Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Protect Marriage Without Constitutional Amendment
NewsMax.com ^ | Friday, Dec. 26, 2003 | Mike Thompson

Posted on 12/27/2003 3:08:49 PM PST by Federalist 78

In Massachusetts, historic cradle of American liberties, the state Supreme Court has become the contemporary incubator of libertines, decreeing that the Legislature, like it or not, must draft a law to legitimize homosexual coupling.

In Washington, DC, just a few weeks before, the U.S. Supreme Court had set the predicate for the Bay State's perversion of marriage when it decreed that states may not criminalize private and consensual adult homosexual acts.

Such radical departure from the norms of society has provoked an overriding majority of Americans to demand a constitutional amendment or something to undo what the people see as unwarranted and dangerous mischief by a willful gang of sanctimonious judges Hell bent to turn the culture upside down and inside out.

The President and most Republicans in Congress, being ardent heterosexuals and astute politicians, have threatened to push for Constitutional change and affirm unequivocally that marriage is exclusively for a man and a woman. That course of action, however, is no snap to accomplish.

Two-thirds of the House and Senate must agree on the proposed amendment before submitting it to the 50 states, 38 of which must approve the change before it becomes the supreme law of the land.

There is a faster way to neutralize the black-robed troublemakers: Articulate and use a quaint concept called "Popular Sovereignty," serially postulated by philosophers Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and, most importantly, John Locke, and adopted enthusiastically by American colonists.

Popular Sovereignty is the notion, in Thomas Jefferson's words, that the mass of mankind was not born "with saddles on their back, nor a favored few [born] booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God." (The grace-of-God phrase is a swat at the supreme arrogance of monarchy, a boast still found on British coins [Dei gratia, rex, or, if the ruler is a queen, regina.].)

To the contrary, colonial Americans demanded that any government (whether a republic or a monarchy or any other concoction) must recognize that it may rule only with the authority and at the pleasure of the people.

Even residents of tiny, unsophisticated Pittsfield, Massachusetts, expressed that simple idea powerfully in a resolution they passed in May 1776. "The people are the fountain of power," they proclaimed.

"But precisely because men are not so foolish as to risk being devoured by lions, they will not delegate, and the government therefore will not receive [in Locke's words] an 'absolute arbitrary power,' " wrote Georgetown Professor Walter Berns (Taking The Constitution Seriously, Simon and Schuster, 1987).

"The people will want to put bounds or limits to the powers they hand over." That is, the people will establish a constitution that determines, defines and delineates the specific powers and trust they will extend to the lions.

How would the people know if the trust they had given their rulers had been broken, thus allowing the people to rebel within the framework of a constitution?

Locke's words on that subject were quite readily understood and endorsed by the colonists: When rulers ignore settled law in favor of "inconstant, incertain, unknown, and arbitrary government," then the point of rebellion is reached.

Clearly, when it comes to society's understanding of what constitutes marriage today, settled law is severely being ignored in favor of the uncertain, the unknown and the arbitrary. Even devotees of the homosexual agenda would be hard pressed to disagree with this matter-of-fact assessment.

The people's right to rebel within the framework of the U.S. Constitution is tacitly recognized by every member of Congress, for it is the legislative branch, not the judicial and executive, which directly feels the biennial exercise of Popular Sovereignty (called "elections"). If Congress does not act swiftly and decisively on a major issue, Popular Sovereignty will remove unpopular incumbents and replace them appropriately.

Because of John Locke's influence on the drafting of the U.S. Constitution (although he had died 80 years earlier), Congress is "first among equals."

The document's very drafting sequence indicates this priority, for Article I deals with the legislative branch (Articles II and III, with the executive and judicial branches, respectively).

--While the judiciary cannot control Congress, Congress certainly can control the judiciary. In Article 1, Section 8, Congress has the power to create (thus, the implicit power to eliminate) any federal court beneath the Supreme Court. That power is reiterated in Article 3, Section 1. Congress, it would seem, also may remove lower federal judges who subvert Popular Sovereignty by abolishing the judge's court. The Constitution says a judge may hold office during "good behavior" and that his compensation shall not be diminished during "continuance in office." If there's no office to hold, a judge will be back in private practice or teaching at Harvard Law.

--While the Supreme Court cannot control Congress, Congress certainly can control the Supreme Court by denying it the right to hear certain appeals. (Article III, Section 2: ". . . the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make" [emphasis added].)

If it wishes to expedite and underscore its commitment to Popular Sovereignty and fire a massive shot across the bow of unjust and unjustifiable judges, Congress as soon as possible should convene, draft a bill (not a constitutional amendment), pass it, and submit the legislation at once to the President for what likely would be an immediate signature.

