Posted on 06/29/2003 11:26:04 AM PDT by Polycarp
"Be" what, perverters of human nature? Conveyors of AIDS? Openly lewd, lascivious pigs? Child molesters? Truck stop and men's room predators? Voyeristic Boyscout troop leaders who leer at the boys? Same-sex Sodomites who play with each others genitals but can't procreate? NAMBLA members who push for man-boy sex? Angry pigs who parade themselves down Main Street each year in drag and throw condoms at Saint Patrick's Cathedral? National sub-culture members who rank number one in suicides, alcoholism, drug addiction, partner abuse and sexually transmitted diseases?
"2... How many people abstain from this sort of behavior simply BECAUSE OF THE LAW AGAINST IT?"
Nobody can ever know that, but the law represents the PEOPLE and their interests, and is based on the moral and physical good for the nation as a whole. How many people refrain from robbing and killing because the law is against it?
"3... Do you really think that putting the two original sex partners in this case in prison (with umpteen thousand other male inmates) is likely to REDUCE their homosexual behavior?"
Prison isn't really designed to reduce behaviors, it's designed to punish bad behaviors and keep dangerous people away from the general population.
Looking for all the "usual suspects" again?
Cripes, blame the society. Politicians go where the people are. Otherwise, they are just ex-politicians.
If you don't like what the politicians are doing (or not doing), look back at the people whose votes put them in office.
This court decision had to with societal forces (such as entropy) well beyond the power of political figures to control.
Why would you expect the government, seated through democratic elections, to do anything else but represent the beliefs, values and desires of those that put them in office.
Your beef is truly with the society that America has become, aiming at the politicians is closing the barn door after the horses have gone, spitting into the wind, and many other cliches (!)
That morality has been driven from the public square and replaced with the relativism that comes from the absolute power of individual choice -- and in the collective, from the tyranny of opinion that rules the majority -- is not because of the politicians. They are merely the whores to the tyranny of opinion. And if society has fallen this far, the politicians will not save it.
Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy were nominated by President Ronald Reagan - a Republican. And who controlled the Senate then?
Justice David Souter was nominated by President George H.W. Bush - a Republican. And our current president's father should have his butt kicked for that error!
Two-thirds of the majority opinion were Republican-appointed! All the more reason to demand that Frist get cahonies and bust the democrat leftist filibustering of conservative judges! What you folks seem to miss is the purposed effort to divide the pubbies and allow the dying democrats to regain some control! Wake up! The real results will come from even larger pubby numbers in House and Senate, and the Senate showing some courage in facing down the damn destructive democrats! Threatening to act in a way that will return control to the societal engineering leftist party of democrats isn't gonna get one damn thing out of the career politician pubbies or democrats. You know why?... Because it fosters the notion that there is no consensus in America so every man should do what is right in his own political survival, which means compromising our national interests to get re-elected locally.
I didn't want to bail, either, but the sad part is that if you don't, nothing will ever change.
Reagan himself had tons of them (as it came out in those court cases) so did Bush Sr.
I'm all for this, but it seems like they are too numerous.
Start your own party. Call it the "Fred Phelps (God hates Fags) Party."
Bet Fred would join, too.
Imperialism put it over the top for me.
I'm gone.
It's worth emphasizing that this decision did not legitimize same-sex marriage or anything else. It only decriminalized same-sex relationships to the same extent as hetero relationships, and these relationship MUST have ALL the following characteristics:
(1) Between (among) full adults,
(2) Entirely voluntary,
(3) Entirely in private,
(4) Non-monetary.
There are still laws on the books that criminalize any relationship - hetero or homo - that lack any one of those characteristics.
Look up "theocracy" in the dictionary and here is what you will find:
2. A state so governed, as the Hebrew commonwealth before it became a kingdom.
Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd edn, unabridged, 1959, p. 2619
No one has proposed "rule by clergy," so your argument is a red herring. We have always had laws intended to support moral order and for a very simple and obvious reason -- only a moral people are fit for self-governance and freedom. This was self-evident to the Founders.
Are you in favor of incest? How about polygamy? Does public indecency appeal to you? Is it ok with you if people parade themselves nude in front of parents and children in public parks? Engage in sexual activity in front of same?
Where do you (personally) draw the line or do you draw the line at all?
Walk into the Supreme Court and look at what's on the wall there. It's a bas relief of Moses handing down the Ten Commandments. Why do you think it's there? Could it be because our system of law ultimately derives from the Judeo-Christian tradition?
You're angry over this ruling, still. You know very well, unlike the goofball who wrote this article, that the "GOP" is not to blame for this decision. You just need a punching bag.
What's next? Start sending nasty e-mails to Charles Rosenthal, the Houston DA who brought the Lawrence case?
The police DID NOT BREAK IN to someone's house and that was no mere neighbor.
The door was unlocked. The "neighbor" was a roommate and homosexual lover of one of the men.
The police did not know that it was a false complaint at the time the call was received. If you want to prohibit the police from responding to 911 calls, then say so.
The caller was sentenced to 30 days in jail and reportedly served 15 (I do not know if he worked off some of his time).
The caller is now dead of an unrelated assault so he won't be giving any interviews.
One article I read said that the police claimed that there was a history of these men making false calls on each other. I still contend that the 3 men conspired to create the circumstance by which they could challenge the law (since overturning the law was the first thing they addressed after being arrested).
Perhaps the other fake phone calls were attempts to lure the police into their trap (and some didn't bite/charge them with homosexual sodomy).
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.