Posted on 02/18/2004 9:28:40 AM PST by KantianBurke
LOL :)
No, I didn't. I don't even know what a mitzvot is.
Is a Constitutional Amendment voted on by all the people in a Major election or submitted as a process within the Congress?
If it can be offered nation wide on the same ballot as the Presidential election, several good things could happen. Think of the possibilities:
#1 People are mostly kind of conservative and this gay marriage issue will bring a lot of non voters out to vote in mass in a conservative fashion.
#2 President Bush would benefit as would most local conservative candidates.
#3 Local issues that need conservatives to pass also benefit.
A MAJOR WIN WIN WIN on every level here as I see it if an Amendment could be offered to the public on ballot. (Only if...)
Let the division come. It's time to voice objections to why this man and this man, or this woman and this woman should not 'marry,' or forever hold your peace.
NOTICE ALL......
A newly arrived Republican appointee has pulled references to sexual orientation discrimination off an agency Internet site where government employees can learn about their rights in the workplace. (Washington post.)
(Homoes have, by lawlessness, delared civil war?)
"We want your children, give us your children".
On Sunday, September 19, 1993 I was the guest speaker in San Francisco at Hamilton Square Baptist Church, the pastor is David Innes. I felt like I had been transported inside of Lot's home in the Old Testament city of Sodom.Hundreds of angry and mean-spirited homosexuals converged upon Hamilton Square Baptist Church. Some laid down in the streets in front of the church to block traffic while others trespassed on the church property to bang on the front door and several side doors. They blocked church goers from coming inside.
Donna McIlhenny (wife of Rev. Chuck McIhenny [sic] who pastors the First Orthodox Presbyterian Church in San Francisco) was mobbed by the rioters as she walked into the church. When a homosexual grabbed a hold of her, she had to be rescued and physically pulled from the rioters into the church. Sounds like what happened at Lot's home.
At the beginning of the service during the worship, we could hear the chanting outside. The pounding on the large gothic doors became so intense that I thought they were going to be torn from their hinges. The police told Pastor Innes and myself that they would not arrest the individuals who were breaking the law. These homosexual activists weren't just simply out in front on the sidewalk exercising their 1st Amendment rights. No, they were trespassing on church property, destroying property, inciting a riot and assaulting people who were entering the church.
Dr. Innes reports to me that congregants were pelted by rocks and eggs; the rioters removed the Christian flag from the flagpole, and attached the gay flag under the American flag; landscaping and cement benches were destroyed and the rioters chanted, "We want your children, give us your children". I must honestly tell you I feared for my life and the safety of the church members who were in jeopardy from my presence.
The sergeant in charge told us that the powers that be in San Francisco would not allow him to enforce the law against homosexual activists. In San Francisco, it would be very politically incorrect to arrest these lawbreakers. He said he couldn't and wouldn't protect our religious liberties.
Finally, the riot police arrived, but they did not remove the homosexuals from the property, they merely protected us as we left the church.
San Francisco is not middle America, and 99% percent [sic] of the time that I speak at a church there is not a problem, but this event is writing on the wall as to what happens when the wicked seize a city. And what can happen to our nation when the wicked are in charge.
(The commentary continues at the URL linked above, and at many others, it's all over the web, I just grabbed the first one Google returned. I originally heard this on the radio. They taped it as it was happening, it was blood chilling.)
The media's looking for a "good guy" and a "bad guy" in this story, and any kind of arrest will immediately anoint Newsom as the media's persecuted "good guy". Please remember that most everybody at the editor level was only a kid, or a really young journalist at the time of the 1960's civil rights or 1970's women's rights movements. They've been itching for the chance to recreate their own golden age, nothing since Watergate has made the mass media feel "heroic".
Bush also is well aware that you don't really need a "good guy", as long as you have a sufficiently targetable "bad guy", and he's being quite properly careful to avoid becoming that sinister figure in an election year. I expect him to be a little more to the liking of the folks on this forum after he no longer has a re-election to concern himself with, but he's gotta get through that election first.
A good ambiguous statement like being "troubled" serves his purposes. It helps to bring his opponents into the issue while they're still debating each other (you never know what Al Sharpton will say to get Kerry's goat!) When the President is pressed hard by a crusading journalist, he can certainly respond that he is "troubled" by the way that the SF mayor is going about this, without really breathing fire down on gays at this point. It also lets his supporters know exactly where he stands on the issue.
I know that some of you want Bush to grab an automatic weapon and start shooting at the lines of gays waiting to get into the SF courthouse, but it would trash the whole "compassionate conservative" thing he's been trying to build. If he hadn't been able to successfully sell that idea back in 2000, what do you all think President Gore would have done about MA and SF?
On a more serious note, "compassionate conservative" is just a Rove phrase for "liberal Republican".
That wasn't the sense I got from it when I listened to him. Besides, this isn't so much a judicial issue, it's an executive problem. The Mayor of SFCA is in the state executive branch. Their judicial branch is just going along with the travesty, but they're by no means leading the charge. It's the executive that's doing that, and it would be quite a stretch to infer "the mayor" from the words "the people".
You're right. Two different issues. The main issue is willful dis-obedience of the law by one sworn to uphold the law. And I would include the Mass. supremos as violators. Restore the law the other issue will resolve itself. If not, the 'marriage' issue will be the least of our worries before the year is over.
It's important for the President not to turn Newsom into another Martin Luther King. Better to criticize his actions than to take him into custody. It's possible that a court could just order the SF county employees not to follow the mayor on this, then most of them will quit doing so.
And I would include the Mass. supremos as violators.
They're still acting within the color of law, the way the media sees it. The fact that there are four of them, and not one of them, prevents putting a face up there as the "victim" of Mitt Romney. If Mitt's not careful, he'll end up the "bad guy", but if he doesn't order the state's National Guard contingent to fire on the MA SJC, he should be alright. Upon failing to resolve the gay marriage issue, the constitutional issue of lifetime judicial tenure should have been brought up and voted on. Surely, even those who would vote against a gay marriage amendment in MA are teed off at the SJC for making them do so in an election year. That's working within the system, and it keeps the media from picking heroes and villains.
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.