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.
90%. Oral sex is consider sodomy.
And specifically under the state statute under discussion (Texas).
Nice try.
He asked for both stats. I gave them.
And 40% of 1/2 (women) 270,000,000 people is 54,000,000 women who have tried it.
Not gonna be able to lock them all up.
There are not 54,000,000 Fundies. That you can bank on.
BTW, my wife would tell you herself...
It's hardly a secret that normal people engage in oral sex.
Well, except to Puritans, I guess. You're the last ones to know everything.
Main Entry: sod·omy Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11 Date: 13th century 1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal 2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex
WOW! Thanks for proving that you're against a court ruling that you don't even understand the fundamental BASIS of.
So you see nothing immoral or wrong about a man performing a sex act with another man? After reading some of your previous posts, I can see you don't.
There's no use trying to reason with someone who's moral compass is that far out of kilter.
I for one, am thankful for a decision that reaffirms that Americans have rights beyond just those enumerated by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am thankful for a decision that puts Big Brother government in its place.
You need to get beyond this arrogant attitude that anyone who disagrees with your point of view is a credulous simpleton. Try to conceive that others can process the decision and come to a different conclusion than you. Others are free to disagree with you and think this was a good decision.
Your points are mute.
I think you mean moot.
I can't have a thoughtful, deliberative position WRT total nonsense. What ontological sense does it make to say I "own" my body? Or that I "own" my mind, or my soul? Or my nose, my ears, my hands, etc., etc.? A human being is an organic, dynamic composite of all these necessary things. These are not things we "have," in the sense that I have a house, or a car, or a career, or a cat; these are things that make us what we are, things that pertain to our essential being. What sense does it make to say that we "own" what we, in fact, ARE? The question is idiotic, because it presupposes a total abstraction and reduction of what a human life is, and then sets up "relations" between the self and the body that do not exist in nature.
This type of comparison has already been debunked.
Buchanan has been absolutely prophetic regarding terrorism, illegal aliens and the insane influx of immigrants. People laughed, (like you), when he said in 1996 he'd build a fence with border patrol guards all along the Mexican border, and would put major restrictions on immigration. Well, guess what? Now they are erecting all sorts of fences on the Mexican border and increasing border partol, and putting far more checks on immigration.
He also saw NAFTA and GATT as bad for American business, and guess what? Today, many former proponents of these self-defeating trade rules are now agreeing with Buchanan.
Another of Buchanan's prophetic statements, (in his book "Death of The West"), is that Third World Muslims are multiplying like rabbits and Islam is spreading in leaps and bounds, while First World Christianity is dwindling and Western man is engaging in self inflicted genocide through abortion and birth control. At the current growth rate, within 20 years Christians will be outnumbered by "the religion of peace" by 2 - 1. Here is quote from Buchanan: ""Western Man, relieved of his duty to civilize and Christianize mankind, seems to have lost his will to live and reconciled himself to his impending death,". Again, Buchanan is right here. We see this in today's America where homosexual perverts may soon have the "right" to marry, and the expression of religion on any public property has been effectively abolished. Buchanan, like anyone else, makes mistakes; but overall he's been right on the money. Mankind has always killed the prophets and laughed at those brave enough to speak the truth, this is nothing new.
I take your point, Danconia55. It seems its takes all kinds of ideologues to make a society.... Personally, I just wish more people would take the time to think rather than just "react" according to preconceptual (unexamined) notions and personal preferences.
I think folks such as Nero, Trajan, and Caligula said the same thing. We shall see. If we don't live long enough, we shall surely see the numbers come in before the throne of Judgment.
For "stomach worshipper," you can see this and this.
You misunderstand freedom, then. Just because I want crack legalized doesn't mean I'm going to run out and smoke it.
Let's legalize the posession and sales of of ricin, C4, anthrax, and plutonium. "Just because I want them leagalzed doesn't mean I'm going to run out and do any harm with them." We have governments in order to behave in societies (cultures, if you don't like the root, "soc"). We have societies/cultures in order to behave by certain standards. (Trust you're with me so far, this is pretty basic. ;-) We either have consistent messages throughout, or we have breakdown and standards are not taken as standards.
You are not my personal opponent; frankly I love you and want to see you saved in Eternity with the one who suffered your separation from God for you, as for me. But to the extend that you want to break down the consistency and integrity of our society, fomenting doublemindedness and ease of sinning against one's God, oneself and one's neighbors who have to pay taxes at least, to clean up the spreading grease spots that people make of thier lives, to the extent that by our legal institutions you want to by default promulgate a fallacy that doing harm doesn't really do harm (that there are no bad consequences of the behavior that breaks down socieity) you are my political opponent. To the extent that you want law to condone evil by its shrugging silence, you are against America.
