Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BLAME THE GOP FOR PRO-SODOMY COURT DECISION
The Heustis Update ^ | June 27, AD 2003 | Reed R. Heustis, Jr.

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ageofconsentlaws; bigomylaws; catholiclist; consentingadults; consentingteens; downorupanyorifice; downourthroats; druglaws; homosexualagenda; houston; incestlaws; lawrencevtexas; marriagelaws; pc; politicallycorrect; polygomylaws; privacylaws; prostitutionlaws; protectedclass; republicans; rinos; samesexdisorder; sexlaws; sodomylaws; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560561-564 next last
To: betty boop; unspun; Alamo-Girl; Polycarp; logos; Phaedrus
I, for one, no longer consider myself a Conservative. Like my favorite journalist, Joseph Farah, I do not believe there is anything left to conserve. Writing congressmen is a colossal waste of time; voting for one or the other of the same two parties is an exercise in futility, especially since NONE of our representatives follow the U.S. Constitution. Why do these people bother to take oaths of office?

Our founders stated clearly that our Constitutional Republic could not survive without virtue. The problem is that the society/culture that elects our representatives and from which come the judiciary is morally depraved. After the Constitutional Convention, when asked by an inquirer what type of govt had been formed, Franklin replied, "A republic if you can keep it" - these words were quite wise and prescient. Adams said that our "Constitution was written for a moral and religious people and is inadequate for the government of any other." Washington said that morality and religion (Christianity) are "indispensible supports" to a free society. Clearly, our nation is founded on the principle of self government wherein each individual's actions are restrained by his/her conscience as that conscience is directed by a Holy God. In today's reprobate society, restraint has been cast aside. Unless God shows mercy and there is a spiritual awakening, the greatest form of govt in world history will be finished. I am not optimistic at all about the outcome, but I know I must pray more and continue to fulfill my moral obligations as a citizen.

541 posted on 07/02/2003 7:44:58 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; unspun; logos; Phaedrus
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." -John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

"Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention...The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other. -Alexis de Tocqueville, French Historian

"[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles, which enjoins humility, piety and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government." -Noah Webster

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever." -Thomas Jefferson

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." -George Washington

542 posted on 07/02/2003 7:57:37 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

But Luis, they'd then be legal residents of the new state. How does the 11th Amendment apply under that set of facts?

543 posted on 07/02/2003 9:11:12 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.

Gee. This seems to be a great description of my own thinking on the matter!

exmarine, thank you so much for the quotes from our illustrious forebears. The TJ you quote is particularly resonant, given the situation of our own time, IMHO. Thanks!

544 posted on 07/02/2003 9:15:15 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Given this strong tradition of a state's right to refuse to recognize a marriage validly contracted in another state if that marriage would offend the fundamental public policy of the state, there appears to be no reason for enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act. The states already have the ability to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage should they so choose.

This is the present legal status quo, Luis. As long as the 14th Amendment is also the law of the land, in any conflict between a state vis-a-vis same-sex marriage contracted in another state, and the way SCOTUS seems to be interpreting the "privileges and immunities" clause these days (i.e., as against state interest), which side do you think would prevail in that fight? Especially since, as Justice Scalia recently pointed out, the present ruling shooting down Texas law seems to put all forms of state prohibitions of marriage (polygamy, incest, underage, consanguinity, etc.) on shaky ground.

545 posted on 07/02/2003 9:33:39 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: logos
...let's not bemoan the direction of society at large until we have at least turned around ourselves.

Amen, to that, logos! It's time to "walk the talk." Thank you so much for writing.

546 posted on 07/02/2003 11:10:18 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
"As long as the 14th Amendment is also the law of the land, in any conflict between a state vis-a-vis same-sex marriage contracted in another state, and the way SCOTUS seems to be interpreting the "privileges and immunities" clause these days (i.e., as against state interest), which side do you think would prevail in that fight?"

Betty, I posted legal precedent answering that question, not only that, but the 11th. Amendment clearly takes the SCOTUS out of that scuffle.

547 posted on 07/02/2003 12:35:44 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Cuba serĂ¡ libre...soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
"But Luis, they'd then be legal residents of the new state."

I'm not sure about that, how can they be legal residents of that State, and be in clear violation of the law of that State?

You know prior to moving whether your marriage will be recognized or not. If yours was the case, then the existing exemptions from the FFaCC would not exist at all.

548 posted on 07/02/2003 12:38:29 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Cuba serĂ¡ libre...soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Betty, I posted legal precedent answering that question, not only that, but the 11th. Amendment clearly takes the SCOTUS out of that scuffle.

Luis, it may well be as you say. But you have more faith in stares decisis than I do! :^) All my best -- bb.

549 posted on 07/02/2003 12:58:57 PM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: unspun; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
I've got a chance to check in and find I missed the ball. Thanks anyway for the pings. I started reading through the thread. Got to around 101 posts and started developing another paine. So I really don't feel like reading into it much further. The only thing I would like to add if it hasn't already been reminded is:

1.) Leviticus 18 verse 22. BTW it is MO that failure to heed Lev. 18 v21 is at the root of many of todays ills.

2.) Leviticus 20 verse 13.

