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.
Good start. Consult a fleet of Swiss psychiatrists. They may explain your unbridled passion and obsession with the buggery ruling and your obvious projecting...
Get yourself a distemper shot as well. Someone with the level of hostility you display towards Christianity is abnormal, but of course anonymous posting allows you to vent your estrogen-tainted personality and irrelevancy in relative security.
Okay, then. He is quite the extremist - it would be good to find another like him, put them in a room together, and call the mortuary a little while later.
Much easier to not watch what you don't like. And thanks, I'd rather not see half naked men in a parade touching each other.
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
Totally on your side there. But what you listed directly above this line is not "two men having sex in the privacy of their own home imposing their ideals on you".
Two different things.
You keep stating your uninformed opinions as though they were fact. Doing this repeatedly only reveals your ignorance of fact....
Yes, I am aware that you use this as a tactic to shut off debate, when it applies more to you than to anyone else. But I just ignore it...
I am just trying to see it through his whackjob eyes.
Could be something like what Phelps is thinking, for all I know.
But of course, Paul loved homosexuals and wanted to see them accept the crucified (and risen) Christ, just as all those other kinds of sinners he rattled off in his lists. Hence his scourgings, stoning, imprisonment, etc. for the sake of the precious sinners whom Jesus-on-earth said were the "sick" whom he came to save, very explicitly including those gentile, in Christ's words.
Two different things.
Unfortunately, it's not two different things. You would think it should be, one hopes the courts view it as that, but it won't come down to that. They'll use that ruling to edge their way into EVERYTHING...your businesses, your churches (well, not your's DA, it's quite apparent you don't have one), your schools and yes, even YOUR homes.
That law opened up a pandora's box of lawsuits from the gay activists. Unfortunately, I will not get any satisfaction from being able to say "I told you so" a year from now.
Wow, that's the same kind of expansive rationale that big government types use to argue that a man can be prohibited from growing carrots in his own backyard garden under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
It's not expansive rationale, it's just fact and sound reason. As for carrots and the Interstate Commerce Clause, etc., the founders warned it would take a great deal of sound wisdom, in order to preserve the Republic.
Please do tell that to the rabid anti-gay crowd here who love to post explicitly detailed descriptions of some of the most fringe sexual practices any chance they get.
Umm, sure. Whatever you say.
True, Brother A. But earlier generations of Americans understood far better than we do where to draw the line between the political and the personal. Today the fashion is to assume that every problem has a specifically political solution. That's quite a transition in basic assumptions, for which we have the progressive Left penetration of our political and media establishments to thank. Their main effect has been to destroy the very notion of civic virtue, which has been a main strength and source of cohesion in our nation until recent times.
Civic virtue is a complex of values that principally includes individual responsibility, self-reliance (independence), self-restraint, respect for other individuals (including a sensitivity to their feelings and values), civility in disagreement, and cooperation in the interest of social comity.
But the left has taken its "social activism" techniques from Antonio Gramsci and Saul Alinsky, who have raised personal insult and conflict to a high art to achieve political goals that are antithetical to (and so undermine) traditional notions of American order. Instead of common civility, the idea is to "get in people's faces." Everything is in the language of "we've got to fight for this, we've got to fight for that...." Every "cause" for social change is conceived of as a battle, as an "us vs them" situation. Anyone who disagrees with the progressivist agenda is an enemy, a fascist, etc. (The Left particularly enjoys scandalizing and insulting Christians.)
It is no accident that the progressivist causes all target traditional notions of good public order, personal self-restraint and responsibility, and even common sense. ("Animals have rights, too.") There is no purely personal sphere for these people; anything can be made into a "political question" and taken to the streets in mass demonstrations, often deliberately involving violence. Thus we have "gay rights," "the right to choose (abortion)" -- well, you can complete the list.
The surprising thing to me is that these tactics of intimidation are almost always successful. So much so that legislatures take up the hue and cry (check out Hitlery et al. in the Senate, pandering and screeching about "fighting for" this or that, ad nauseam); and courts (either intimidated or sympathetic) bend to the will of the progressivist rabble.
This rabble targets traditional American institutions, to clear the decks for totalitarian social change. In the process, both civil discourse and civic virtue -- the historical mainstays of this nation -- have been virtually utterly destroyed.
Even here at FR, one can hear the rhetorical techniques of the Left -- and this from conservatives or libertarians, no less.
America has been under attack from within our own borders for seven decades at least; and it shows. The traditional habits and mores -- in particular civic virtue -- have been virtually destroyed, along with constitutional notions of equal justice under law and the limited state.
And this is so because the public sphere -- the sphere of the state -- has been so enlarged by progressive activists that hardly anything has been left untouched. The sphere of the person, the sphere of the non-political, has been shrunk down to practically nothing. And historic American liberties right along with it.
The lying Left tells us they want to make us even more free, to give us even more rights, or at least to give rights to the "oppressed" who (they say) lack them. But the fact is, these people will not rest satisfied until our historical American liberties have been totally eradicated, and historical American order totally destroyed.
Then they can rule us without interference.
I dunno where I'm really going with this -- just thinking out loud maybe. But I do suggest that we conservatives need to give a little thought to what civic virtue entails, and see what we can do to restore it. This seems to me the best defense we have against these activist screamers and the realization of their plans. If we can restore civic virtue, we can probably restore a whole lot else, as well.
But the left has taken its "social activism" techniques from Antonio Gramsci and Saul Alinsky, who have raised personal insult and conflict to a high art to achieve political goals that are antithetical to (and so undermine) traditional notions of American order. Instead of common civility, the idea is to "get in people's faces." Everything is in the language of "we've got to fight for this, we've got to fight for that...." Every "cause" for social change is conceived of as a battle, as an "us vs them" situation. Anyone who disagrees with the progressivist agenda is an enemy, a fascist, etc. (The Left particularly enjoys scandalizing and insulting Christians.)
Thank, you very much. I do agree, though in the effort to restore virtues, civic and otherwise, we can't act as if we were dealing with people who are so well behaved, when they are not.
As for what can be done, well, unfortunately we have to fight, though fight honestly, reasonably, and without real malice, but with real love.
Yes, Brother A -- with real love. It is said that "love conquers all." Certainly, Satan detests it!
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.