Posted on 06/29/2003 11:26:04 AM PDT by Polycarp
It appears that this whole thing began as a set-up. I don't like the idea that a USSC landmark ruling evolved out of a deception. I have some other concerns over this matter:
Before I begin I will give my viewpoint on this law. I see it as a moral statement and not as a law. I don't know how many times it was enforced or what the terms of punishment were whether by fine or jail time.
1. The Texas law covers an action that is basically undetectable if it occurs in private. The law should have stated "sodomy performed by members of the same sex in public view".
2. I don't see it as discriminating because it applies to all individuals. Homosexuality is an action by individuals. I have yet to see proof beyond a doubt that homosexuality is genetically caused. But if it were I don't believe anyone could prove that it would apply to all homosexuals. Discrimination against an action?
3. What if there were a law that nudists should not undress in public. Should individuals who belong to nudist colonies claim discrimination? Would the Supreme Court hear it?
4. Where is the privacy concept referenced in the 14th Amendment that anchors this and the Roe rulings, both landmark decisions?
5. The 10th Amendment gives the states the right to make their own laws which no doubt reflects their morals and ethics. I see the USSC ruling as an infringement on our freedom.
6. I don't care what people do in the privacy of their homes but I do care when some of these groups go to our schools and attempt to indoctrinate our children. I want them to keep the hell away from our children. That is why I believe this law that the USSC struck down should have stood if only to serve as a reminder that we don't want to see this type of behavior in public and we don't want it in our public schools being shoved onto our children.
How can we argue that wombs and rectums aren't in the penumbra of the 14th Amendment afterall, down there where the sun don't shine? And yes, if the Republic has a "compelling interest" in a man penetrating another man's anus, there is no telling by what sophistry the courts could compell us all? Sure, let's have a quota system to make sure that we're all getting our sexual, economic, etc. rights fulfilled, in exchange for well, our allegiance of course.
The increase of the kinds of STD's being what it is, though, and the availability of surgical procedures too, before long, we'll all have to fill out our SOID cards (sexual organ identification....) to make sure we're being properly slotted, so to speak.
Excuse me as I control my laughter.
Huh? Almost all decisions made by this big government, two party cartel in DC is driving this country into a ditch, both financially and morally.
The differences between the two beltway parties are really inconsequential..They have defaced America.
Let me clear something up right here. Alot of the so called social conservatives are ex democrats who did not abandon their party on economics or their love of the constitution. A bunch of socialists of the Gary Bauer type, left the democrats in the 60's and 70's, because they thought that the civil rights movement, and the things that sprung up from it were being promoted by the northern yankee democratic party.
The republican party opposed quotas not to keep the niggras in their place, but because it was an unfair remedy. Those who want to create the Taliban in the GOP can go pack their bags and go some place else. The republican party is conservative. Tariff loving, freedom hating, Revelation today desiring johnny come lately types are not going to steal this party. When the party agrees on principal with fundamentalist christian aims, it promotes them, but not just those ideas. It promotes freedom and liberty as our natural rights.
I am a Goldwater Republican, not a Pat Robertson republican. Goldwater and even the Rockefeller wings were republicans long before the holy roller crowd abandoned the donkeys and decided to set up shop.
Yeah. Sure. Without the social conservatives, the GOP is DOA at the polls.
Alas, applying special taxes to sins puts government squarely in the sin business.
Dennis Miller type Bush democrats are hopping on board to replace you. Good bye, have fun. Enjoy your new party.
You keep saying it, but the polling data is handing you your hat to eat.
There's not very many of you at all.
And there a MUCH Greater number of us that oppose you.
The 14-16% numbers I see are probably about correct for your side.
Get out of Iowa. In the real world, there's only a few of you. In cities, in coastal states, you're an overwhelming minority.
You can be traded. You have no where to run to. You will not vote Demon, and they will not take up your issues.
Any political strategist worth his salt will tell you to STFU and proceed to ignore you :)
Thoroughgoing, politically active Evangelical Christians and other moralists may be only about 15%, but there is much more ground for us take and more of our own to activate among our own.
Totalibertarian stomach and crotch worshippers are fewer, because those who want the freedom to feed all their appetites and whims, are chiefly those most willing to sell their true freedom for the fulfillment vices. Before you boast further, check out how many pay attention to President Browne.
CL, TRG, note people like this. They are useful only to a point.
Bump that.
I've had enough of these phoney balony konservatives....The Bush Liberals are not the party I am looking for.......
Be that as it may, this is still a "Conservative News Forum," right, Jim Robinson?
This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one.
Or has it become a least-common-denominator and apatheistic libertarianism News Forum, Mr. Robinson?
I'm just curious whether you approve of this general movement of expression of your "Conservative News Forum" to the left and towards libertarianism, and the viciousness towards Christian conservatives typically expressed by these folks? This site has been overrun by homosexual apologists and amoral libertarians.
Thought that might get your attention, Brother A. I just honestly believe that the social pathologies would be far less under a decriminalization regime than what we have under the status quo: high rates of drug-related crimes against life and property; street gangs; political and law-enforcement corruption; grotesquely unequal sentencing regimes, state-to-state; the destabilization of foreign nations; revenues to international terrorism, etc., etc. People are responsible for their own life choices, and most people can handle the challenge. People will object: Oh, but what about the chillun'???? Hey, it's the parents' responsibility to raise their children in decency, not the feds'.
Who knows? tax receipts from a regulated trade would probably go a long ways toward balancing the federal budget. Maybe folks' income tax rates could be reduced -- even better, maybe the FIT could be abolished altogether, and we could get a nice, low NST instead.... Plus you know the rule: Whenever you tax something, you get less of it. And I don't think decriminalization by itself would boost demand. Finally, if people sin, they have to answer to an Authority far higher than the federal government, it seems to me.
Nothin' "quick" about it, tpaine. These are thoughtful, deliberative positions, and long held. Especially the first (i.e., Vermont Carry).
I've stated my comments in 241.
Let freedom ring! And render to God that which is God's.
That's an absolutely stupid question, Danconia55. Only someone who has been ideologically brainwashed would even think to ask a question like that.
Either people can do it or they can't... you can't enforce it if its not equally applied...
I don't think these laws should be enforced in either case.
The idea that we are going to start arresting consenting adults for private acts of adultery or homosexuality is over the edge.
Nobody wants this nonsense.
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.