Hmmm. "Religion has nothing to do with it"?

[Tigermike 3,052]

Pryor, under no obligation to do so, submits an amicus curiae to the court defending the law that criminalizes consensual homosexual sodomy. In his amicus he says, "Texas is hardly alone in concluding that homosexual sodomy may have

severe physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual consequences, which do not necessarily attend heterosexual sodomy, and from which Texas’s citizens

need to be protected."

Heterosexuals can legally do it. Homosexuals cannot. The "it," in this case, is the same act.

158103[/snapback]

Is he the only Attorney General from any state to ever enter a case and submit an amicus curiae?

You know as well as anyone that cases in TX, NY, CAL can and do affect the state of Alabama. It didn't bother you when the atheist from California filed suit in Alabama did it?

Heterosexuals can legally do it. Homosexuals cannot. The "it," in this case, is the same act.

158103[/snapback]

To borrow a line from TexasTiger, that is not the only lie you have told today is it? If that is the case, why are heterosexuals charged and convicted of sodomy almost daily?

Point of reference. Several weeks ago I was summoned for jury duty. Since I believe in doing the right thing in all areas, I decided to not do anything to get out of serving. I was selected to be a juror in a rape trial (man on woman). The defendant was charged with 1st degree rape, 1st degree sodomy , burglary, kidnapping and grand theft. I know it will surprise you but your neo con buddy Tigermike was selected as jury foreman. The young man was found guilty of all charges. That kind of disproves your statement that, "Heterosexuals can legally do it. Homosexuals cannot" doesn't it?

[Tiger Al 0]

That kind of disproves your statement that, "Heterosexuals can legally do it. Homosexuals cannot" doesn't it?

Nice try, Tigermike. You're not talking about a CONSENTING adult are you? Heterosexual sex is perfectly legal until you force someone to do it. Then, we call it a crime. Sodomy is perfectly legal until you force someone to do it. That becomes a crime, also.

Is he the only Attorney General from any state to ever enter a case and submit an amicus curiae?

You know as well as anyone that cases in TX, NY, CAL can and do affect the state of Alabama.

In this case, it really didn't affect Alabama. Our law calls sodomy between either two men or a man and a woman a crime. The Texas statute only calls sodomy between two men illegal. But, either way, only someone hostile to homosexuals would involve themselves in trying to uphold a law that criminalizes what two men do in the privacy of their home.

I know it will surprise you but your neo con buddy Tigermike was selected as jury foreman.

No. In Alabama, you were probably considered one of the more liberal jurors.

[Tigermike 3,052]

That kind of disproves your statement that, "Heterosexuals can legally do it. Homosexuals cannot" doesn't it?

Nice try, Tigermike. You're not talking about a CONSENTING adult are you? Heterosexual sex is perfectly legal until you force someone to do it. Then, we call it a crime. Sodomy is perfectly legal until you force someone to do it. That becomes a crime, also.

Is he the only Attorney General from any state to ever enter a case and submit an amicus curiae?

You know as well as anyone that cases in TX, NY, CAL can and do affect the state of Alabama.

In this case, it really didn't affect Alabama. Our law calls sodomy between either two men or a man and a woman a crime. The Texas statute only calls sodomy between two men illegal. But, either way, only someone hostile to homosexuals would involve themselves in trying to uphold a law that criminalizes what two men do in the privacy of their home.

158171[/snapback]

With his amicus he was arguing a states rights issue, which I am sure you are aware of.

Just as he was arguing an interstate commerce issue in the Violence Against Women Act.

But those facts have little bearing on the coordinated smear campaign from the DNC.

[Tiger Al 0]

With his amicus he was arguing a states rights issue, which I am sure you are aware of.

No, he was arguing that sex between two men wasn't a right guaranteed under the US Constitution, as the plaintiff, Lawrence, maintained it was. Nobody bought Pryor's argument.

[Tigermike 3,052]

With his amicus he was arguing a states rights issue, which I am sure you are aware of.

No, he was arguing that sex between two men wasn't a right guaranteed under the US Constitution, as the plaintiff, Lawrence, maintained it was. Nobody bought Pryor's argument.

158176[/snapback]

And as you know, there are/were other considerations in the amicus.

The Texas law “does not criminalize petitioners’ sexual orientation, which may or may not be a matter of choice,” Pryor wrote in his brief. “Rather, the Texas anti-sodomy statute criminalizes petitioner’s sexual activity, which is indisputably a matter of choice.”

Granting a constitutional right to choose one’s partner and whether or how to “connect sexually,” Pryor wrote, “must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia (if the child should credibly claim to be ‘willing’

http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usnews131.htm

Principle v. Expediency

by George Grant

If he wasn’t one of my heroes before, he certainly is now. William Pryor, the Alabama state attorney general who has been nominated by President Bush to a seat on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, put on an extraordinary demonstration of courage, tenacity, and integrity this month in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Facing the bitterly divided Senate Judiciary Committee, he threw caution to the wind and actually told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It was quite frankly, a rare feat that left Senators on both sides of the aisle more than a little stunned.

Nominees are supposed to waffle. They are supposed to say whatever they need to say to get the confirmation nod. They are supposed to explain away all their previous blunt statements, strong opinions, or unpopular rulings. In other words, they are supposed to toss out principle for the sake of expediency.

Somehow, Bill Pryor didn’t get the memo.

A vigorous opponent of abortion throughout his career, he has on more than one occasion said some very politically-incorrect things about abortion. Once he went so far as to call the Roe v. Wade decision "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law." Forget about the fact that he was absolutely right; you’d think he would soften his stance as he faced his confirmation foes. Not Bill Pryor.

At the very beginning of the confirmation hearing, New York Democrat Charles Schumer quoted the infamous "abomination" quote and asked, "Do you believe that now?"

Any other nominee would have taken that as his cue to start explaining, excusing, and backpedaling. But Bill Pryor is not any other nominee. Instead, of seizing the opportunity to wiggle out of the truth, he embraced it. He simply nodded and said, "I do."

Along with everyone else in the room, Schumer looked up dumbfounded. Had he heard right? There was a long, uncomfortable silence as he tried to process this unexpected straightforward response. Finally, the senator was able to stammer, "Well, I appreciate your candor. I really do."

A few moments later, Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter tried to give Pryor a second chance--as if he somehow had misunderstood before. Had he really said such a thing? Specter asked, “Was the 'abomination' quote accurate?”

“Yes,” Pryor answered, “the quote is accurate.”

Again, stunned silence. You have to understand, in Washington, no one is used to such unapologetic honesty. Specter tried yet again, “So, do you stand by those words?”

You have to wonder, what part of "yes" was it that these senators found so difficult to understand?

"I do indeed stand by that comment," Pryor said. "I believe that not only is Roe unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it has led to a morally wrong result. It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children."

Specter was left speechless. "Umm, uh, well," he said, pausing for a moment and looking down, "let's move on then."

And of course, as Byron York of the National Review later reported, "There were plenty of other Pryor statements to move on to." There was the time for instance that he said that with Roe, the Supreme Court had created "out of thin air a constitutional right to murder an unborn child." And then there was the remark that he "will never forget January 22, 1973, the day seven members of our highest Court ripped up the Constitution."

Given more opportunities to back away from his words, Pryor again and again declined. "I believe that abortion is the taking of human life," he explained when committee chairman Orrin Hatch asked him about his comments. "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."

At that point, York acknowledged that a number of White House strategists and confirmation observers, "while impressed with Pryor's candor, wondered what was going on." Who is this guy? What does he think he is doing? Is he suicidal? Is he deliberately trying to derail the President's judicial agenda?

Isn’t it amazing that in Washington, honesty, integrity, and principle bear all the hallmarks of political suicide these days? And it's not just the "bad guys." The entire political culture has become allergic to virtue. It appears that the very things that our Founders might have demanded as prerequisites for public service now actually disqualify men from serving at all.

http://polemics.us/archives/000340.php

[Tiger Al 0]

These were the two questions he presented.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Does the United States Constitution protect the

right to engage in homosexual sodomy?

2. Does the United States Constitution forbid the

States to make legal classifications based on a person’s

choice to engage in sexual activity with another person of

the same sex?

While he says that it doesn't criminalize their sexual orientation, by criminalizing their actions the net result is the same.

Putting aside the 1st amendment for a moment, if these people were in their home having a Bible study and were arrested for it, Pryor's argument would be that, while it isn't illegal to BE a Christian, it is illegal for them to go to church, have Bible studies in the privacy of their home or to even say a prayer before a meal. The net result would be that Christianity is illegal.

[Tigermike 3,052]

The net result would be that Christianity is illegal.

158184[/snapback]

Libs have been pushing in that direction for years.

[Tiger Al 0]

The net result would be that Christianity is illegal.

158184[/snapback]

Libs have been pushing in that direction for years.

158186[/snapback]

But, according to Pryor's logic, it wouldn't. Only praying, going to church, reading/possessing the Bible, witnessing, etc. would be illegal. And, only someone hostile to religion would try to make that argument, as would someone hostile to homosexuality make the argument that he made.

Which brings us back to where we started, which was your assertion that Pryor is being unjustly discriminated against on religious grounds, and my assertion that he's being opposed by the Democrats because of his radical, deeply felt, right-wing ideology.

[Tigermike 3,052]

Which brings us back to where we started, which was your assertion that Pryor is being unjustly discriminated against on religious grounds, and my assertion that he's being opposed by the Democrats because of his radical, deeply felt, right-wing ideology.

158198[/snapback]

No I have been saying that Pryor is being unjustly criticized and kept from a job he is qualified for by the extremist left wing ideology of the Democrats. You/they say he would be unable to make clear, fair and honest judicial decisions because of his "deeply held beliefs". But on the other hand we should all believe that the liberal dems would always disregard their own "deeply held beliefs".

[Tiger Al 0]

Which brings us back to where we started, which was your assertion that Pryor is being unjustly discriminated against on religious grounds, and my assertion that he's being opposed by the Democrats because of his radical, deeply felt, right-wing ideology.

158198[/snapback]

No I have been saying that Pryor is being unjustly criticized and kept from a job he is qualified for by the extremist left wing ideology of the Democrats. You/they say he would be unable to make clear, fair and honest judicial decisions because of his "deeply held beliefs". But on the other hand we should all believe that the liberal dems would always disregard their own "deeply held beliefs".

158205[/snapback]

Oh...well then I guess I completely misunderstood what you meant when you said, "Anyone with half a brain knows Feinstein was lying through her teeth when she made that statement. Anyone with that same half brain also knows what Schumer was saying," or when you said, "Because they are Christians they should not be allowed jobs they have worked for all their lives."

When they were saying that they weren't basing their opposition to him on the fact that he's a Christian and you disagreed by saying, "You know he is, but you like the Dems you feel compelled to defend would never ever admit to a religious litmus test would you," I made the leap to believe that you thought they WERE, in fact, opposing him because of his religious preference.

You've done what is called a "bait and switch."

I have been saying that Pryor is being unjustly criticized and kept from a job he is qualified for

And you've maintained throughout this whole thread that the reason he's being kept from the job is because Feinstein, Schumer and the Democrats don't like his deeply held religious beliefs. In other words, they're discriminating against him on religious grounds. You've injected religion, much like Jesse Jackson injects race, into something where there was no religious discrimination based on statements that you decided meant what they did not.

[Tigermike 3,052]

No Al, it has been an exercise in you doing your best to prove that Schumer didn't mean exactly what he said and that Feinstein wasn't covering up.

[Tiger Al 0]

No Al, it has been an exercise in you doing your best to prove that Schumer didn't mean exactly what he said and that Feinstein wasn't covering up.

158221[/snapback]

OK, thanks for clearing that up. That mountain of evidence you provided was a little too much for me to overcome, I guess.

[WarTim 3,457]

"hitlary worship is the last refuge of liberals" WarTim 5-2-05

[Tiger Al 0]

"hitlary worship is the last refuge of liberals"    WarTim  5-2-05

158243[/snapback]

Do hallucinations accompany your dementia?

[Tigermike 3,052]

No Al, it has been an exercise in you doing your best to prove that Schumer didn't mean exactly what he said and that Feinstein wasn't covering up.

158221[/snapback]

OK, thanks for clearing that up. That mountain of evidence you provided was a little too much for me to overcome, I guess.

158237[/snapback]

As I said before, given the radical, extremist left wing groups arrayed against Mr. Pryor, it is easy for me to come to the conclusion that he is probably right and correct in his legal work. And that he would make a very good judge.

And that mountain of evidence you provided from the aforementioned groups should make a huge difference?

[Tiger Al 0]

Yeah, OK. Thanks, Mike.

[WarTim 3,457]

The net result would be that Christianity is illegal.

158184[/snapback]

Libs have been pushing in that direction for years.

158186[/snapback]

But, according to Pryor's logic, it wouldn't. Only praying, going to church, reading/possessing the Bible, witnessing, etc. would be illegal. And, only someone hostile to religion would try to make that argument, as would someone hostile to homosexuality make the argument that he made.

Which brings us back to where we started, which was your assertion that Pryor is being unjustly discriminated against on religious grounds, and my assertion that he's being opposed by the Democrats because of his radical, deeply felt, right-wing ideology.

158198[/snapback]

IF you are correct, in the future, would Conservatives be justified in NOT voting for any liberal because of their lack of same religious convictions?

[Tiger Al 0]

The net result would be that Christianity is illegal.

158184[/snapback]

Libs have been pushing in that direction for years.

158186[/snapback]

But, according to Pryor's logic, it wouldn't. Only praying, going to church, reading/possessing the Bible, witnessing, etc. would be illegal. And, only someone hostile to religion would try to make that argument, as would someone hostile to homosexuality make the argument that he made.

Which brings us back to where we started, which was your assertion that Pryor is being unjustly discriminated against on religious grounds, and my assertion that he's being opposed by the Democrats because of his radical, deeply felt, right-wing ideology.

158198[/snapback]

IF you are correct, in the future, would Conservatives be justified in NOT voting for any liberal because of their lack of same religious convictions?

158261[/snapback]

Be a good boy and go outside and play. The adults are talking right now.

[WarTim 3,457]

Nothing to say eh? It is easy to tell when you win an arguement with a libby. They begin name calling and attempts at humor.

Thanks for the mild competition.

[Piglet 0]

Nothing to say eh? It is easy to tell when you win an arguement with a libby. They begin name calling and attempts at humor.

158338[/snapback]

...and thereby Tim defines himself, TrueBlue, etc., as "libbies". Who knew?