the room, etc. An imaginary world created by some hidden corner of his mind.

[betty boop]

Since when does the government have the authority to give license to what sexual practices it will approve?

You are making my point for me, tdadams. The Supreme Court should have had the good sense to just stay out of these issues entirely. It has no authority to be taking such positions -- pro or con -- with respect to the sphere of sexuality. There's nothing in the Constitution that grants such power. The better part of wisdom would be for the Court simply to recognize that it must stay neutral. To rush in and rule anyway, whichever "side" it takes, it will be the wrong side in the view of some substantial portion of the public. This is hardly a prescription for social peace, for comity among the citizens. IMHO FWIW.

My own personal view of homosexual practices is I have no standing whatever to object to what consenting adults do in private. What I object to is the issuing of particular "rights" to minorities. Homosexuals already have full and equal protection under federal law. They don't need special rights that pertain only to their class. True, the Texas law was foolish. But to strike it down by federal judicial fiat is equally foolhardy. The matter should have been addressed and rectified in Texas, by Texans. And, given time, I feel confident it would have been. The public is getting more and more tolerant of gay people -- even in Texas.

[First Amendment]

This, from someone who can't conceive that married couples would possibly engage in acts of sodomy.

As you probably know, when I say sodomy in this connection I am primarily referring to anal sex, although I know that technically sodomy can and often does refer to oral sex. Either way, to publicly boast about one's sodomy practice on this forum is rude and childish, and is evidence that someone who likes to parade their sex life in public has a psycholodogical problem, and would be better suited to a different type of forum.

[TheCrusader]

"If I recall correctly, Jefferson's bible eliminated all references to the supernatural. If you are more than a nominal Christian, you probably won't find Jefferson's religousness to be all that convincing".

This reply is the result of the typical, and intentional, discrediting of the Founding Fathers' Christian beliefs that pervades modern society. Jefferson's Bible does not eliminate the supernatural, it eliminates the non-gospel books, focusing solely on Jesus' words in the gospels. I do agree with you that Jefferson was no traditional Christian, and maybe a very marginal one doctrinally. But my point to the original poster was that the Founding Fathers did very much live by explicit Christian morals and ethics, and they fashioned the Constitution accordingly. It is true that few of them actually adhered to traditional, orthodox Christian doctrines as far as religious worship was concerned. But even so, they wove Christian principles and values into the Constitution.

[First Amendment]

Since when does the government have the authority to give license to what sexual practices it will approve?

For the first 200 years of this country it did. The men who wrote the Constitution considered that it did.

[betty boop]

Thinkers and seekers of the truth, as well as spiritual practitioners from all religions, have concluded that the self is the eternal soul/atma, and the body is a temporary vehicle or covering that is in our possession, for a time.

Are you suggesting that this establishes "property rights" in one's body? Soul or atma cannot begin to express itself in the space-time plane without the organic body to which it is inseparably joined in physical reality. The bodily manifestation is simply part of the same energy continuum that is the self. I mean, it's not like a shoe or a suit that one puts on, or takes off at will.

[First Amendment]

those who disagree with you (which happens to be nearly everyone on FR).

Liberaltarians and regular liberals like to do this sort of thing - make a statement that sounds as though it's based in fact, but it is just an opinion.

Let's see the poll numbers.

It's like they look in the mirror, and being self-centered, can't imagine that anyone looks different than what they see.

[Sci Fi Guy]

I think that this article is really lame. It's clearly not a fair or impartial accessment. The writer is desperately seeking facts to support his conclusion. He distorts the facts, i.e. a republican president will stop liberalism cold. I mean come on.....He includes Stevens who was appointed by a liberal before court appointments were even an issue.

[tdadams]

And Jefferson was a deist. The people here who embrace the words of Jefferson do so only when it's expedient. They would utterly reject his views on religion as a whole.

[First Amendment]

The bodily manifestation is simply part of the same energy continuum that is the self. I mean, it's not like a shoe or a suit that one puts on, or takes off at will.

Actually, according to the Vedas, it is exactly that - it is compared to a vehicle that the atma (or soul, self) is temporarily wearing.

And it is not of the same energy as the body. There are two energies - the material energy, prakriti - which changes its manifestation, and the paraprakriti, or spiritual energy which manifests eternally. The soul or atma is the paraprakriti, and the body is prakriti.

[tdadams]

The Supreme Court should have had the good sense to just stay out of these issues entirely.

I would agree with you with one minor change. The Supreme Court government should have had the good sense to just stay out of these issues entirely.

And that is the state we're at now. And that is why the Supreme Court's decision was proper.

[tpaine]

Your premise that we are discussing owning our own bodies in an "ontological sense" is the nonsensical view here betty.
We own our bodies in the political sense, as you well know. - This is a self evident truth.

Your use of such off the wall irrational tactical points is very telling betty. You seem to have run out of socalled logical reasons to support 'sin laws', so you're grasping at straws.