To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (402475 ) 5/3/2003 7:12:00 PM From: Steve Dietrich Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670 <<t will not take the most perceptive reader here to see you’ve simply corrupted goldworldnet’s statement>> Not at all, i'm just pointing out the conflict between his and your take on the rule of law with Henry Hyde's, Lincoln's and all good impeachment supporting republicans everywhere. I re-quote:In 1838, Abraham Lincoln celebrated the rule of law before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, and linked it to the perpetuation of American liberties and American political institutions. Listen to Lincoln, from 1838: "Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of '76 did to support the Declaration of Independence, so the support of the Constitution and laws, let every American pledge his life, his property and his sacred honor. Let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father and to tear the character of his own and his children's liberty. <<that though laws exist that are not enforced, they provide political discouragement of certain roundly denounced behaviors>> Compare this to Lincoln as quoted by Hyde:Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. It's a crime against liberty to not zealously uphold the law, and therefore a crime to have laws on the books which you don't intend to zealously uphold. At least that's what republicans used to say. <<The logic is clear, despite your unsupported claims that it is “bogus.”>> The logic is we condone all that we do not outlaw regardless of how zealously we enforce the law. Therefore we must outlaw all that we don't condone. Mustn't we outlaw the seven deadly sins then? We wouldn't have to imprison people for greed and gluttony, but we send a signal that those things are okay without laws against them. Don't we? <<And Texas is being inconsistent. Santorum is not.>> Actually Santorum is being disingenuous because he's using the Texas law to make his point. But Texas allows bestiality, so how he could possibly argue that without Texas' law against homosexuality that Texas would be condoning bestiality? Steve