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 read enough posts to see who the minority and fringe opinions are.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the heads up to your excellent post! I agree!!!

[tdadams]

You're mistaken. Jefferson and Franklin both professed to be deists, not Christians. And the Jefferson Bible did omit references to the supernatural.

[betty boop]

And that is why the Supreme Court's decision was proper.

Kiddo, the SCOTUS is the government. So which is it: You want 'em in, or you want 'em out? (Logic does require consistency.)

[betty boop]

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

And SCOTUS is so conveniently there to fill the bill!

Thanks for the quote from Franklin, TheCrusader.

[betty boop]

This is a self evident truth.

Please define "self-evident truth?"

[tdadams]

Kiddo, the SCOTUS is one third of the federal government.

[Hank Rearden]

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

We've heard that wussy nonsense for 20 years! When will it be time, hmmmmmm?

I started voting Libertarian 15 years ago - Republicrats should have woken up when Nixon tried to impose wage-and-price controls. How much more Big Stupid Government crap do you need than THAT to convince you?

How much smaller, freer and simpler has Big Stupid Government gotten under Bush Jr.?

[wku man]

Bush is empowering the Rats, too. He's giving them the lion's share of their agenda in the name of Klintonesque triangulation. He's converting the former conservative GOP into the "other" Rat party. I do advocate leaving the Pubbie Party, and voting your principles instead of holding on to the fleeting hope that somehow the Pubies will come to their collective senses. If the election goes to the Rats, so be it. At least the eventual train wreck we're headed toward will happen quicker, instead of slower and more painfully than with the Rat-Light Pubbies.

If you can't find a candidate you support to vote for, write in yourself or someone you do believe in. We're screwed one way or the other, we can at least stand on our principles, then get ready for a fight.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[tpaine]

Do a google on defining the concepts in our DoI...

[tpaine]

Kiddo, the SCOTUS is the government. So which is it: You want 'em in, or you want 'em out? (Logic does require consistency.)
364 -BB-

Kiddo, there is no consistency to your so-called 'logic' that the "SCOTUS is the government."

So which is it: You want 'in' on our constitutional rule of law, or you want out? (Logic does require consistency.)

[kegler4]

"The remarks you made about her concerned sodomy, not fellatio. It appears you can't even be honest in the simplest details."

Why is it people here can't get this straight -- oral sex, under some states' laws and according to the dictionary -- IS SODOMY. In my state (at least until this ruling) it is illegal even between married heterosexuals in private. Fellatio and cunnilingus are SODOMY. If you ever been involved in either, then you are a SODOMIST.

If you're going to be part of the debate, at least take the time to learn what you're talking about.

[betty boop]

So which is it: You want 'in' on our constitutional rule of law, or you want out?

I want "in" -- but "our constitutional rule of law" is decidedly what I'm NOT getting out of this Court. Or any other Court within recent memory. Can you say: "Legislating from the bench?"

[unspun]

But to strike it down by federal judicial fiat is equally foolhardy. The matter should have been addressed and rectified in Texas, by Texans.

This matter won't be rectified until at least the Second Coming. Until then, it'll always be "rectum, heck, it killed him" and we are to be at work doing what instructs, prevents, and delivers people from harm.

And, given time, I feel confident it would have been. The public is getting more and more tolerant of gay people -- even in Texas.

Homosexually, most commonly (at least among men, from what reports I've seen) is a behavior pattern learned chiefly by seduction (rape) of boys. It is our duty to tolerate people, but not everything they do, in isolated instances nor in patterns and systems of practice.

Frankly, I'm for good law --applied practically and not impractically. We shouldn't bust people's doors down, in order to find out if they're breaking the law, without probably cause of sufficent harm. But that doesn't mean that we are to hold harmless, harmful acts (physically as well as to alma and all her girlfriends). For matters like this, we should just use sense. Another example is that we don't need to make marijuana smoking uttery legal; we can keep it only quasi-criminal --as we do with reckless driving --in this case reckless operation of one's body and inside the body politic.

In any case it should not be a federal case, as you say. Among the Pandora's Box of things this opens up also, is divorce levarage in favor of a funky husband when his wife refuses to present her anus for him and for damage. The damnable act is simply, inherently harmful.

Should it be perfectly legal to stuff pencils as far as possible into consenting "adults" eyes and ears? Don't laugh -- how about sexual asphyxiation?

[tdadams]

You do realize don't you that we have three branches of government, each serving as a check and balance on each other? Just checking.

[tdadams]

Homosexually, most commonly (at least among men, from what reports I've seen) is a behavior pattern learned chiefly by seduction (rape) of boys.

I think you've been reading too many fund raising letters.

[exmarine]

Bush is empowering the Rats, too. He's giving them the lion's share of their agenda in the name of Klintonesque triangulation. He's converting the former conservative GOP into the "other" Rat party. I do advocate leaving the Pubbie Party, and voting your principles instead of holding on to the fleeting hope that somehow the Pubies will come to their collective senses. If the election goes to the Rats, so be it. At least the eventual train wreck we're headed toward will happen quicker, instead of slower and more painfully than with the Rat-Light Pubbies.

I agree with you. I am no longer a Republican. They violate the Constitution as much as the Demoncats. NONE of them (save Ron Paul of TX) has any respect for the RULE of LAW (our founders intended a nation of laws, not rule by fiat by sinful men). It seems to me that the Constitution is no longer the law of the land. The law of the land is whatever a bunch of morons in black robes say it is. From now on, I vote Constitution Party and when our Republic turns into the police state (which is where it is headed!), there will be great gnashing of teeth, but it will be too late.

[unspun]

I think you've been reading too many fund raising letters.

You mean from NAMBLA?

[tdadams]

More like Fred Phelps.

[rogerthedodger]

Yep. It's astounding what they've done in 2 1/2 years.