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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 561-564 next last
To: aristeides
As Frum says, we're lucky to have a man named Thomas on the high court. What Justice Thomas said regaridng the Lwrence case was so very precisely right, (paraphrasing) 'the Texas law was silly'. Had Texas banned all sodomy regardless of sexual proclivities, er, excuse me--that no longer works to define homo degeneracy, I mean regardless of sex of the participating parties, sodomy would continue to be bannable and the idiocy of defining a group of people for special legal status based on their professed sexual proclivities chosen voluntarily would not have become an issue to be rule in fiat fashion by an activist, societal engineering court. But you know what?... The degenerate homosexual agenda was seeking every state to find just such a set up as the Lawrence case over which to drag this nation into the gutter via a SCOTUS fiat ruling. And the degenerates of homosexual definition succeeded.
41 posted on 06/29/2003 12:19:26 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
"The majority of people in this country do not wish to live under a theocracy. The Republicans know this."

Living with laws that reflect Christian morals and values is infinitely different than living in a theocracy, where the rulers are unelected tyrant clerics and heirarchical leaders within a particular religion. America did just fine, thank you, for nearly 200 years, living under our Constitution and in basic accordance with sound Christian values. It wasn't until the 1960's that Christian norms, morals and values began to get overthrown and undermined by the Courts. Abolishing school prayer, legalizing abortion, granting 'minority status' and special rights to sexual perverts, allowing for divorce-on-a-whim, and the plethora of other illogical, anti-Christian sewage that became case law through the Courts. The way I see it, either Christians unite and take back what God gave us by voting out the liberals and phoney "conservatives", or else get used to the rancid stench of perversion that is rapidly permeating our society.

42 posted on 06/29/2003 12:20:00 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
The majority of people in this country do not wish to live under a theocracy.

Hey bozo -- is that what we had for the first 180 years of our existence as a republic until the Supreme court decided that everyone had a right to pornography, abortion, and sodomy? Of course not. The "theocracy" argument is a completely specious canard. You should be ashamed of yourself.
43 posted on 06/29/2003 12:20:03 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp; unspun; TheRightGuy; Chi-townChief; Dengar01; Notforprophet; cherry_bomb88; JustPiper; ...
VERY interesting and thought provoking.for your reading pleasure or Displeasure!
44 posted on 06/29/2003 12:20:47 PM PDT by chicagolady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
WHAT!!?!?!? Moses handing down the Ten Commandments on the wall of the Supreme Court???!!!

That needs to be removed immediately!!!

Seperation of Church and State!!!

45 posted on 06/29/2003 12:21:43 PM PDT by Cap'n Crunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Supporting a third party outside of the Republican Party would only take badly-needed votes away from the Republican Party. We all saw how the Green Party managed to sap Al Gore's election efforts very effectively. What we don't need is a third party stealing votes and seats all over the country.
46 posted on 06/29/2003 12:23:19 PM PDT by HigherMoralAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
Would the nation's drug laws have been overturned if the 2 men had been caught smoking marijuana that they raised at home instead?

They're just gonna do it anyway. Yhe laws don't prevent them from engaging in the act.

The guards in jail sell contraband pot so they can still get high in prison.

47 posted on 06/29/2003 12:25:20 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
http://www.sodomylaws.org/history/history03.htm
Criminal Sodomy Statutes in Effect in 1791

”The proscription of sodomy in the English tradition began in 1533 when King Henry VIII adopted contemporary church doctrine into a system of laws at the time of the English withdrawal from the Catholic Church. Sodomy became both a sin and a crime, since ecclesiastical law recognizes no distinction between the concepts of "sin" and "crime." Sodomy included any form of non-procreative acts including masturbation, oral and anal sex.

