Sodomy statutes – especially in the South and West – were passed in order to otherwise prosecute rapists who (shall we say) didn’t use the front door with their victims. If repeated sexual attacks occurred during the committing of a crime, one could theoretically be charged with both rape and sodomy. One such incident happened in Missouri about 20 years ago, when a woman was gang-raped and the perps were charged with several counts of rape AND sodomy.

Unfortunately, you didn’t wish to discuss the issues and instead asked me to perform something physically impossible – unless, of course, you are adept at doing it yourself.

Now you know why I often insult people such as yourself – because you are petty, pathetic and immature. You are a miserable wretch.

Grow up and grow a pair, OK?

Regards,
Peter H.

“You make me laugh. But only ’cause I think you’re kinda pathetic.”

He asks people to read from the dissent, then when quotes are posted, he shies away from them like roaches from sunlight.
I stick by my inital quote. “You make me laugh. But only ’cause I think you’re kinda pathetic.”

plant feet firmly. reach down. pull head out of ass.

that is all.

Please advise.

Regards,
Peter H.

and even if there were democrats who were intolerant (and there always have been some), what is your point?

I knew you wouldn’t get it. The liberals have given us the most anti-gay laws over the past few years. Let’s pretend that Scalia sided with one. Why does that make him a homophobe and not those liberals?

The fact of the matter is that the GayLeftBorg still orgasms for those liberals. They still throw money and votes at them. They still defend them to the hilt and then deflect their own homophobia on Conservatives and Republicans just to distract the masses they hold in contempt. Not to mention playing the fear card.

Except that wouldn’t be the case, because there are specific things in the Constitution that prohibit that on the basis of race and religion, just to name a few; they’re called “amendments”.

Scalia simply believes in following what’s written in the Constitution, versus the Kevin/Barney Fag method of ignoring what’s written and making things up instead.

Well, Kevin, we’ve already proved above that Scalia practices that very principle of tolerance when hiring the people he is most initimate with 16 hours a day and socializes with a few of the other hours of the week –namely gay and likely-gay law clerks.

But that fact makes it difficult for you to hold on the bitter resentment toward conservative Justices who won’t legislate from the bench to advance, without much political muscle, the gayLeft agenda.

We know from George Bush’s statement that being gay wouldn’t affect his hiring decisions for his first term in office –he said, pointedly shaking his head with a puzzled look when the reporter asked if there were any litmus tests –like being gay– for his executive staff.

Bush, with Veep-designate Cheney and SOS-designate Powell sitting nearby, said there are no litmus tests like that for people working in his Administration.

Like Scalia’s track record, Bush’s strong affirmative statement doesn’t carry any weight with the gayLeft, though… does it?

Care to rephrase your dismissive “yes, right” comment above? Better yet, show us all the proof you have of Scalia’s openly homophobic character that he seems to be able to subvert nicely when hiring his law clerks.

Care to step up to that task, Kevin?

The original post quoted a comment Frank made about Republican campaign tactics and (if you knew more about Frank thank just that he’s a “lefty gay”) you’d know that he is known for humorous quips when the time calls for it. Big difference between that quote from the Globe and his direct comment about Scalia.

Yes, I did read the dissent. Did you? I stand by my original statement. Scalia’s writings could be attributed to any group of people who have laws written that specifically target them, simply because of who they are. According to this tenet, it seems he doens’t believe there is any reason for the courts to be bothered with these issues. Yet another example of a conservative who works in the government, yet seems to hold nothing but contempt for it. I also particularly enjoy the paragraph that begins “I have nothing against homosexuals”. yes, right.

Like a West Hollywood hoodlum, Frank could have used himself and office to set an example to the rest of our community. I’m well aware we’ll never change the minds of anti-gay bigots on both conservative and liberal factions of our society, but it would have given our detractors a lot less ammunition. Much more importantly, setting an example of a distinguished gentleman with a sense of faithfulness to our nation and one partner. Such an example would encourage monogamy among our young and to stick it out for those who are struggling to stay together. Then again it may be too much of ask of Frank since personal responsibility is not in the left wing vernacular.

nowhere does the Court’s opinion declare that h-o-m-o-s-e-x-u-a-l s-o-d-o-m-y is a “fundamental right” under the Due Process Clause; nor does it subject the Texas law to the standard of review that would be appropriate (strict scrutiny) if homosexual sodomy were a “fundamental right.”

Curse those liberals for not protecting it under due process.

Instead the Court simply describes petitioners’ conduct as “an exercise of their liberty”–which it undoubtedly is–

Amazing what happens when you read…