The slippery slope of legalized depravity is real and now being confirmed, even by Time Magazine. The effect of the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas 2003 ruling is far-reaching, just as Senator Santorum and Justice Scalia warned at the time. Jeff Jacoby wrote about it in last Sunday's Globe. Now WorldNetDaily has posted an article.
So look again at our posting yesterday: the list of some of the sick behaviors which will soon be protected by laws barring discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity and expression." Take the warning seriously. This is what's coming our way, unless Massachusetts Bill H1722 is stopped, and the phrase "sexual orientation" is removed from our statutes.
The liberal elite and mainstream media laugh at you and call you names to attempt to silence your warnings. Then, after their filthy plan is in place, a few stories may trickle out from the mainstream media confirming our warnings were right after all. But by then it may be too late to reverse course. Mission accomplished by the forces of depravity.
Time Magazine, "Should Incest Be Legal?" (4-5-07):
When the Supreme Court struck down Texas's law against sodomy in the summer of 2003, in the landmark gay rights case of Lawrence v. Texas, critics warned that its sweeping support of a powerful doctrine of privacy could lead to challenges of state laws that forbade such things as gay marriage and bigamy. "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are ... called into question by today's decision," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, in a withering dissent he read aloud page by page from the bench. It turns out the critics were right. Plaintiffs have made the decision the centerpiece of attempts to defeat state bans on the sale of sex toys in Alabama, polygamy in Utah and adoptions by gay couples in Florida. So far the challenges have been unsuccessful. But plaintiffs are still trying, even using Lawrence to challenge laws against incest....
Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, "Lawful incest may be on its way" (4-2-07):
...Your reaction to the prospect of lawful incest may be "Ugh, gross." But personal repugnance is no replacement for moral standards. For more than 3,000 years, a code of conduct stretching back to Sinai has kept incest unconditionally beyond the pale. If sexual morality is jettisoned as a legitimate basis for legislation, personal opinion and cultural fashion are all that will remain. "Should Incest Be Legal?" Time asks. Over time, expect more and more people to answer yes.
WorldNetDaily: "Court ruling does support incest, polygamy; Time admits critics of 'gay' rights decision were right" (4-8-07):
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the Texas law "demeans" the lives of homosexuals. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," Kennedy wrote.
At the time of the 2003 decision, Time, in its "A Yea for Gays," said, "Lawrence v. Texas turns an issue that states have historically decided for themselves into a basic constitutional tenet."
"The decision was not, strictly speaking, a 'liberal' one," the magazine said then, noting, "Thus the activists' notion that gay marriage is an inevitable outcome of the ruling may be little more than wishful thinking."
The magazine also at that time questioned whether there even was a "culture war" that would involve moral issues. "It is clear … that the court has taken sides in the culture war,' Justice Antonin Scalia wrote last week in his abrasive dissent from the Supreme Court's decision to decriminalize homosexuality. Excuse me, but what culture War?" the magazine wrote.
"Most Americans aren't extremists, and they are not at war. The lovely paradox of 21st century America is that we seem to be increasingly united by the celebration of our differences. That is what the Supreme Court acknowledged in its decisions on homosexuality and affirmative action last week," the magazine wrote then.
