Skip to comments.
Liz Cheney Would Be Fourth Republican Senator To Back Gay Marriage
Politix ^
| July 17, 2013
| David Mark
Posted on 07/17/2013 1:54:59 PM PDT by BillyBoy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-106 next last
To: DTogo
Where is "marriage" in the Constitution? The ultimate stated purpose of the document:
"To secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity."
If there's no real marriage, there can be no Posterity, much less a Posterity that is Blessed.
To: Amendment10
As you promote the gay agenda throughout freerepublic, just as you are on this thread in defense of Liz Cheney’s candidacy which is titled “”Liz Cheney Would Be Fourth Republican Senator To Back Gay Marriage””, you should know that she is against a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.
Your path to gay marriage is a quick one, your support of the libertarian/leftist agenda is noted, again.
62
posted on
07/17/2013 3:19:30 PM PDT
by
ansel12
( Santorum appeared on CBS and pronounced George Zimmerman guilty of murder, first degree. March-2012)
To: DTogo
What pre-Constitutional legislation regarding/referencing marriage was that, back in 1780? Widow benefits for federal service, legislation added to in years since, 1794, 1798, 1802, and so on.
63
posted on
07/17/2013 3:24:53 PM PDT
by
ansel12
( Santorum appeared on CBS and pronounced George Zimmerman guilty of murder, first degree. March-2012)
To: BillyBoy
USED to LOVE Liz.....but “SAY NO TO LIZ”!!!!!!!!
64
posted on
07/17/2013 3:27:00 PM PDT
by
Ann Archy
(Abortion.....the HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
To: Wellington VII
Noooo, it’s because of her LESBIAN SISTER!! IDIOCY!!! All DECENCY gets TRUMPED if your relative is a DEGENERATE!!!
65
posted on
07/17/2013 3:28:11 PM PDT
by
Ann Archy
(Abortion.....the HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
To: Fiji Hill
geesh... THAT is NEVER going thru...get real.
66
posted on
07/17/2013 3:29:22 PM PDT
by
Ann Archy
(Abortion.....the HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
To: BillyBoy
This is a deal breaker for me. I had defended her earlier in other post, saying she would probably be better than Enzi. I take that back. There is no way I would support her now.
To: ansel12
there is no way that states will be allowed to ignore families that relocate or get transferred there by the federal govt, and military They will continue to get Fed benefits but an non-gay state is under no compulsion to give state benefits.
Besides...the number of gay married people who work for the fed gov't and will be relocated is SO low.
Only 2% of the population is gay...even less are married or will get married (they are notoriously promiscuious) and even less have a federal job that will require relo.
To: BillyBoy
Thanks for posting this.
Any politician who supports gay marriage supports infringing on the first amendment since that freedom is always attacked by gay rights activists.
69
posted on
07/17/2013 3:46:46 PM PDT
by
RginTN
To: longtermmemmory
Just say NOOO!to Liz Cheney. Bob
70
posted on
07/17/2013 3:47:29 PM PDT
by
alstewartfan
("The atmosphere's too cold in here to attract a butterfly like that." Al Stewart)
To: RginTN
bump
cannot believe freepers would go for that
71
posted on
07/17/2013 3:47:51 PM PDT
by
GeronL
To: BillyBoy
She’s toast, I hope...
As much as I’ve liked her as a pundit, the pro-homo marriage does it for me.
What else would she turn on?
Good luck, WY....
To: forgotten man
It sounds like she is a Rubio Conservative. We will find her true colors if and after she is elected.
...when it will be too late.
73
posted on
07/17/2013 3:54:07 PM PDT
by
highball
("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
To: BillyBoy
I love your screen name. It’s the nickname for male prostitutes in the P.I.
74
posted on
07/17/2013 3:55:54 PM PDT
by
rabidralph
(Gray State Movie)
To: ansel12; All
I don’t think that we’re on the same sheet of music.
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I support only traditional one man, one woman marriage. My emphasis for states to regulate marriage is because that’s what California’s legal majoritity voters wanted. It’s only because of pro-gay, PC interpretations of the Equal Protections Clause of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment by activist justices and CA judges that CA still has gay marriage.
Regarding Liz Cheney, again, Mr. Mark’s article wrongly implies that federal government can regulate / define marriage.
To: BillyBoy
I don’t live there but I’d never vote for her.
To: ansel12
What about her position says that she supports gay marriage?
77
posted on
07/17/2013 4:33:29 PM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Inside every liberal and WOD defender is a totalitarian screaming to get out.)
To: GeronL
Not all her beliefs are known. I admit I was taken in. Now I’m a skeptic about LC
78
posted on
07/17/2013 6:14:09 PM PDT
by
RginTN
79
posted on
07/17/2013 6:36:26 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...
Birds of a feather / Partisan Media Shills:
additional:
80
posted on
07/17/2013 6:36:41 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-106 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson