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.

[F16Fighter]

" SCOTUS just undermined every law in the country based upon public morals, and all you can do is repeat the same tired red herring argument? Pathetic."

The SCOTUS have become the 'Nine Popes of America.'

Let's just get it over with and build them a mini-Vatican somewhere in Georgetown where they can selectively subvert or overrule any and all existing morals laws already on the books, and the Constitution itself.

Just to balance the stealth liberals (Souter, O'Connor, Kennedy, JP Stevens) the GOP have infested the court with in the recent past, I'd suggest that Dubya begin appointing NO ONE to the left of Atilla the Hun....

[DAnconia55]

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????

The Gay man. He's not MAKING you be gay. You and your children are not harmed by the mere fact of someone being gay.

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?????

Delusional. You Fundies seem to have that trait.
How is two men having sex in the privacy of their own home imposing their ideals on you.

They aren't coming to YOUR house and having sex in YOUR living room.

Do you realize that with absolute moral equivalancy (And idiocy...but hey I don't make you put forth such 'logic')... the gay couple could say the EXACT same thing about you? That your heterosexuality is imposing on THEIR beliefs?

Both statements are equally valid.

[DAnconia55]

You seem to want to make this country other than what it was founded to be.....that is why I suggest you leave

And the age of consent in 1787 was ????

[unspun]

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.

That's a very apt desire. A very nice sentiment. As it has turned out, however in many other countries, including totaliitarian ones, America is 'famous' for being litigious. (And we've never been very unpolitical, here in our representative democracy.)

Hey, DA, see that? See how "nice" I am? ;-))

Fundamentals of The Faith, baby.

[DAnconia55]

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

Yes, by having sex in their own home... they are 'harming' you. Yep. I got it.

And you want to use the power of the government to stop them from doing so.

But I can see how you don't call that imposing your beliefs. Yep. It's all crystal clear.

[cherry_bomb88]

Yes, DA, people were forced to group up emotionally at an earlier age "back in the day". And culturally, they didn't have the stimuli they do today. We live in a society with much more to learn and absorb than we did 100 years ago. My mother married at 19, I married at 21 and in hindsight feel that I was way too emotionally/culturally immature.

The percentage of college educated people in our country has drastically changed.

Why does it not surprise me you are for legalized prostitution (read demeaning of women). I'd not sell my body for $1 million, but I'd give it freely to the man that I love...that's called principals, ethics and values....you might want to try them...really easy to wake up and look yourself in the mirror with respect.

Your arguments are equally elementary, DA. The same old crap peddled by the immoral for years to justify their behavior. See, when you are a morally upstanding person, you don't have to justify your behavior.

[DAnconia55]

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?

Murder isn't a victimless crime. It isn't a law regulating something that you merely do not approve of. It is a law intended to prevent force.

I don't exactly see your point.

[unspun]

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.

Right. And a "social liberal," being in favor of what is costly to our society, inevitably runs up the bill for government and our taxes.

I do like using your phrase "moral liberal" though, for/with the "I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal" hypocrites, as are so many in places such as Illinois, Massachusetts, etc.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Now, the "move" is to support an Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage.

The solution, in some people's minds, to the Federal government's attack on the traditional mores of this nation, is to turn over the State's right to define marriage to the Federal government.

I don't understand the logic.

Let the States decide the issue of same-sex marriages.

[cherry_bomb88]

Yes, by having sex in their own home... they are 'harming' you. Yep. I got it.

BACK UP....where did I EVER say I was against them having sex in their own homes??? I do not agree with a court ruling sanctifying it, but I believe that if they sin (just as a whore sleeping with every guy she meets in a bar) it is between them and God (love the sinner, hate the sin).

What I DO disagree with is them instituting a practice of teaching it as normal behavior in our schools, forcing it on us in public, forcing it on our Churches, forcing a private business owner who happens to be a Christian to accept it and hire them. That's what I have a problem with. A private business owner should be allowed to deny someone employment if they don't like the color of their socks....thus the term "private" business.