Legislation must contain unmistakable language that 1) marriage and any other permanent, two-person sexual union throughout the United States shall be recognized at all levels of government only if the marriage or union is between a biological, natural-born man and a biological, natural-born woman, and 2) the Supreme Court and, arguably, the entire congressionally constituted judiciary may not review the law.

Meantime, in anticipation of the predictable howls by Laurence Tribe, The New York Times, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Michael Jackson, Rosie O'Donnell, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, et alia, White House speechwriters should be ready with an appropriate soundbite or two for President Bush's news conference.

Perhaps he could say something like, "How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?" and, "I am referring all questions to my favorite lawyer, John Locke, who is out of town and not expected back anytime soon."

Mike Thompson is author of Preying In School: How Homosexuals Recruit Your Kids, available from Xulon Press, 1-866-909-2665.

More on Preying in School: The world's first referendum on homosexuality was barely 25 years ago, in sunny Miami-Dade County, where in 1977 Florida's official orange-juice saleswoman (and popular country/gospel singer) Anita Bryant led the voters in a thumping repeal of "gay rights" legislation.

At Anita's side as chief political strategist, debater and advertising man was Mike Thompson, a powerful figure in Republican and conservative politics since the mid-1960s.

Now Thompson has packaged a blockbuster and highly readable book on how homosexual activists have opened a new front in their war to demand society's full approval.

"In the midst of a gay-embracing frenzy by bipartisan politicians, the news media, the entertainment world, academia and the other usual suspects," writes Thompson, "there are nevertheless tens of millions of Americans (the familiar Silent Majority) who don't embrace homosexuality. Indeed, they consider homosexuality to be perverse and adverse personal behavior.

"What most of these parents don't realize is that in addition to naïve educators, there are powerful forces inside their children's public schools who skillfully scheme to intimidate heterosexual students into silence or, worse, recruit them into homosexuality itself."

Thompson then lays out factually the strategies and gross propaganda materials employed nationwide by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, to penetrate classrooms, amazingly, from kindergarten to college level. (GLSEN also organizes after-school sex clubs [Gay-Straight Alliances] that meet on campus to facilitate "safe dating.")

Quoting extensively from the GLSEN-approved study list of special "children's" literature, the author reveals that much of the group's material, if depicted in a movie, would be considered X-rated, obscene and actually constitute child pornography.

Thompson also cites various medical, scientific and criminal-justice sources to debunk a litany of homosexual claims regarding their lives and alleged danger from heterosexuals.

Particularly compelling is a chapter dealing with the need for full disclosure, in which Thompson masterfully compiles chilling numbers on the longevity of homosexuals and the heavy burden of disease, illness and substance abuse inherent in their choosing "a deathstyle, not a lifestyle."

Thompson's multifaceted solution to driving homosexual propaganda out of public schools is both solid and creative, and boils down to this: Parents must demand that schools fight homosexual behavior just as vigorously as they fight alcohol, drugs, reckless driving and other life-threats to our children.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitution; father; fma; gay; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; marriage; marriageamendment; mikethompson; mother; prisoners; protectmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-123 next last
Federalist No. 81 ``The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the SPIRIT of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous. In Britain, the judicial power, in the last resort, resides in the House of Lords, which is a branch of the legislature; and this part of the British government has been imitated in the State constitutions in general. The Parliament of Great Britain, and the legislatures of the several States, can at any time rectify, by law, the exceptionable decisions of their respective courts. But the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United States will be uncontrollable and remediless.'' This, upon examination, will be found to be made up altogether of false reasoning upon misconceived fact.

Insist that Congress remove federal judical jurisdicton from Defense of Marriage Act /Public Law No: 104-199, 342-67 & 85-14 w/Clinton signature and allow each state to choose, or abstain from sodomy.

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Article III, Section 2 - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Sen. Thomas A. Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, used the exception authority of Article III, 2.2 in order to cut some timber in South Dakota.
Reining In the Court - The New American - July 28, 2003 By simple majority vote, Congress could pass an act denying federal jurisdiction over social issues of any kind, such as abortion, pornography, and homosexuality. This would leave the state legislatures free to enact (or, in most cases, re-enact) laws on those matters reflecting the moral consensus of their constituents. This would leave the well-funded leftist network of legal agitators - the ACLU, et al. - without effective recourse, since they would have no access to their longtime allies in the federal judiciary. Rather than use the judicial system as a detour around representative government, the cultural left would have to contend, on equal terms, in state legislatures.

James Madison, His Legacy: Federalist Papers (FEDERALIST No. 51)

But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates

1 posted on 12/27/2003 3:08:50 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
He is correct.

Easiest to have a simple majority vote.

But....the SENATE will turn it into a supermajority of Senators. That is why it MUST be started NOW going into an election year. It would be an awesome way to MAKE Senators stand on the side of angels FOR which of them want to be the one to say "I reject the people's opinion as to what constitute's marriage."

However, Another congress could change it, but with great difficulty.
2 posted on 12/27/2003 3:43:10 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
Bump.
3 posted on 12/27/2003 4:38:26 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
I doubt that a Constitutional Amendment banning nontraditional marriage will ever pass but even if it does it will be repealed within a generation or two. The younger generations overwhelming accept homosexuality. Banning their marriages will only cause the younger generations to rebel and accelerate their acceptance of homosexuality.
4 posted on 12/27/2003 4:52:30 PM PST by LPM1888 (What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts? - Lazarus Long)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
"Two-thirds of the House and Senate must agree on the proposed amendment before submitting it to the 50 states, 38 of which must approve the change before it becomes the supreme law of the land."

38 states already have defense of marriage laws, and the big polls are showing overwhelming support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Our founders put sodomizers to death, and they obviously didn't even imagine that sodomizers would try to legitimize something like marriage between themselves and fight legitimate parents for custody of their children. Our founders would be rallying around this Amendment as we are.

But here's something much more interesting for y'all.

Group formed for gay Libertarians

Outright Libertarians - Issues

Outright Libertarians

Golden Gate Libertarian
Outright Libertarians Support AB205
(California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003)


GayLiberty.org

Ah, heck, just enter "outright libertarians" in a search engine like google.com and follow the gazillion links yourself.
5 posted on 12/27/2003 5:12:44 PM PST by familyop (Essayons - motto of good, stable psychotics with a purpose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LPM1888
I doubt that a Constitutional Amendment banning nontraditional marriage will ever pass but even if it does it will be repealed within a generation or two.

There is no way it would be 'repealed'. A constiutional amendment can only be repealed by another constitutional amendment, and while opinion my shift more in favor, there will never be enough support for a constitutional amendment to allow gay marriages.

6 posted on 12/27/2003 5:14:39 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LPM1888
The younger generations overwhelming accept homosexuality. >>

Then they must be taught differently. The younger generations of Germany in 1930 overwhelmingly accepted antisemitism. That is no longer the case.

Buggery fandom is naught but a fad and can (indeed must) be reversed.
7 posted on 12/27/2003 5:25:49 PM PST by Ronly Bonly Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
while opinion my shift more in favor, there will never be enough support for a constitutional amendment to allow gay marriages.

A recent NY Times poll showed, to the Editorial Board's chagrin, that well OVER half of Americans rejected the idea of homosexual marriage. A large majority also expressed opposition to homosexuality as a lifestyle. This was a total shock to the Old Grey Lady which has been trying mightily to change public opinion in this regard.

If now, after several years of homosexuals on tv shows, in the movies and the tabloids, Americans are STILL not accepting of the lifestyle, I don't think that time will ever come. In fact, the more often homosexuals are portrayed in the media, the less average Americans are accepting of them.

8 posted on 12/27/2003 5:46:47 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ronly Bonly Jones
Then they must be taught differently. The younger generations of Germany in 1930 overwhelmingly accepted antisemitism. That is no longer the case.

Comparing antisemitism and homosexuality will only tend to strengthen the younger generations view of homosexuality as a civil rights vs. bigotry issue.

9 posted on 12/27/2003 6:42:51 PM PST by LPM1888 (What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts? - Lazarus Long)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping - marriage protection from News Max. Haven't read it yet...

Let me know if anyone wants on or off this ping list - just ping me~
10 posted on 12/27/2003 6:43:17 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LPM1888
I doubt that a Constitutional Amendment banning nontraditional marriage will ever pass but even if it does it will be repealed within a generation or two. The younger generations overwhelming accept homosexuality. Banning their marriages will only cause the younger generations to rebel and accelerate their acceptance of homosexuality.

The problem with this argument is that it is akin to telling women not to fight back when someone is trying to rape them, since it's inevitable. If there are no moral absolutes, and the "progression" of societal change is inevitable (social Darwinism), then it is not only futile but wrong to try to stop change. In fact, might as well speed it up and bring on the pedophiles.

Actually, it is the duty of everyone who can distinguish right from wrong to defend what is right and fight what is wrong, not to cave in and accept rape as inevitable.

11 posted on 12/27/2003 6:47:34 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: familyop

38 states already have defense of marriage laws, and the big polls are showing overwhelming support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Our founders put sodomizers to death, and they obviously didn't even imagine that sodomizers would try to legitimize something like marriage between themselves and fight legitimate parents for custody of their children. Our founders would be rallying around this Amendment as we are.

AEI - Publications (written before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act decision of Dec 03, where even J.Kennedy was correct)

Beneath the Supreme Court's many astounding decisions in its 2002-2003 term, and the shifting judicial coalitions that produced those results, runs a unifying basso continuo: Constitutional law, in the sense of judicial decisions that are guided--at least in aspiration--by the text, structure, and logic of the written Constitution, is dead. It has been replaced, often as a matter of explicit doctrine, with subjective judicial impressions of popular sentiment or political utility. Federalist Outlook, The Term the Constitution Died, Michael S. Greve,Friday, July 25, 2003

There is nothing wrong with the U.S. Constitution and nearly everything wrong with the federal judicary. Congress has the cure. They can amputate by removing jurisdiction, or use the guillotine and impeach/remove.

12 posted on 12/27/2003 6:56:53 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LPM1888
Comparing antisemitism and homosexuality will only tend to strengthen the younger generations view of homosexuality as a civil rights vs. bigotry issue.

Try reading some history with "The Pink Swastika" by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Much detail and contemperanous documentation of the intimate connection between homosexuality and the Nazis themselves and their philosophy.

It might be advisable to inform yourself before defending homosexual marriage any more.

13 posted on 12/27/2003 6:57:12 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
There is no way it would be 'repealed'. A constiutional amendment can only be repealed by another constitutional amendment, and while opinion my shift more in favor, there will never be enough support for a constitutional amendment to allow gay marriages.

Only time will tell but, based upon my observations of todays teens and young adults, 90% of them view homosexuality as being normal and acceptable. Within a couple of generations they will be the majority. That majority coupled with homosexuals framing the debate of non-traditional marriage as a civil rights issue will provide strong support for the repeal of any Constitutional Amendment concerning marriage.

14 posted on 12/27/2003 6:57:19 PM PST by LPM1888 (What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts? - Lazarus Long)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78; LPM1888
I just checked out LPM1888's profile page and this is what he/she says about homosexuality, so this explains his/her support of their agenda:

"Homosexuals

Some people seem to fear homosexuals, particularly around children. There are several homosexuals in our extended family and they have never tried to entice or otherwise seduce my children. Certainly some homosexuals have been known to do so but so have straights. I suspect the percentage of pedophiles is the same in each group. Based on sheer numbers that means that there are more straights to be watched closely than gays or lesbians.

I am also firmly convinced that genetics is a major factor in sexual determination. One of my friends who is a lesbian has bodily features that are so obviously male that she alone constitutes a very strong proof of genetic disposition. Anyone she meets knows immediately that she is a lesbian and that she didn't have any choice, she's built like a Mack Truck. I also had a male cousin who was almost a full double cousin (ours fathers were brothers and our mothers are first cousins). On his side, the only genetic lineage we do not share included an uncle who was definitely homosexual and a concert musician. My double cousin was homosexual and he said he never had a desire for a female in his life, he also was an accomplished musician and had a brief career in ballet. I on the other hand am completely straight and tone deaf. Those two people have completely convinced me about the genetic aspects of homosexuality. I am proud to have both of them as family members. "


Note to LPM1888: Just because you FEEL something to be so, based on what your imperfect eyes have seen and then computed with your imperfect (limited) mind, does not make something TRUE. If you really want to know the truth about homosexuality, you need to study. If you don't want to study, that means you don't want to know the truth.

Saying that you "know" homosexuality to be genetic, and to "know" that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals, is like saying that you "know" the sun to really be flat like a plate because that's how it looks to your eyes.
15 posted on 12/27/2003 7:05:02 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LPM1888
You are making several large assumptions to bolster your position, the first of which is that the social liberalism of the young is a static situation that does not change as they wed and produce children.

Secondly, the overwhelming majority of young folks are woefully ill informed no matter the issue. It is high time that this issue is openly debated and all possible ramifications to liberalizing, read redefining, marriage be placed on the table for one and all to ponder upon.

Thirdly, young people, as a rule, don't vote. Whether that is good or bad is up to the individual's to decide but it is none the less true.

16 posted on 12/27/2003 7:07:59 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LPM1888
The comparison of antisemitism and homosexuality is most appropriate.

GenderCentral.com

Am I against the Gay Lobby because, as they would say, I am a hater, a Nazi, an admirer of Hitler? This is unlikely, because my wife was born in the Lida, Poland ghetto, and Nazis murdered her family. Indeed, if I oppose the Gay Lobby, it is precisely because I am deathly afraid of Hitler, and I believe that the Gay Lobby is one of those groups that will play propaganda songs until society falls asleep, and then seize power and destroy people like me. The Gay Lobby, as I see it, is not looking for Gay Rights, they are looking to seize power, like other secular radical groups. Napoleon was one of the most extreme fighters against the French monarchy until he came to power and declared himself Emperor. Rabbi David Eidensohn

UOR protests Reform clergy okay of 'Gay marriage'

April 2, 2000— The Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada (UOR) issued a statement today condemning the latest move by the Reform movement in the United States authorizing "Gay marriages" by Reform clergy.
Speaking for the UOR, Rabbi Yehuda Levin said: "This latest move by the Central Conference of American (Reform) Rabbis (CCAR) proves once again that Reform Judaism is not Judaism at all – it is nothing more than a pathetic parody of Judaism that makes a mockery of the sacrifices of our fathers and grandfathers, who gave their lives AL KIDDUSH HASHEM [in sanctification of His name].
"The Reform clergy does not teach Judaism – what they preach is a trendy version of the latest politically-correct new-age radicalism.
"The Reform clergy does not honor G-D. They openly defy his clearly-expressed commandments, as stated in the Holy Torah (Five Books of Moses). They pervert His Word by twisting His Law to mean the very opposite of what was intended.
"They are arrogant and dishonest. They are rebels against G-D and His people.
"They mislead their flock, who include many decent and well-meaning Jews seeking to find meaning in Judaism. Instead, they are fed a diet of fraudulent liberal hokum.
"If they retain any respect at all for their religious ancestors, they should stop insulting their holy memory by calling this strange new religion 'Judaism' and bringing shame and disrespect, a CHILLUL HASHEM [profanation of His name] , upon G-D's holy people.
"By issuing this statement, we publicly disassociate ourselves from this outrage.
"—May G-D have mercy on the remnant of His people."

 

 

17 posted on 12/27/2003 7:10:44 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
Great article. My $.02 on this issue: this is not an appropriate issue for a Constitutional amendment; any bill Congress passes should not ban gay marriage in every state, but should give states the power not to recognize marriages performed in other states. That way, the whole thing becomes a community standards issue.
18 posted on 12/27/2003 7:24:44 PM PST by ellery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ellery
The problem with your proposal (which theoretically isn't bad) is that the "gay" activists and leaders, as well as their handmaidens in the media and elsewhere, have as their stated goal to remake society. They will not be satisfied with bits and pieces. They want the whole dam* pie. They want marriage not because they are into hearts and flowers, but because they want to destroy the very meaning of marriage and family, and to be able to indoctrinate children into the benefits of same sex acts from early childhood.

Sounds radical, you say? These are their stated goals, not my imagination.
19 posted on 12/27/2003 7:35:45 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
It would be awesome to have 60 or more Republican senators!
Do you think it can happen by 2004? 2008?
20 posted on 12/27/2003 7:38:20 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Try reading some history with "The Pink Swastika" by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Much detail and contemperanous documentation of the intimate connection between homosexuality and the Nazis themselves and their philosophy.

Trying to paint homosexuals as Nazis just because some Nazis were homosexuals is as ridiculous and deceitful as calling all white southerners KKK members just because some members of the KKK were white and from the south. Your attempts to do so are only destroying your credibility and harming your cause.

It might be advisable to inform yourself before defending homosexual marriage any more.

I am not defending homosexual marriage, I am discussing the most probable future result of current trends. For the record, IMO pursuing a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage is a waste of time and political capital.

21 posted on 12/27/2003 7:46:12 PM PST by LPM1888 (What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts? - Lazarus Long)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LPM1888
Comparing antisemitism and homosexuality will only tend to strengthen the younger generations view of homosexuality as a civil rights vs. bigotry issue.>>

Homosexuality and anti-Semitism are both alike in one sense: homosexuality is not really attraction toward men, it is a form of hatred: in particular, hatred of women ('breeders').

Homosexuality is nothing more than an activity avidly chosen, and it requires no more protection than any other chosen sport. Homosexuality is very much a sporting activity, particularly like golf: both involve plaing with balls and sticks and holes, both require that an individual get into ridiculous outfits and go to special reservations to enjoy them, both cost a great deal of money, both distract the practitioner from time better spent with their (opposite sex) spouses. Both are also forms of recreation that are amazingly unattractive to those who do not participate.

The big difference of course is that, lightning strikes and the occasional ravenous allegator aside, people don't die in huge numbers playing golf. I should add one other thing: both golf and homosexuality are ACQUIRED TASTES.