”...stated by the Kansas Supreme Court in a 1925 sodomy case, sum up the historical attitude of the Anglo-American legal system toward non-procreative eroticism. The psychological discomfort of repressed or moralistic individuals from centuries before created a jurisprudence relegating the enjoyment of non-procreative physical intimacy to the status of criminality. Those forefathers’ attitudes control our legal system today. When the issue of the constitutionality of laws outlawing consensual sodomy was brought before the United States Supreme Court in 1986, nearly 200 years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, Justice Byron White’s opinion upholding the laws referred to "the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time."1 In addition, criminal penalties for sodomy "have ancient roots."2 Sodomy was a crime at common law.3

My Father, dead some 25 years, must be rolling over in his grave at the SCOTUS’s decision. However where that sainted man never lost his innocence, his children though taught better, lost theirs in their young adulthoods with Hollywood scandals; lewd stories in news papers and in books and livelier communication among nations and cultures. His grandchildren never had a chance to experience the softness of simplicity, trustfulness and naïveté of just being a good citizen knowing right from wrong. Puerility has been denied them through their schools, churches, all guilty of social engineering 'to make the world a better place'. Today parents are striving to take back some of the lost innocence and lost education by home schooling, protecting their young from an ever increasingly tasteless and immoral world and a government that panders for votes and money from special interests outside the moral teachings.

Be that as it is, the states that had the Sodomy Laws on their books and did nothing in the recent past to act upon that law; the law has become innocuous as should be removed and perhaps re-written to make passing on AIDS and other diseases brought about by same sex partners, a crime against society and punishable under new laws designed to bring at least a modicum of morality. We can thank Bill Clinton’s well-publicized sexual conduct and his pandering for votes for the ‘90s plunge into true Sodom & Gomorrah for our young people to emulate.

Place the blame on liberal thinking, teaching, government, political correctness and a general apathy to stop pornography, adulation of skimpy clothes in inappropriate places and a dozen other things that come to mind - BUT don't place the blame on the GOP - the SCOUSA merely did their job; if anyone doesn't like it, then you should have paid attention long before this.

48 posted on 06/29/2003 12:26:26 PM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HigherMoralAuthority
What we don't need is a third party stealing votes and seats all over the country.

There won't be. As long as there is a terrorist menace, Americans are not going to turn the executive branch over to a bunch who can't get anything done in Congress.

49 posted on 06/29/2003 12:26:41 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast
"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."

Get off the soap box. How many politicians promise one thing, get elected, and then deliver something completely different? Such as Bill Clinton, who promised to make abortion, "safe, legal, and "rare". Well that scumbag had the chance to sign legislation making partial birth aborition illegal, but he vetoed it. So much for the "rare" part of his pledge. Nixon promised "peace with honor" and gave us peace with humiliation. George Bush senior talked incessantly of nominating a conservative Supreme Court Justice, and gave us David Souter, (barf). These are only a few examples of how we all get the shaft by the politicians, even when we do vote them out. They just get replaced by other snakes.

50 posted on 06/29/2003 12:27:22 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: weegee
The caller is now dead of an unrelated assault so he won't be giving any interviews.

Unrelated assault is probably another gay man murdered him, or a boy prostitute.

They knew O'Connor would go for this. That's why they brought it up now.

51 posted on 06/29/2003 12:28:13 PM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
The privacy cited by the court would have still overturned the sodomy law in Texas even if it applied to mixed sex couples. You'll notice that all states' (homosexual and heterosexual sodomy) statutes have been struck down by this ruling.

It was the job of the Texas legislature to dump the law that most people seemed to believe was "dumb" but few were willing to prove that belief by trying to pass a bill to decriminalize it.

52 posted on 06/29/2003 12:28:38 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: squidly
"The only thing you'll change is the balance of power..."

Let's get real!
This old song and dance is getting old.
We staunch Conservatives who have been betrayed by George Bush are getting tired of the fear platitudes coming from the GOP.
In truth, there is not a great deal of difference in the two major political parties, and until vast numbers of Republicans begin to break ranks and look for something better, nothing will change.

53 posted on 06/29/2003 12:28:49 PM PDT by TexasCowboy (COB1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
All three opposed were Republican appointees. No Democrat opposed it.

There are 7 justices that were appointed by Republicans of those 4 voted for it which gives a 57% for by Republican appointees.

There are 2 justices (Ginsburg and Breyer) which voted for it which gives 100% of Democrat appointees for it.

Does anyone seriously believe that the Republicans would score worse in this area than the Democrats. The Democrats have openly courted the gay vote since at least the 70's. Al Gore as VP openly applauded Ellen Degenerous first openly primetime Gay show. There is just no comparison on the subject.

54 posted on 06/29/2003 12:29:27 PM PDT by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
The objection conservatives have is not to the end result of the decision, but the foundations they used for that decision. They chose a freedom that hasn't been specified to base this upon. That's OK, based on the 9th amendment:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

However, this effectively nullified the 10th amendment:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Using the logic in this decision, one could justify stealing cable TV access, incest, using cocaine, and most any other formerly illegal act. It's not a stretch to say the identical process would apply to these behaviors.
55 posted on 06/29/2003 12:30:32 PM PDT by gitmo (What's in the Constitution isn't. And vice-versa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rogerthedodger
"not to mention the strong marriage practices of the Germanic and Keltic peoples, which predated the introduction of Christianity in the West."

Strong marriage practices have always benefitted society, Christian and otherwise. What does it benefit any civilized culture to have men and women running around procreating with a partner, dumping them, and running around to another partner, and another? It only fosters jealousy, lust, resentment, and a horrible instability in the family, the villiage, and the nation.

56 posted on 06/29/2003 12:32:15 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Chuck Rosenthal put up a passive defense of this law. Living in Houston, I've heard Chuck on a number of interviews on tv and radio. I seem to recall him saying that he wouldn't be bothered if the law was overturned but that since the law existed he had to prosecute the men as charged (ergo the case existed to overturn the law).

Chuck has sounded like a RINO to me in some interviews.

There was a lengthy interview with him on KSEV on the Mike Richards' show that I only got to hear a few minutes of. I was riding around with my dad and he didn't want to listen to all the graphic details of 2 men engaged in anal sodomy so he changed the station.

Maybe someone could point me to a transcript of Chuck's lengthy discussion of the case.

57 posted on 06/29/2003 12:33:31 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TexasCowboy
"In truth, there is not a great deal of difference in the two major political parties, and until vast numbers of Republicans begin to break ranks and look for something better, nothing will change."

You are correct, there isn't a lot of difference. But if you think splitting up the right side of the electorate will change things for the better, I think you're terribly mistaken.
58 posted on 06/29/2003 12:35:08 PM PDT by squidly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp; Ff--150; 4ConservativeJustices; stainlessbanner; pubmom; Constitution Day; Howlin
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.

Check

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".

Check

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.

Check

Every four years without fail, Christians are bamboozled into believing that their beloved Republican Party will restore this nation to its Christian heritage.

Check

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.

Check. And what do we get for it? A more liberal, larger government. And yet this past election the mantra 'we have to win back the Senate' was used. As if it mattered. And the Republican party will continue this move to the left to gain those extra votes until they realize that Christians will stand on their principles and vote for a third party. When is it going to be enough? When will we cast that all important vote for yet another power hungry, gun grabbing nanny CINO with a R beside their name that we begin the return to a Federal Constitutional Republic?

59 posted on 06/29/2003 12:36:32 PM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband
The only way I even found out that he was dead (of assault) was a google search I did that matched up his name with a police request for more information to solve his murder.

The story of how this case came to be does not get told in the press. Any time you hear about doors being busted down, you are in for the liberal spin.

Some articles have even claimed that the "neighbor" who called was an evil homophobe. Some gaypress articles even got his name wrong.

No one has mentioned that the caller is now dead. Seems odd to me, such a "front page" news story and yet the particulars never see print.

60 posted on 06/29/2003 12:37:19 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 561-564 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