I guess my question as a lay person would be do you believe homosexuals are created by God that way and if so why? Another mystery to me. Or do you believe homosexuality to be a learned lifestyle using free will choice as a basis? I must admit this troubles me on a few levels. Firstly I know that I am a sinner and as such I would loathe to throw a stone. Secondly I would say that I do detest the sin but if a person were to live their social life in a goodly manner I would have no reason to want to condemn. Another words if it truly was a private matter then no cause for strife would exist. Do we need a government to declare the actual act of sodomy illegal? Wouldn't the laws against lewd and lascivious behavior, assault and rape already incorporate sodomy if it was performed in front of witnesses? We all come to God on His terms when called or we ignore Him at our own peril. And that I believe is very private and protected in this country. Please correct me if someone (or some court) has changed that because I will need to make travel and real estate plans.

C-ya soon I'm going surfing USA. Love.

550 posted on 07/02/2003 8:46:02 PM PDT by Kudsman (LETS GET IT ON!!! The price of freedom is vigilance. Tyranny is free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: Kudsman
Thank you so much for the Scriptures!

WRT to your questions, the main thing I have to say is that anything which is an abomination to God is an abomination to me, but all that I may do is hate the sin, I must love the sinner.

WRT to the laws, the Scriptures are rather clear that He will remove His protection and blessing from the nation that turns its back on Him. The U.S. was founded on Judeo/Christian moral absolutes. Giving them up will have dire consequences.

OTOH, how far the law can and should go to mandate moral absolutes, I cannot say. But we the Christians ought to pray earnestly for a national spiritual revival.

My two cents...

551 posted on 07/02/2003 8:58:08 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
But we the Christians ought to pray earnestly for a national spiritual revival.

I have for many that I know and continue to seek guidance. I will join you in this prayer tonight. Good to see you again. Warm hugs.

552 posted on 07/02/2003 9:29:39 PM PDT by Kudsman (LETS GET IT ON!!! The price of freedom is vigilance. Tyranny is free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: Kudsman
It's great to see you, too! And thank you so much for joining in agreement! Hugs!!!
553 posted on 07/02/2003 9:38:31 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; unspun
Just one more thing (and I imagine my last on this thread) regarding the subject of this thread. I find it notable that of all the things clarified in the New Covenant this matter is not one expounded on. Mayhap this needed no futher clarification as it was relevant from the time of Lott until present day. Amazing that such antiquity still affects humans today. Has to be a masterplan IMHO. TCN. Be seeing you in the news.
554 posted on 07/02/2003 10:13:30 PM PDT by Kudsman (LETS GET IT ON!!! The price of freedom is vigilance. Tyranny is free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: Kudsman
Thank you for your post!

I find it notable that of all the things clarified in the New Covenant this matter is not one expounded on.

In Romans 1, God explains that He gives people up to such vile affection as punishment for a particular kind of sin.

555 posted on 07/02/2003 10:29:50 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Kudsman
Romans 1
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


1 Corinthians 6
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.



Jude 1
1Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,
To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by[1] Jesus Christ:
2Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.
3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4For certain men whose condemnation was written about[2] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[3] delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
8In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings
.
New International Version - http://www.biblegateway.com
556 posted on 07/02/2003 10:33:23 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." -- btw, I don't look anything like AnnaZ, but I do listen on RadioFR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Thanks for the heads up!
557 posted on 07/03/2003 7:37:50 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: Kudsman; betty boop; Luis Gonzalez
Do we need a government to declare the actual act of sodomy illegal?

I'm just not sure this is the very best question (nor do I imply that you meant it to be). I think a better question might be, "What is the most beneficial way for the most appropriate government to be of good influence, regarding this problem?"

There are many things a government can do to be instructive-to-disciplinary ("discipline" means "teach," at it's root) short of breaking down people's doors.

(I tend to think that we conservatives need to refrain from being twisted pretzels and knots by John Locke's double negative.)

558 posted on 07/03/2003 9:17:21 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." -- btw, I don't look anything like AnnaZ, but I do listen on RadioFR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: unspun; Alamo-Girl
Well met and thanks. I stand corrected because of the use of the word expounded. Bad choice on my part. What I meant to say was that the scripture in Leviticus re: homosexuality was never modified. Yes Paul does address the issue but it takes him many more words to say the same thing that is stated in Leviticus 18 and 20. Homosexual acts are an abomination and the penalty is death. No ambiguities, no deviating, and no futher qualifications offered. The sin and punishment remain the same in both old and new testament. I do apologize for any confusion I created.

Also U please don't for a minute think I approve of any homo acts. What I meant by private is if I don't see it or have knowledge of it, there would be nothing outwardly offensive that I could readily identify as wrong to me. What a person with these faults does in private and their reconciliation (or lack of) with God is personal to them.

I don't have the time nor inclination to ferret out said individuals, it is hard enough to manage my own life. Although I do admit that the more I give over to God the easier it gets. That is just my personal experience, I am not offering it as Tim's truth or anything. I would simply encourage anyone to try it. You might like it.

559 posted on 07/03/2003 2:47:30 PM PDT by Kudsman (LETS GET IT ON!!! The price of freedom is vigilance. Tyranny is free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: Kudsman
I would just make a disctinction between government's abilities to provide an instructive, disciplining influence, plus a basis in law of what is considered illegitimate vs. legitimate on the one hand -- and hunting for homosexuals (or marijuana smokers, etc.) on the other.
560 posted on 07/03/2003 2:58:01 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." --btw, I don't look anything like AnnaZ, but I like to listen on RadioFR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560561-564 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson