Posted on 06/29/2003 11:26:04 AM PDT by 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.
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.
Morals give you an inner voice that helps to keep you from making mistakes some times.
If they were doing it with their own bodies it would be called suicide. That I have no problem with. (But I'll bet you want a law against that too...)
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
(Really now, do try to keep up.... )
Life Exists and isn't debatable. I don't really CARE what their opinions are, because they are demonstrably wrong. A baby is a baby. And the moon isn't made of green cheese. And 2 men having sex in their own house isn't harming you.
You can't pick & choose what is morally acceptable to impose on people and what is not
To an extent you can. Force and Fraud. Outside of THAT, you're correct. I have no authority to 'impose' my will.
But I do have the authority to stop a mugger, or a rapist, or a thief. I DO NOT have the authority to stop a prostitute, or a drug user or a gambler.
And neither does government, because it has no powers that we don't have ourselves.
Morally at least. The problems come when you try to cheat reality. (Like banning gay men from having sex in their own homes.) You can make immoral laws, but you WILL pay the price for them....
Again, the laws are there to protect us from ourselves and our illogical rationalization at time of crisis
Nanny state nonsense.
Here's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Click here
I think you've been reading too many fund raising letters.
I've read plenty of studies showing this to be true. Cite a couple that show it's not. Bald assertions aren't a good substitute for facts. Wishing it not to be so doesn't wish it away.
Real impressive tirade, Counselour.
Aaw, what the matter Sweetie? Heh - some "brownshirt wannabe Fundy" kick your tender young obnoxious @ss once-upon-a-time??
In any case, you must be thrilled to NOW be able to pull your shades up and unlock your bedroom door to let it ALL hang out. The "man" can't barge in anymore -- whew, what a relief, eh?
Now by all means DO carry on attentively and "play nicely"with your significant other. And please treat with "dignity and sanctity" those private acts the SC now technically ruled are legal.
Why the heck is this crude monomaniac even here? He's not conservative in any way, he is personally abusive, offensive in his descriptions of his personal sex life, and unendingly lying and rude. FR is supposed to be somewhat free of in-your-face grossness. He would do better at some of the XXX chat rooms I've heard about.
Personally, I think it's a denial issue. And I'd have a talk with a professional about it.
But sorry, I don't do guys. Not even 'manly' fighter pilots who project their latent homosexuality all over the place :)
Earlier - I believe on this thread - it was clearly explain what a theocracy is. It means ruled by unelected clerics, mullahs, priests, or whatever. It does NOT mean having laws which have basis in traditional morality even if some of that is based on religion.
Words have meanings, use the right ones, Drew.
To best illustrate the definitive radical pro-gay libertarian @ss-hole who is still intoxicated by the new "legal status" of buggery.
Ok. I'll be more direct, then.
We're not going to live under your interpretation of morality.
Been there, done that. Got the long swimwear and T Shirt for wearing in the ocean (under penalty of law).
We're all done with that now.
See, that's where you're confused. If not for you Fundie types, I wouldn't be posting on the issue at all.
I didn't even KNOW about until I saw some of the rhetoric from your side.
And while there is an element of : "good for them - equal protection of the laws at last" ; I generally could really give a rats ass what a gay guy does with his 'equipment'.
I don't think his attention span, vocabulary, or sense of self would permit him to read philosphy - other than his little libertarian red book.
Well I say you're right about that. We're not likely to see prohibitions of condoms in our lifetime. Maybe after the WMD's have hit, for a more totalitarian society, so we can re-populate, otherwise, not in our nation, not even if we all decided to become members of the General Association of Regular Baptists. (I like Baptist fellowships, btw, and have often attended them, though I wouldn't much want to visit the ones Clinton and Carter have tended to have an affinity for.)
There are increasing numbers of abortifacient drugs, however, and that is a different dilemma.
None of your points have anything to do with the SCOTUS decision. NOTHING!! Of the people, by the people, for the people CAN NOT co-exist with a Supreme Court that MAKES NEW LAW. The congress of the US makes laws and the Supreme Court REVIEWS those LAWS based on the US CONSTITUTION. NO WHERE, I reapeat NO WHERE does it state in the US Constitution that one has a right to PRIVACY!!! Nowhere does it state that one has a right to perform SODOMY. Judicial activism is RUINING this country.
Whether or NOT LAWS should be on the books is IRRELEVANT other than if the LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL not if it just happens to be the pet project of national diversity sensitivity training.
Pretty good one-pager, bb?
They aren't coming to YOUR house and having sex in YOUR living room.
I guess you don't know about "Gay Pride Parades" and haven't watched any TV or movies in decades.
I guess you haven't read about the laws in CA and other states forcing homosexuals into peoples' houses as renters, businesses as employees, and all the gov't employees that are forced to undergo "sensitivity training".
You keep stating your uninformed opinions as though they were fact. Doing this repeatedly only reveals your ignorance of fact, and your strong attraction to perversity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.