What I want is for them to stop trying to force those of us who do not think it's normal to change our thinking and buy into their thinking that their behavior is normal. THAT's what I want!

You best read back through my posts.

[DAnconia55]

See, when you are a morally upstanding person, you don't have to justify your behavior.

Nah, it's more fun when you're one of the 'moral elite'. You get to lock everybody up and run the torture chambers.

[F16Fighter]

"As long as there is a terrorist menace, Americans are not going to turn the executive branch over to a bunch who can't get anything done in Congress."

NEWS BULLETIN: There will be a "terrorist menace" until Armegeddon...

And anyway, what exactly is "getting done in congress" besides the usual pork barrel spending for constituencies, unaccountable black hole appropriations, and asset/income redistribution?

[Polycarp]

"anti-Popes" and "anti-Vatican" are probably better terms here

[DAnconia55]

What I DO disagree with is them instituting a practice of teaching it as normal behavior in our schools, forcing it on us in public, forcing it on our Churches, forcing a private business owner who happens to be a Christian to accept it and hire them.

Me too. (In public? - uh Me too, I guess.. Not sure what you mean. They can do anything we can do legally in public), Forced on your churches? What does that mean?

Yep. I'm a total capitalist. I don't think a person should be made to do anything with his property that he doesn't want to. If you don't want to hire gays, or blacks, or men, go to it as far as I'm concerned. (although be aware you will lose talent for this....)

(I screen out leftists, btw.... I won't hire them :) )

I do not agree with a court ruling sanctifying it,

The court ruling gave them equal protection of the laws. Which is what they ARE OWED.

[cherry_bomb88]

So you would state you are "pro life" in other words, you don't believe women should be free to do as they please with their bodies and run out and rid themselves of an unwanted pregnancy?

You have just contradicted yourself, my friend, because now you are saying it's ok to FORCE your belief of "human at conception" on those women that believe that it's not a human until it's born...thereby negating their rights to their beliefs.

You can't pick & choose what is morally acceptable to impose on people and what is not, per your libertarian creedo, you must allow everyone to choose what is right for themselves.

Again, the laws are there to protect us from ourselves and our illogical rationalization at time of crisis.

[cherry_bomb88]

in 1787 young boys were dying in war....do you see us sending 12 year olds over to Iraq to fight today?????

[DAnconia55]

And a "social liberal," being in favor of what is costly to our society, inevitably runs up the bill for government and our taxes.

I'd end all welfare. Every last bit of it. So can't accuse me of that one.

Wanna smoke crack? Ok by me. Rob me, and I'll shoot you. And I'm not paying for your medical care. You can smoke yourself to death in the gutter, and we'll clean you up with the street sweeper.

[unspun]

People opposed to Christians who stand up for the morals and principles America was founded upon come in an endless variety of patterns. There are many ways to be fundamentally wrong.

[unspun]

Wanna smoke crack? Ok by me. Rob me, and I'll shoot you. And I'm not paying for your medical care. You can smoke yourself to death in the gutter, and we'll clean you up with the street sweeper.

Who pays for street sweeping? Who pays for anything that needs doing, if there aren't responsible private parties willing to prevent harm, or pay for it?

[cherry_bomb88]

What I mean by the Churches being forced into something...let's follow this ruling through the logical line....we've given them "equal protection"....

Next, they will want to be "legally married" and they will decide that they REALLY love the Crystal Cathedral in California as it's so beautiful and well just lovely for their gay wedding ceremony....Rev. Schuller declines their request to use his church, and the law forces him to because, well, they are protected now.

The church should not be allowed to sanctify ANY marriage (hetorosexual or homosexual) that it does not find abides by it's ideals. It's a private organization.

Yet, with this ruling, that will start to happen, if not winning lawsuits, at least costing churches thousands if not tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in defense across the country.