ON a more serious note. Talk about homosexuality being inborn is simply a lie of Satan: it is acquired through repetative masturbatory fixation over a long period of time. And I, and many millions of people like me, have no intention of standing by and letting a bunch of noble nazis in black robes force me to pay for Larry and Curly's divorce fight over ownership of their pink poodle, Moe. We regard the Supreme Court mandating gay marriage (which is coming) as an intolerable act, which shall be slapped down as harshly as possible within the constitutional confines within we live.
22 posted on 12/27/2003 7:47:50 PM PST by Ronly Bonly Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LPM1888
Trying to paint homosexuals as Nazis just because some Nazis were homosexuals is as ridiculous and deceitful as calling all white southerners KKK members just because some members of the KKK were white and from the south.

Actually, pointing out the relationship between homosexuals and Nazism is more like pointing out the relationship between KKK afficiandos and racists.

Not only were a great number of the Nazi elite, as well as much of the rank and file, homosexuals, but their very philosophy was based on a pseudo-mystical mix of racial superiority, phony Teutonic mythology, ersatz "aryan" brotherhood, with a foundation of homo-erotic Greco-militarism.

Add to that connection the Goebbels-like propaganda methods that homosexual activists are shoving down peoples' throats, and utter intolerance (indeed, edging towards criminalization) of legitimate dissent, and VOILA! Homo-fascism.

23 posted on 12/27/2003 7:59:19 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
I'll be back later, bump.
24 posted on 12/27/2003 8:07:26 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

It would be awesome to have 60 or more Republican senators!
Do you think it can happen by 2004? 2008?

The presidential race appears to be a forgone conclusion. Dean is more interested in pulling the nation to the extremely extreme left than winning.

I would be awesome to have 60 senators who understood the U.S. Constitution and upheld their oath of office.

2004? 2008? All depends on:

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion....Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? (Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. - James Madison

 

 

25 posted on 12/27/2003 8:08:26 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Later as in tonight, or later as in another day and another time? Either way, good night and God keep you!


(How's the flu - I hope better!)
26 posted on 12/27/2003 8:10:10 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
The Nazi's used their politics as cultivating grounds for victims and recruits.

The ONLY way to stop this is via constitutional amendment. I am suprised the defeatists are poping up, very convenient. There are 38 states with DOMAs. There is a VERY HIGH political probability that is WILL PASS. This was posted before why duplicate threads? Could it be that the prior thread was positive that the FMA had to be adopted to stop the homosexuals? Could it be that the homosexuals are seeing their efforts to recruit children thwarted?
27 posted on 12/27/2003 8:10:27 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: xzins

That is why it MUST be started NOW going into an election year. It would be an awesome way to MAKE Senators stand on the side of angels FOR which of them want to be the one to say "I reject the people's opinion as to what constitute's marriage."

Nailed it down hard!

28 posted on 12/27/2003 8:16:35 PM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Later as in hopefully tonight - just busy. The flu is going away and I almost feel normal. Still haven't left the house except to get the newspaper.
29 posted on 12/27/2003 8:20:27 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
Mike Thompson is author of "Preying In School":

How Homosexuals Recruit Your Kids,

1-866-909-2665.

30 posted on 12/27/2003 8:22:20 PM PST by GrandMoM (Rejoice Christ is Born!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
True, but some Legislators are too fearful and avoiding offending Phunny Phranks and his Phag Phriends.
31 posted on 12/27/2003 8:22:56 PM PST by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LPM1888
I am not defending homosexual marriage, I am discussing the most probable future result of current trends. For the record, IMO pursuing a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage is a waste of time and political capital.

Your profile and your tagline mentions the facts. If the facts weren't suppressed we wouldn't be having this conversation, but since the facts are suppressed and the media is obviously pro-homosexual in their bias, we need to take drastic measures such as constitutional ammendments to rebut the prevalent pro-homosexual bias.

Some of the facts are that thousands of homosexuals have left the homosexual lifestyle and AIDS targets homosexual behavior. This information is suppressed along with the severe health hazards of the homosexual lifestyle.

For anyone interested:

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links

32 posted on 12/27/2003 8:36:02 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
But the risk of NOT being re-elected is higher for those who do not support normal marriage.

Voting paterns favor conservatives turning out for their beliefs than for leftists. With the Voter News Service numbers FINALLY being exposed it seems the liberals are in FAR more serious problems. Only 17% of america identifies themseves as liberal. The number of conservatives identifyers went up into the high 30's or low 40's.

"liberal" continues to be rejected and the protection of marriage against deviants like homosexuals is a winning issue.
33 posted on 12/27/2003 8:53:16 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
it seems the homosexuals are actually scared of the FMA stopping their agenda. hence the posts opposing the amendment. We must have them on the run.
34 posted on 12/27/2003 9:00:40 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
maybe they just think you're boring, redundant, and irrelevant.
35 posted on 12/27/2003 9:05:26 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78; snopercod; joanie-f; TPartyType; harpseal; redrock; brityank
There is only one Amendment needed at this time, as follows:

The time limit for the Senate to give its advice and consent on all matters proscribed within the body of this Constitution, is thirty days from the instant of the President of the United States making known his nominations and other submissions for such advice and consent under this Constitution. This time limit shall be in effect immediately upon ratification of this Amendment by ...

(so on and so forth).

36 posted on 12/27/2003 9:10:41 PM PST by First_Salute (May God save our democratic-republican government, from a government by judiciary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: breakem; longtermmemmory
Well, well, well - what have we here?

Such profound logic you add to this discussion, break them.

Why don't you trot out some facts, figures, studies or authoritative references the way you usually do? Or is childish invective and silly finger pointing while jumping up and down more to your liking?
37 posted on 12/27/2003 9:25:39 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Well, there are always those old geezer Socratic types around to corrupt the young. You general point is well taken, but certain hard wiring cultural attitudes don't change much as one begins to physically deteriorate from being a 20 something stud. Just look at the massive change in attitudes in this country in our lifetimes regarding race and religion (the latter from a internecine denominational standpoint).

The issue of gay marriage and gay civil unions will either gain traction or fade based on empirical experience. And that is as it should be.

38 posted on 12/27/2003 9:30:59 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LPM1888; little jeremiah
I suspect the percentage of pedophiles is the same in each group.

Unfortunately you suspect incorrectly and have been sold bogus information. Homosexuals, being around 2% (including bisexuals) of the population, account for a third of child molestations. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

There are some here who may whine about the numbers but have nothing to rebut the information at the above links. We've said over and over that we'd stop posting this information if anybody could demonstrate with credible sources the information we post is incorrect. Still, no takers.

39 posted on 12/27/2003 9:35:34 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Some of the facts are that thousands of homosexuals have left the homosexual lifestyle and AIDS targets homosexual behavior. This information is suppressed along with the severe health hazards of the homosexual lifestyle.

Similar claims can be made for tobacco smokers among others. Many people lead risky lifestyles, some for profit, some for entertainment, some for sexual pleasure. Some of those people are injured, killed, or have their health impaired because of their behavior. and sometimes the rest of us end up paying the bill for their behavior. Limiting someones rights because they are a subset of that group isn't a valid excuse for a Constitutional Amendment.

You haven't done anything to support a reason for why people shouldn't be allowed to live their lives as they please. You have only shown that you disapprove of people who have different sexual orientations than the norm. You have also shown that you believe your disapproval of their lifestyle is sufficent grounds to inhibit their pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.

In the long run their rights to those pursuits will prevail. Its only a matter of time.

40 posted on 12/27/2003 9:56:05 PM PST by LPM1888 (What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts? - Lazarus Long)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Some posts that summarize his tactics:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1036631/posts?page=130#130

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1041494/posts?page=160#160

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1042523/posts?page=161#161

41 posted on 12/27/2003 10:02:46 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Since you're resurrecting other posts, you might at least inform the casual reader that you are unable to answer or seemingly to understand basic principles of research and apply them to the material you post ranting against all homosexuals as a group rather then recognize them as individuals.

Let the record show you cannot answer simple questions about the definitions used or the conclusion reached in just 1 article stating that 73% of all homosexuals are child molestors.

Let it be recalled that marriage does not need protection nor is it in danger.

Your protestations about my information because you fail in basic reading comprehention do not constitute a failure on my part to make the point.

I've had my say. Good bye.

42 posted on 12/27/2003 10:10:21 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ronly Bonly Jones
ON a more serious note. Talk about homosexuality being inborn is simply a lie of Satan: it is acquired through repetative masturbatory fixation over a long period of time.

That is the most ridiculous explanation for the cause of homosexuality that I've ever heard. Why would someone want to masturbate over something that didn't bring them sexual pleasure in the first place?

43 posted on 12/27/2003 10:12:35 PM PST by LPM1888 (What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts? - Lazarus Long)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LPM1888
Similar claims can be made for tobacco smokers among others. Many people lead risky lifestyles, some for profit, some for entertainment, some for sexual pleasure. Some of those people are injured, killed, or have their health impaired because of their behavior. and sometimes the rest of us end up paying the bill for their behavior. Limiting someones rights because they are a subset of that group isn't a valid excuse for a Constitutional Amendment.

