The company has made it my responsibility today to put
an end to 100,000 years of being weirded out by gays.
Posted on 02/08/2014 11:15:56 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
The federal government will soon treat married same-sex couples the same as heterosexual couples when they file for bankruptcy, testify in court or visit family in prison. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was preparing to issue policies aimed at eliminating the distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex married couples in the federal criminal justice system, according to excerpts from a speech prepared for a Saturday event organized by a prominent gay-rights group. “In every courthouse, in every proceeding and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States, they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections and rights as opposite-sex marriages,” Mr. Holder’s prepared remarks said, according to the excerpts circulated by the Justice Department.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
By the way, you folks who follow the Bible? You're not welcome.
Don’t kid yourself...This is all about conjugal rights.
Sexual deviants have become very, very popular these days. I don’t get it.
“The federal government will soon treat married same-sex couples the same as heterosexual couples when they file for bankruptcy, testify in court or visit family in prison.”
Just one more item that a President Palin or President Cruz will rescind at 12:01 p.m. on January 20, 2017.
Are not these state issues???
“Are not these state issues???”
The Feds must have that power in Federal Bankruptcy Court, Federal Prisons and in Federal Court.
With all the queers coming forward and identifying themselves, it will make it easier for our Muslim overlords when they take over.
The company has made it my responsibility today to put
an end to 100,000 years of being weirded out by gays.
Just wait for the “divorce” courts on this.
You think hetro divorce is ugly, wait until some high profile same-sex marriages are dissolved in the public eye.
There are a number of states that recognize “common law marriage”.
Social Conservatives should be CLAMORING for limited government. Government provides nourishment and authority to bad morality in the U.S.; UNTIL government started overriding free people in these moral matters, America was a MUCH MORE moral and Christian nation, where nearly two thirds of the states outlawed (rightly!) abortion, where free people (rightly!) peacefully, politely, civilly told open homosexuals to keep it to themselves or go somewhere else to do business, work, or live.
Social conservatives who loathe small l libertarianism, are shooting themselves AND AMERICAN MORALITY in the foot. The Founding Fathers DELIBERATELY OMITTED Federal prohibitions against immoral things like prostitution and gambling and even murder, and DELIBERATELY OMITTED Federal requirements for moral actions such as charity and compassion. The Founding Fathers knew that left to their own, the balance of Americans would pursue a righteous path in order to thrive, AND THAT IS WHAT AMERICANS DID, and they thrived.
Until the Federal government came along with Roe v Wade. Until Federal government came along with welfare (forced charity). Until Federal government came along with "protections" for those who engage in open homosexuality in the form of PUNISHMENT for Americans making the civil, peaceful, polite moral decision to reject it in their midst and shoo it away.
Sadly, most social conservatives believe that we must now have Federal laws outlawing things that were never outlawed before, like homosexual "marriage" (which is very much like outlawing unicorns, as "marriage" between two people of the same sex is by definition imaginary), that we must have Federal laws outlawing abortion (which would be okay with me, but overthrowing Roe v Wade would be the smarter path if we respect the wisdom of the Founders, as we should), and they angrily, self-righteously reject truly conservative politician who refuses to push for more FEDERAL government to presume "moral shepherd" status over free people. Such social conservatives cause more damage than good because unlike the truly wise conservative who understands as the Founders did the rightness of limited government, Social Conservatives think Americans are children who need the Federal government to do religion's job. They are wrong. When the Federal government presumes to dictate morality, AMORALITY AND EVIL RESULT, as we see today.
I pray to the Almighty that He help uber-religions Social Conservatives understand that the "conservative" use of government to force Christian morality, is as wrong-headed as the "liberal" use of government to force amorality; that the only way to shrink moral malaise is to shrink government, starting with the overturning of Roe v Wade.
Why is government involved in people sex lives?...
Well heterosexual couples are a biological requirement ...so government HAS to acknowledge that to some degree just like they have to acknowledge water is biological requirement vs beer which is not.
Baning gay sex is like prohibition on alcohol..providing for gay couples equal to straight is like free public beer fountain because you have free public water fountains
Let put in it simply for libertarian. .gay and straight sex are not equal.....a government ban on gay sex is an infringement on freedom...but a government ban on straight sex would be genocide of the human race ...gay and straight sex are not equal. . Valid government and laws require that be acknowledge and in proper portion...
Good analogy.
The federal government and all states, recognize common law marriage, as long as it was done legally, and in a state where common law marriage is legal to take place.
Probate laws can`t apply because there are no issue and there are no natural heirs issuing from inside 2 gays [”thing”].
That will stop it in its tracks.
Since there can be no natural heirs from any such “thing”, the “thing” itself is intrinsically un-natural by very definitions of heir and probate.
Libertarians support gay everything.
The federal government of the United States has always had to have law regarding marriage.
The feds have to have laws an policies regarding marriage, and the libertarians want them to be neutral on homosexuality.
Libertarians support gay everything.
Tell that to Thomas Sowell, a self-described small-l libertarian.
Unless of course you mean that big-l Libertarians in the official Libertarian Party "support gay everything." But you couldn't mean that because you actually READ the posts you respond to, right? And you presumably noticed that I both underlined and bolded "small l" to make my meaning clear to the likes of you? Correct? I specified "small l" because the official (big L) Libertarian Party is as authentically "libertarian" as a piece of turquoise-toned plastic is authentically "turquoise."
Just the same, I'll save myself the trouble of trying to reason with a lunatic, and will decline reading or responding to any of your replies to me as the last time, you ended up libeling me with wholesale and extremely ugly falsehoods about SEVENTEEN TIMES and never once had the decency to own up to it and ask the mods to delete your libelous posts.
Go jump in the lake.
You won't have the integrity to answer now any more than the 20 or so times a few weeks ago that I asked you these same very simple yes-or-no questions, but for all the rest of the folks reading this who are interested in seeing on parade the absurdity of the social conservative who defines "conservative" as "using government to protect society from harm and decay" as opposed to conservatives LIKE ME who define conservatism as "to use government sparingly":
Ansell, do you think there should be Federal laws punishing a baker who decides to bake a cake for two gay guys having a private (and by definition pretend) wedding? (Current laws incline to punish such bakers for REFUSING to bake the cake.)
Do you think there should be Federal laws punishing a private property owner who hosts the (by definition pretend) wedding ceremony of two homosexuals? (Current laws incline to punish such property owners for REFUSING to host such a "wedding.")
Do you think there should be Federal laws punishing an employer if he decides what the heck, I'll play along with this employee and extend my company's benefits to his pretend "spouse"? (Current Federal law punishes employers for REFUSING to extend benefits to pretend "spouses.")
Yes or no? I confess, unless I see either "Yes" or "No" at the top of any response of yours, I will decline to read it (I'm not that much of a masochist), but I'll bet there are other readers here who are curious as you what lengths you are willing to go to not "be neutral on homosexuality."
You are the kind of emotional basket case who’s first response is an emotional personal attack, and then continues with a bunch of emotional gibberish.
You then try go to stalking mode of attempting to drag old threads into this one.
What you didn’t do, was respond to my post.
Libertarianism does support full equality for homosexuality.
The federal government of the United States has always had to have law regarding marriage.
The feds have to have laws an policies regarding marriage, and the libertarians want them to be neutral on homosexuality.
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.