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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Puts Gay Marriage On Hold In Utah
foxnews.com ^ | January 6, 2014 | Fox News

Posted on 01/06/2014 7:55:17 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg

The Supreme Court has put gay marriage on hold in Utah. The high court on Monday granted the state a stay in their same-sex marriage challenge. The decision comes after a federal judge last month ruled in favor of gay marriage.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: alreadyposted; culture; family; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; lavendermafia; marriage; scotus; ssm; ussc; utah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last
Court halts same-sex "marriage" until appeals court can hear case.
1 posted on 01/06/2014 7:55:17 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

Rats, I was hoping HBO would do a sequel of ‘Big Love’ with ‘brother wives’.


2 posted on 01/06/2014 7:57:09 AM PST by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

I am very surprised.


3 posted on 01/06/2014 8:02:07 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

This could be a case which ultimately goes to the Supreme Court, and have that Court decide there is indeed a constitutional right to homosexual marriage.

Remember, last year’s cases on marriage did not result in a ruling that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. In fact, while last year’s case overturned the federal defense of marriage act, a key part of the ruling was that the states, not the federal government, are the governmental entities which will define marriage.

I know that the liberals, in their headlong rush to embrace homosexual marriage, don’t always understand these legal distinctions. But, legally speaking, as of today, states have the right to define marriage.

Of course, we know the liberals want to see 50 state homosexual marriage, and they may get it by Supreme Court ruling at some point. I’m just thinking about the legal reasoning which would be needed for the courts to come to that conclusion. As of today, there is nothing in federal law which deals with this whole area of sexual identity/sexual orientation. Thus, the LGBT peoples, in spite of liberal thought, are not a protected class under federal civil rights laws.

So, the courts have to be creative and make up the law as they go along, if they are going to conclude that the state of Utah has no right to define marriage, when last year’s case indicated that the states, not the federal government, have the power to define marriage.


4 posted on 01/06/2014 8:03:20 AM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Very surprising, was it Sotomayor alone or the whole court?

Freegards


5 posted on 01/06/2014 8:06:48 AM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Kennedy’s last year revealed him to be an ideologue and not a Supreme Court Justice who is faithful to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.


6 posted on 01/06/2014 8:09:10 AM PST by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

They’ve got to “gay” the state up to make they have a right o commit sodomy and molest your children withoutthreatof jail time first.


7 posted on 01/06/2014 8:09:19 AM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

“The terse order, from the full court, issued a stay “pending final disposition” of an appeal to the federal appeals court in Denver. It offered no reasoning.”

from the NY times


8 posted on 01/06/2014 8:09:38 AM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

It was Sotomayor! Very surprising!


9 posted on 01/06/2014 8:10:50 AM PST by Kit cat (OBummer must go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kit cat

I guess she turned it over to the whole court, from what I am seeing.

Freegards


10 posted on 01/06/2014 8:14:00 AM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
I’m just thinking about the legal reasoning which would be needed for the courts to come to that conclusion.

My worry is that a group of people who once came up with legal reasoning to make the Roe v Wade decision, and is now populated by a Chief Justice who can find legal reasoning to make Obamacare "Constitutional", may get this case.

11 posted on 01/06/2014 8:15:26 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

Would be nice if they did the same in regard to NY’s SAFE act.


12 posted on 01/06/2014 8:15:28 AM PST by NY.SS-Bar9 (Those that vote for a living outnumber those that work for one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

Yes! Victory. Now the AG needs to rescind all those phony licenses that were handed out.


13 posted on 01/06/2014 8:16:42 AM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kit cat

She also granted that stay to the Little Sisters of the Poor.


14 posted on 01/06/2014 8:18:01 AM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

I am surprised!


15 posted on 01/06/2014 8:18:44 AM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

What about all the counterfeit “marriage licenses” issued? (They are counterfeit, because the form, which just lists “bride” and “groom” as the applicants, had to be altered.)


16 posted on 01/06/2014 8:22:45 AM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
Kennedy’s last year revealed him to be an ideologue and not a Supreme Court Justice who is faithful to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

I think Kennedy got something up his arse and decided he liked it.

17 posted on 01/06/2014 8:23:46 AM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

AG should rescind those licenses, but, that would be a separate legal process from the legal process of allowing homosexual marriage in the first place. My guess is that they won’t do that, because it would be seen at politically incorrect to do so.

Sad to say, we make laws and social policies based on political correctness nowadays.


18 posted on 01/06/2014 8:23:52 AM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

“The state’s stay application was filed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who referred it to the whole court, according to the order issued Monday. Sotomayor is assigned to the 10th Circuit Court, which rejected Utah’s request for a stay three times (Salt Lake Tribune).” So far the “wise Latina” is using her head, and I wonder if Zero thinks he got himself a Souter. This is going to go to the SCOTUS sure as sunup. I’m hoping the same regard for federalism that killed DOMA upholds a state’s right to forbid same-sex “marriage”; I just worry that Kennedy might go the PC route and use a full faith and credit argument, and invoke Loving v. Virginia. Lord, I hope not.


19 posted on 01/06/2014 8:25:49 AM PST by steelhead_trout (MYOB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: steelhead_trout

“I just worry that Kennedy might go the PC route and use a full faith and credit argument, and invoke Loving v. Virginia. Lord, I hope not.”

If that happens then it’s the end of the marriage amendments. But it might not go that far for some states, the ones that only passed their amendments in the low-mid 50% ranges 6+ years ago might not choose to appeal like CA with prop. 8. More would though, like Utah.

Freegards


20 posted on 01/06/2014 8:30:24 AM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: steelhead_trout
full faith and credit argument

If that happened, and if I were with GOA, I'd file suit immediately to use a full faith and credit argument to allow concealed carry in all 50 states. In a heartbeat.

21 posted on 01/06/2014 8:32:21 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: steelhead_trout

Unfortunately, the liberal judges make things up as they go along.

In spite of there being no areas of federal civil rights laws which deal with the LGBT peoples as a protected class, the liberal judges have been assuming for years that there is such provision in these laws. They have made it up as they went along.

What gets me about this is that there is no real equal protection argument as such. Everyone is treated equally under traditional marriage laws. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. All of us are restricted to one partner at a time. All of us are banned from marrying certain close relatives. We’re all treated equally as it is.

I understand that a homosexual doesn’t want to marry an opposite sex partner, but the point is, he/she has the right to do so.

So, this whole area of homosexual marriage court cases is one in which liberal judges make up the legal reasoning needed to arrive at their pre-ordained conclusion that we should allow homosexual marriage.


22 posted on 01/06/2014 8:33:05 AM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

This is a good sign for protectors of marriage; if the Court believed that the DOMA case had rendered laws against sodomite marriage unconstitutional, it would not have halted the “marriages.”

As I understand it, the DOMA case found DOMA, and only DOMA, unconstitutional on the basis that it was enacted because of animus towards homosexuals. But that doesn’t mean that there are not Constitutional reasons to prohibit marriage; it just means that those reasons weren’t used in the enactment of DOMA (as far as the legislative history indicated).

As most of us know here, marriage was not created with the intention to prohibit homosexuals from participating. Indeed, there can be no such thing as homosexual “marriage” by definition, and so there can be no prohibition on something that doesn’t exist.

Men and women are capable of doing things for society and the species that two dudes or two lesbos cannot. That’s common sense for the vast majority of the world, but when it comes to leftists, there is no such thing as common sense.

Here’s hoping for a SCOTUS ruling that marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman is Constitutional. And maybe that will be the first step toward reversion the Lawrence v Texas case that made butt-effing acceptable recreational activity.


23 posted on 01/06/2014 8:36:30 AM PST by MikeyB806
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeyB806
"As most of us know here, marriage was not created with the intention to prohibit homosexuals from participating. Indeed, there can be no such thing as homosexual “marriage” by definition, and so there can be no prohibition on something that doesn’t exist."

Fascinating take. I had never used that argument before and it makes perfect sense. Thank you.

24 posted on 01/06/2014 8:40:04 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

The LGBT movement strategy since the Supreme Court decisions earlier this year is to have rogue officials open doors to same sex marriage in the various states so that people “get married” and when courts shut doors, use the couples as plantiffs for court cases and “victims” for the media to exploit.

In Utah the federal judge did the dirty work right before Christmas delaying the ability of Utah to fight back and some 900 “marriages” occurred before today.

In my home state of PA a county official in Montgomery County issued licenses until a state court ruled against him.

The LGBT movement was able to “marry” people here in PA creating plantiffs for court cases they hope will legalize gay marriage.


25 posted on 01/06/2014 8:44:48 AM PST by Nextrush (AFFORDABLE CARE ACT=HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY BAILOUT ACT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

“Unfortunately, the liberal judges make things up as they go along.”


Of course, and Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) is the granddaddy of them all. Connecticut had a stupid (IMO) law that outlawed sale of any and all contraceptives, even to married people. But just because a law is stupid doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional. The SCOTUS thought otherwise, and came up with a “penumbra” (as if the justices had dropped acid) that “emanated” from the 4th and 5th Amendments that created a right to privacy, and struck down the law on that basis. Roe v. Wade stemmed from this nonsense.


26 posted on 01/06/2014 8:53:36 AM PST by steelhead_trout (MYOB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

A state having legal gay marriage isn’t what worries me. It’s their funeral. The Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution is what worries me.


27 posted on 01/06/2014 9:15:50 AM PST by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

Other than pulling power away from Supreme Court (was never intended to work as we now allow it)only hope is that one or more of the liberal judges becomes a Christian.

Al things are possible with God....I believe Lord, help my unbelief

Sodomayer for instance, if she was to ask Jesus into her life, that would change things


28 posted on 01/06/2014 9:33:01 AM PST by Friendofgeorge ( Palin 2016 or bust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5
The Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution is what worries me.

Don't you just love it when liberals read the Constitution only when it suits them to do so?

29 posted on 01/06/2014 9:35:49 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

That one’ll suit them, as soon as the time is ripe.


30 posted on 01/06/2014 9:36:57 AM PST by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

As I mentioned upthread, if that happens, we should be suing immediately to exercise Full Faith and Credit with regard to concealed carry.


31 posted on 01/06/2014 9:39:55 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

This is just a speed bump on the highway to hell.


32 posted on 01/06/2014 9:52:25 AM PST by newgeezer (It is [the people's] right and duty to be at all times armed. --Thomas Jefferson, 1824)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

Indeed we should.


33 posted on 01/06/2014 10:00:42 AM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: steelhead_trout
I still think Wickard v. Filburn may be the worst Supreme Court decision of all time.
34 posted on 01/06/2014 10:58:12 AM PST by gopno1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

35 posted on 01/06/2014 11:08:14 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed
Very surprising, was it Sotomayor alone or the whole court?

HERBERT, GOV. OF UT, ET AL. V. KITCHEN, DEREK, ET AL.

The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is granted. The permanent injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of Utah, case No. 2:13-cv-217, on December 20, 2013, is stayed pending final disposition of the appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

36 posted on 01/06/2014 11:11:19 AM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gopno1
I still think Wickard v. Filburn may be the worst Supreme Court decision of all time.

Dred Scott v. Sandford is the worst ever. It helped precipitate the Civil War. Wickard v. Filburn is definitely in the top 5.

37 posted on 01/06/2014 11:20:58 AM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed; Kit cat; Lurking Libertarian
No, Sotomayor didn't grant the stay on her own. She could have denied the stay on her own, but she chose to refer the stay request to the whole court.

If she had denied the stay request, Utah would have had the right to submit it to a second justice of their choice per standard SCOTUS procedure.

Utah would have chosen Scalia or Thomas. Either could, and likely would, have granted the stay or referred it to the whole court as Sotomayor did.

Sotomayor just circumvented that second stay request because she knew it was inevitable and simply referred it to the whole court herself rather than make Utah go through the legal motions.

IMHO, this is not indicative of her position in any way and is not a surprise. LL may or may not have more to offer by way of legal procedure, etc.

38 posted on 01/06/2014 11:22:49 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

SCOTUS granting a TRO or the like notwithstanding, it’s time to start nullifying federal action that is clearly out of their constitutional bounds.


39 posted on 01/06/2014 11:23:29 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steelhead_trout
So far the “wise Latina” is using her head

Not really. She simply delayed the inevitable. See my post #38.

40 posted on 01/06/2014 11:24:55 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

It is inherently unjust that one man substitute his judgment for that of 2/3 of the people of the state.


41 posted on 01/06/2014 11:26:15 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Not the first time we’ve seen it, unfortunately. And these judges seem invariably to be liberal.


42 posted on 01/06/2014 11:26:57 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5
A state having legal gay marriage isn’t what worries me. It’s their funeral. The Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution is what worries me.

I may be naive, but that doesn't worry me. There are plenty of other definitions that some states recognize that other states don't. Take the 2nd Amendment as an example. Some states allow open carry, many states don't. Some states recognize concealed-carry permits from other states and some don't.

If they push national recognition under FF&C, it's a huge gamble and could be turned against them. They make wake up with every conservative openly carrying because some states allow it. We'll see I guess. I think they'll continue their pursuit under the 14th's Equal Protection Clause.

43 posted on 01/06/2014 11:35:28 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

Don’t forget Sandford v Son...


44 posted on 01/06/2014 11:36:16 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

“This could be a case which ultimately goes to the Supreme Court, and have that Court decide there is indeed a constitutional right to homosexual marriage.”


You can tell by the way the votes lined up on the CA Prop 8 case that Kennedy wants to find a constitutional right to homosexual marriage.

Roberts and Scalia and the older liberals probably thought this would be politically unacceptable for too many people after giving the homos everything they wanted on the DOMA case. They also knew that they did not have the votes to rule Prop 8 was valid so they punted with the standing argument.

Kennedy wrote the dissent on the standing issue. But the leftists knew that they could take this up later and get their ruling.


45 posted on 01/06/2014 11:37:43 AM PST by fifedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Don’t forget Sandford v Son...

That's the Big One, you big dummy. ;)

46 posted on 01/06/2014 11:47:08 AM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
The prophetic pronouncements made in the 1970's about the "hidden" gay agenda that were almost universally poo-poo'd, are in fact true. They have gone WAY beyond "don't make illegal what we do in private as consenting adults" to what we have now - a full court press on political rights and government mandates to normalize sodomy legally and in government education. Previews of coming attractions: the gay agenda pushing to take down heterosexual marriage and families - all prophesied in the 70's debate about anti-sodomy laws.

Can a society allow sodomy in private between two consenting adults and still affirm that it is a deviant behavior to be eschewed and certainly not given any special political or legal status? A society that puts freedom first will have these kinds of challenges. But a healthy society, especially one that is spiritually healthy, can meet those challenges.

A healthy society that puts individual freedom first will not have intrusive laws about licensing marriage or business. Government will stay small and keep its nose to the grindstone of protecting our freedoms without these endless entanglements we have now when government goes outside its constitutional bounds.

47 posted on 01/06/2014 12:25:08 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
(3) That leaves, to distinguish the rock-solid, unamendable disposition of Roe from the readily overrulable Bowers, only the third factor. “[T]here has been,” the Court says, “no individual or societal reliance on Bowers of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding … .” Ante, at 16. It seems to me that the “societal reliance” on the principles confirmed in Bowers and discarded today has been overwhelming. Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority’s belief that certain sexual behavior is “immoral and unacceptable” constitutes a rational basis for regulation. See, e.g., Williams v. Pryor, 240 F.3d 944, 949 (CA11 2001) (citing Bowers in upholding Alabama’s prohibition on the sale of sex toys on the ground that “[t]he crafting and safeguarding of public morality … indisputably is a legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny”); Milner v. Apfel, 148 F.3d 812, 814 (CA7 1998) (citing Bowers for the proposition that “[l]egislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality … rather than confined to preventing demonstrable harms”); Holmes v. California Army National Guard 124 F.3d 1126, 1136 (CA9 1997) (relying on Bowers in upholding the federal statute and regulations banning from military service those who engage in homosexual conduct); Owens v. State, 352 Md. 663, 683, 724 A. 2d 43, 53 (1999) (relying on Bowers in holding that “a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage”); Sherman v. Henry, 928 S. W. 2d 464, 469—473 (Tex. 1996) (relying on Bowers in rejecting a claimed constitutional right to commit adultery). We ourselves relied extensively on Bowers when we concluded, in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 569 (1991), that Indiana’s public indecency statute furthered “a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality,” ibid., (plurality opinion); see also id., at 575 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex” (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional “morals” offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. “The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.” 478 U.S., at 196.2
~ Justice Scalia in his Lawrence v. Texas dissent, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas. Truer words were never written. (Emphasis mine.)
48 posted on 01/06/2014 12:54:13 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
Previews of coming attractions: the gay agenda pushing to take down heterosexual marriage and families - all prophesied in the 70's debate about anti-sodomy laws.

Think of the property damage when people will have to rip their "marriage equality" bumper stickers off their cars.

But it would shut up Chris Kluwe. There's that.

In seriousness, your conclusion is beautifully stated. Thank you.

49 posted on 01/06/2014 1:13:52 PM PST by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg; Elsie; colorcountry; greyfoxx39
Oh no, and we had such great plans for the special friends....


50 posted on 01/06/2014 1:29:03 PM PST by Utah Binger (Southern Utah where the world comes to see America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 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