That's indeed sad. But there aren't any organizations like GLSEN in the schools teaching kids to smoke tobacco. There aren't any television programs celebrating the homosexual lifestyle. There isn't anybody in the schools asking kids, how do you know you wouldn't like smoking if you've never tried it, as we have them asking kids the same question of homosexuality.

You haven't done anything to support a reason for why people shouldn't be allowed to live their lives as they please. You have only shown that you disapprove of people who have different sexual orientations than the norm. You have also shown that you believe your disapproval of their lifestyle is sufficent grounds to inhibit their pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.

You're not listening very well or you're poorly informed. AIDS targets homosexual behavior. That's a fact. AIDS is contagious and deadly and can contaminate the blood supply. When somebody tries to commit suicide we put them on 72 hour watch, so why don't you try to discourage a behavior that results in a deadly contagious disease?

In the long run their rights to those pursuits will prevail. Its only a matter of time.

Not when they try to push it off as some legitimate lifestyle that doesn't harm anybody, because it does. It can affect you and me. It can affect anybody.

There is no scientific evidence supporting any homosexual gene. None. You won't find any as it's all been discredited. All the evidence points to environment. Did you read that? The major factor behind homosexuality is environment. That means homosexuals can change. And the fact that thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle supports the environmental factor. Yeah, we should base rights on a behavior, and a behavior that can change. That's nonsense.

Why do you hate homosexuals so much you don't discourage this behavior that results in a contagious deadly disease?

44 posted on 12/27/2003 10:15:50 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: breakem; Admin Moderator
Stop supporting the homosexual agenda and running.

I've asked you many times to list the study you reference, to show where I've referenced any study that states anything more than 30%, but you run away each time. I've asked you to get specific. To support your statements. You can't and you run away. Stop supporting the homosexual agenda.

45 posted on 12/27/2003 10:20:51 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: scripter
This is another example of your rant and not paying attention. I DON"T SUPPORT THE AGENDA! I deal with issues on an issue by issue basis. I treat people as individuals and recognize their rights as free individuals. I don't put people in a bad light because some of them are extreme. I deal with extremists and leave the others alone.

However, you and your minions don't do that. That's why you are considered fanatics and zealots by many folks here.

You can ask me to be specific all you want. I already did that and you keep ignoring it. In fact your criticism of me that I support the agenda was answered several times by me on the other threads. YOU JUST DON"T GET IT! So I don't know why you repeat the same charge after I explained it several times. What's wrong with you? Do you think if you accuse people often enough it will suddenly be true?

I did say good-bye, but I just want the record clear here so that others can realize the tactics you use to excoriate all homosexuals.

I'm out, You're pathetic!

46 posted on 12/27/2003 10:28:42 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: LPM1888
Similar claims can be made for tobacco smokers among others. Many people lead risky lifestyles, some for profit, some for entertainment, some for sexual pleasure.

Okay, your point is that some people CHOOSE to act in certain ways which are destructive because there' some pleasure involved. So those people therefore may suffer. Where does it follow that such people should enjoy special legal protection, thus allowing them "karma free" enjoyment? People choose poorly, let them take responsibility for their actions.

Some of those people are injured, killed, or have their health impaired because of their behavior.

Take drinking and driving. Such people not only (sometimes) kill themselves, but they kill OTHERS and therefore restrictions are put on such acts that adversely affect other people (i.e. society - which means LOTS of other people.)

and sometimes the rest of us end up paying the bill for their behavior.

If you're such a libertarian, why do you want to take responsibility for other peoples' destructive choices? I sure as he!! don't want to. It is neither right, nor kind.

Limiting someones rights because they are a subset of that group isn't a valid excuse for a Constitutional Amendment.

This statement is gobbledygook posing as rational speech. Whose rights are you talking about? And what rights? I suppose you mean the right of two men or two women to "marry". That is inventing "rights" out of whole cloth. Let's invent some more "rights" - I'd like the "right" to bulldoze my neighbor's house because they were mean to me. I'd like the "right" to make it so that no one will call me stupid or ugly. I'd like the "right" to marry my three cats, etc etc.

(The rest of your statements will be defeated in my next post.)

47 posted on 12/27/2003 10:29:17 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Oh, I missed your flagging the administrator. Daddy, please help me!
48 posted on 12/27/2003 10:29:42 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Why don't you trot out some facts, figures, studies or authoritative references...

It's obvious he has none.

49 posted on 12/27/2003 10:29:47 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: breakem
Pushing the homosexual agenda isn't tolerated. I flag the moderator because you obviously can't support your statements and call us propagandists, and in doing so you support the homosexual agenda.
50 posted on 12/27/2003 10:34:40 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-123 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