It is simple begging the question to say that the statist, unconstitutional wrongs committed by government in the War on Drugs, for example is reason to throw the moral suasion of law out with the bathwater.
It is also silliness to say that the failures of the prohibition of alcohol (which has a consistent acceptence in society, even as a test of one's self-discipline, to use and not abuse) is proof that we should legalize essentially worthless and harmful practices such as penetration of mens (and boys) anuses with penises (ask proctologists about the harm, not to mention endocrinologists) or shooting horse, etc.
Let's have a sane assessment and perhaps some day, even a pronounced set of findings to this discussion in freerepublic.com. But let's do it based on historical analysis and the use of inner sense and not the reactive resentment of such things, simply because others who react against God's own workings in our history have lately lead to the popularization of essential vice.
(I likely won't ping Mr. R. in this thread anymore --or in others for awhile, now.)
The Christian beliefs are still at the heart of the majority of American people...you can't ignore that...what I will "grant" you is the disgust some feel with the hypocrisy of organized religion and the infiltration of it by "appearance" oriented leftists who would change the structure so they feel "comfortable" attending (ie: Bill & Hitlery).
Christians have not dwindled in number, my FRiend, we are out there, we are every where.
While in some ways I agree with you about decriminalization of things like Marajuna, I disagree with you about taking it to the extent of heorine, crack, etc.....our society already spends enough money supporting crack babies and their strung out mothers in the inner city. If it was just the adults doing it and then crawling off in a corner and overdosing on their excess & stupidity, I'd be all for it, survival of the fittest and thin out the inanely stupid among us. HOWEVER, you know as well as I do, the children are harmed...they didn't even have a choice or a chance. Then society has to deal with a poor child that was born into that world. I suppose that works for the liberals who want to increase their voting base by increasing those that are dependend on some form of government aide, but it doesn't work for me, neither financially, or morally.
Yes, dear unspun is right, we have rules in a civilized society for a reason........to protect us from ourselves.
God help you if I EVER meet you.....I'd deck you so hard for that "ideal" you'd fly across the concrete...children are one of the greatest benefactors of our laws. And by your "ideals" it should be legal for me to do so. It should also be legal for me to beat the crap out of you until you are bloody by your ideals....I mean, why should the governement interfer in my outrage at your saddistic views????
Your ideals are so warped it's not even funny. So, because you believe these things, it leads me to believe you also hang out with these kind of deviants, if you are not one yourself.
Huh? "Christian viciousness"? What are you afraid of? Every President I can recall was a Christian, (at least they professed to be). Same with most Senators and Congressmen, and of course, our Founding Fathers; such as:
Thomas Jefferson: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever"' (from his 1784 book, "Notes on Virginia"). Jefferson also wrote his own version of the Bible in 4 languages, (it's known as "the Jefferson Bible").
John Adams, : "One great advantage of the Christian religion is that it brings the great principle of the law of nature and nations - Love your neighbor as yourself--" (Aug. 14, 1796 entry in his diary).
Samual Adams, who led the colonists in the Boston Tea Party, knew the Bible very well when he quoted the Book of Revelation in a speech: "Revelation assures us that 'Righteoiusness exalteth a nation' - Communities are dealt with in this world by the wise and just Ruler of the Universe"; (letter to John Scollay, dated April 30, 1776).
Patrick Henry: "There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations---Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! - I know not what course others many take, but as for me, give me liberty of give me death"
Benjamin Franklin, quoting Christian Scripure: "I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live the more convincing I see proofs of this truth, - that God governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, (Mathew 10:29), is it probable that an empire can rise withouth His aid?" (from James Madison's notes on the Constitional Convention).
George Washington: "While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Relgion. To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian". (May 2, 1778, Valley Forge rally).
The Supreme Court increasingly dictates that Christianity cannot be displayed or expressed in public places, and they continue to strip away rules that used to govern our morality, such as school prayer, anti-sodomy laws, anti-abortion laws, etc. So in this regard they have already written their own moral code by persistently eroding the existing ones and replacing them with thier own ideas of what American morality should be, (which is really just immorality). Notice that as we move further and further away from Christian moral codes, we are governed more and more by men instead of God.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters,"; Benjamin Franklin. ~~~
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.
