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.

[DAnconia55]

Wow. Now here's an interesting one. Can't say I agree with 13. 16 seems reasonable. But check this out...

USA New Mexico 17 /13 / 13 Have to be 17 to get laid in NM, if the charts are right. But you can play Barney Frank at age 13?

[unspun]

Oh come on. This is fun. What is a three letter word for "moral code?"

[cherry_bomb88]

I'll give you a very valid reason, because in this day & age, a 13 yo or even a 16 yo isn't mature enough to make a mature decision.

Yes, just like a lib to pick on spelling & typos. And, yes, I consider you a very liberal person.

As far as slander, I have not slandered you, merely made observations based on your own statements. You need to study the true definition of law. If I am wrong, then you need to change the way in which you express your views because it does appear that you are all for molestation of children.

[DAnconia55]

16.
It's closer to realistic.

Although women can breed at age 12, and did a lot in the past. It's not a good use of them. Spoils their potential growth. Some women grow up to do more than 'bake cookies' after all. There's Bar Exams to flunk, and what not.

My main beef with these laws is when an 18 yr old and 1 day boy, gets locked up for having sex with a 17 yr old and 300 day girlfriend.

But I was posting them to illustrate a point.

Things have NEVER BEEN like CherryBomb thinks they are. The Age of Consent is not 18 in the vast, vast, majority of states.

And if you didn't even have what you thought you had, then how do you expect to make even greater gains against freedom?

[cherry_bomb88]

FYI, there is still a sodomy law on the books in IL, sorry to inform you of that. Whatever website you are pulling that information from is not accurate.

[DAnconia55]

If I am wrong, then you need to change the way in which you express your views because it does appear that you are all for molestation of children

So are 40 odd US States, then.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"A minimalist government (i.e., a legitimate, just one) can really hold a man responsible for "doing wrong" only to the extent that his wrong-doing can be shown to be injurious of the life, liberty, and property of another person."

If we could teach that concept to everyone, along with the fact that the sum of our rights are not the ones specifically enumerated in the Constitution, we would have accomplished a lot.

Let me tell you something else, we spend half of our time complaining about the government intruding in our religious freedom, and the other half demanding that they enforce and uphold our religious beliefs.

That is what gives birth to situations like the one we face today.

[DAnconia55]

I'll give you a very valid reason, because in this day & age, a 13 yo or even a 16 yo isn't mature enough to make a mature decision.

So unlettered moronic peasant farmer's daughter in the middle ages were more qualified to have sex at age 13, than a girl born in 1990? Or 1987?

Nice bit of spin you got yerself there. Care to validate it?

[cherry_bomb88]

I am not a clueless fundie...perhaps a parent that is outraged at your immoral attitude, that I'll give you. This land was funded by Christians...separation of Church & State was a letter merely stating that there should be no "governement sanctioned" religion as in Britan...it was never part of the constitution.

Also, why is it that you moral liberals overlook the Constitutional Amendment "Freedom of Religion", or rephrase it to state "Freedom from religion".....If you want to live in a land less "law driven", the nice thing about our country is, you are free to leave any time.

Funny how you state that 18-21 yo's have no experience, yet the way you make the argument that age of consent should be lowered by that time they'd have 5 years experience.

[DAnconia55]

And, yes, I consider you a very liberal person.

Well, since ya'll are the moral enforcers, I guess I have to go change my party registration now.

Small 'l' libertarian, if you want my opinion (Yes, I'm aware that individual rights and opinions don't matter to Fundies. Just whatever law you hand down to us, we're supposed to live with)

Minimal Gov't.
Maximum Individual Freedom.
Maximum Responsibility for your own actions (and not another persons).

Pro-Capitalist.
Anti-Theocratic Brownshirt

I'm pro-Life on everything, you see.

[cherry_bomb88]

By the way, marriages were good enough for a 12 year old when people living to the age of 50 was old. When at the age of 12 the "children" were working the fields and new how to make a living....I don't know many 12 year olds now that could move out and make a living supporting themselves, except the likes of Brittany Spears, and even then, she couldn't have done it at 12 if it weren't for her enterage of agents & managers.

[DAnconia55]

Also, why is it that you moral liberals overlook the Constitutional Amendment "Freedom of Religion", or rephrase it to state "Freedom from religion".....

Quote me on that somewhere. Look back over my posts for 4 years. Find it. If I want free from your religion, I'll close the damn door on your face.

If you want to live in a land less "law driven", the nice thing about our country is, you are free to leave any time.

And you know what, we're equally free to drive you all out of office too!

[cherry_bomb88]

Ah, but what is injurous if not perception??? A gay man would argue that us not allow him to be gay is injurous to him, I would argue that subject my children to it is injurous to me, my children and our religious beliefs.....who is more important????

Should it not be MY right to bring my children up as I see fit and not have the ideals of another imposed upon them by a "pressure group" via the state????? Their beliefs have almost become a religion of sort, and are now being imposed upon me. How is that more right than the converse?

[betty boop]

Let me tell you something else, we spend half of our time complaining about the government intruding in our religious freedom, and the other half demanding that they enforce and uphold our religious beliefs.... That is what gives birth to situations like the one we face today.

Well said, Luis. I wish people would learn to stop running to the courts, or to the legislature, i.e., the government, any and every time they have a "grievance" they want "redressed" -- inevitably by compulsion, force, as it turns out. A little mutual respect and toleration would take care of most social friction.

One would think people could understand that not every problem has a "political" solution. That's the way folks think in totalitarian countries; and it's not worthy of us Americans. FWIW.

[unspun]

Well, you still haven't given me an objective reason for sweet sixteen.

BTW, in many (most?) states there is a difference between the "age of consent" and the age at which one may be married (with parental consent).

You're putting up quite a fuss over two years BTW, seems to me. Also, it's funny how, counter to your bold assertions, the age of sexual consent hasn't been getting lower in America -- and the age of such things as the legal consumption of alcohol and the age of purchasing cigarettes has been goin up, not down.

Now, how about answering my questions about your post on the horrors of people who believe in the fundamental truths of Christianity as related by the recorded words of Christ and His apostles?

[cherry_bomb88]

You seem to want to make this country other than what it was founded to be.....that is why I suggest you leave. There are plenty of countries that are lawless and abound as you want...why not try Sweden??? Perhaps Amsterdam???

[unspun]

moral liberals

Like that term, c_b.

[cherry_bomb88]

You seem to think I'm a "fundie" as you call it....I have no will to impose my "beliefs" of others, except in the case where it is to protect my daughters and my family from those that would impose their "sick" (in my view) beliefs on us.

Let's move to the prolife thing, now that babies can be born at 5, even 4 months and live, it has been proven they are viable entities through science. Some research would prove that even younger they an respond to stimuli....so who is to protect those children's right to life, liberty & the prusuit of happiness?

[DAnconia55]

If you're going to be so predictable, this isn't going to be entertaining any longer.

By the way, marriages were good enough for a 12 year old when people living to the age of 50 was old.

Thus your thesis is : The longer we live, the slower we mature. Prove that. Demonstrate it with facts.

Do you mean mentally, or culturally or emotionally?

Are you asserting there were MORE situations for mental, cultural or emotional growth 1500 years ago - despite being in smaller, rural, less populated environments with no ready idea exchange?

(Really. You're making this way too easy...)

What does making a living for yourself have to do with the age of consent. Unless you're entertaining prostitution as a career choice? Which is fine by me.....

[cherry_bomb88]

He might be fiscally conservative but he is definitely morally liberal. I'm not sure which is worse...a moral liberal or a fiscal liberal. At least a fiscal liberal who is morally conservative has morals, ethics and scrupples.