Posted on 05/06/2012 8:09:35 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
Attention "Anyone But Obama" (ABO) FReepers! If you go to the thread at the link you will will see that JimRob has "declared a truce" and hundreds of ABO FReepers are now vigorously defending their belief, which I share, that the ineligible Marxist Manchurian MUST BE DEFEATED to preserve the Republic...without fear of "the ZOT"! Please consider a DONATION not just to fund renewal of expression and amplification of your ABO views, but let's over-achieve this FReepathon to get JR his new equipment!
IMO, Free Republic and FReepers could be vital in swing states in rallying just enough conservatives to tip the election and prevent our troops from having to salute for even one day longer than necessary an ineligible Marxist committed to destroying the USA !
We might be able to win this one at the staff level ~ just have all of them named, purged and chased away. I'm sure Priebus can do that already.
I've been involved in all of it since it happened.
Your version of events just doesn't square with reality.
Name one single candidate for office that is running on discrimination against gays (or any other group).
Why are your panties in a wad over Romney’s comments?
Could it be you are just a member of the fifth column, here to sow discord?
Maybe I should use the phrase, Religious absolutist. Absolutely their way or the hiway....to hell.
The conservatives I know have no problem with tolerance of gays.
Its the in your face demand for acceptance and, indeed, promotion of their lifestyles they are sick of. That’s where the GOP and Dems part company. The GOP has steadfastly opposed gay marriage and indoctrination of LGBT in schools, etc. From what I’ve seen, most Dems set homos as the ideal.
Republicans are the clearly better choice when it comes to the question of homosexuality in our society. I would prefer it went completely back in the closet, but that doesn’t look like it will happen.
http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/santorum-is-right-romney-is-still-wrong/
...Dr. Herb Titus was the founding dean of the School of Public Policy at Regent University, and later served as the founding dean of Regent Law School. Before that he studied under Dr. Francis Schaeffer, and graduated from Harvard Law School. Titus has worked with the U.S. Justice Department, and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court. His book God, Man, and Law is a must-read for anyone interested in preserving the rule of law for the next generation.
I contacted Dr. Titus on Friday morning for his response to the Santorum-Romney exchange. He replied back with the following:
“Rick Santorum challenged Mitt Romney to justify the former Massachusetts Governor’s decision to implement the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling that declared that the exclusion of otherwise qualified same-sex couples from civil marriage violated the state constitution.
After the debate, Mr. Romney stated to Mr. Santorum that he did all that he legally could to stop the implementation of the court’s decision before he exercised his duty as Governor to enforce the court’s decision requiring local officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He issued a challenge to Mr. Santorum to find any qualified legal authority that would not agree with him. I have been asked to meet that challenge.
I am a graduate of the Harvard Law School. I am an active member of the Virginia bar and the bar of a number of federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court. As a professor of constitutional law for nearly 30 years in four different ABA-approved law schools, and as a practicing lawyer, I have written a number of scholarly articles and legal briefs on a variety of constitutional subjects; including the nature of legislative, executive and judicial powers and the constitutional separation of those powers.
I am generally familiar with the Massachusetts Constitution, and especially familiar with that constitution’s provision dictating that no department shall exercise the powers that belong to either of the other two departments “to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.”
As Governor, Mr. Romney has claimed that he had no choice but to obey the Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion. This claim is false for several reasons.
First, Mr. Romney was not a party to the case. Only parties to a case are bound to obey a court order. As President Abraham Lincoln said in support of his refusal to enforce the United States Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott case – the nation’s policy regarding slavery was not determined by a court opinion, even by the highest court of the land. Likewise, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ policy regarding marriage may not be determined by the Supreme Judicial Court, the State’s highest court.
Second, the Supreme Judicial Court did not order any party to do anything. Rather, it issued only a declaration that, in its opinion, excluding otherwise qualified same-sex couples access to civil marriage was unconstitutional. Thus, even the Massachusetts Department of Health, which was a party to the case, was not ordered to do anything.
Third, the Massachusetts Board of Health was not authorized by statute to issue marriage licenses. That was a job for Justices of the Peace and town clerks. The only task assigned by the Legislature to the Board of Health was to record the marriage license; it had no power to issue them even to heterosexual couples. So the Department of Health, the only defendant in the case, could not legally have complied with an order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Fourth, if the court were to order the Department of Health to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, then Mr. Romney’s duty as governor would have been to instruct the Department that it had no authority to do what the court ordered. Nor could the court confer such authority, such an authorization being in nature a legislative, not a judicial, act.
Fifth, the decision whether to implement the Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion was, as the court itself acknowledged, for “the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of [the court’s] opinion.” By the very terms of the order, the Massachusetts legislature had discretion to do nothing.
Sixth, because the legislature did nothing, Mr. Romney had no power to act to implement the court decision. By ordering justices of the peace, town clerks, and other officials authorized to issue marriage licenses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Mr. Romney unconstitutionally usurped legislative power, a power denied him by the Massachusetts constitution that separated the three kinds of powers into three different departments.
A 2007 article from World Net Daily quotes a slew of respected legal minds in criticizing Romney for his role in destroying marriage in Massachusetts, including Phyllis Schlafly.
“Romney said we had to follow the law but what law,” Schlafly is quoted as asking in the article. “There is no law that requires or even allows same-sex marriages (in Massachusetts).”
Finally, there is this 2006 letter sent to Romney as he was departing as governor by a long list of conservative activists from around the country. It includes signers like Paul Weyrich, one of the Founding Fathers of the conservative movement, and Robert Knight, one of the original drafters of the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by then-President Clinton. The letter also reinforces the claims made by Santorum about what Romney did to marriage in Massachusetts.
Just days after giving a speech touting his conservative credentials at the 2011 Values Voters Summit, Romney told a New Hampshire audience in October that he is a supporter of civil unions, which is really just so-called homosexual marriage by another name.
Yet again Romney is found to be playing fast and loose with the truth. Voters should be thanking Santorum for calling him on it.
Just curious, will the banned Romney supporters be reinstated?
My own church delays baptism until the age of understanding. Roman Catholics use sprinkling ~ although they'll use the other kinds, but believe you me, I didn't know babies were drowning in baptism.
Maybe Rome is right; maybe we are right; maybe God will know His own is enough thought on the matter to satisfy demands to continue a practice where a baby can and does drown. I don't know, but that's a specific behavior that causes me concern ~ but the belief in the background is that Baptism is the First Sacrament!
A debate over baptism must certainly avoid the term "bigot' ~ or "religious absolutist" ~ or no resolution is possible.
Enough on baptism. We should be able to handle real disputes about behavior without condemning the entire body of truths that guide the other guy. (SEE: Amnesty from Oblivion)
It appears that Mitt and Obama have essentially the same agendas, but I should vote for Mitt because he’s the GOP candidate?
I don’t think so.
We simply cannot afford to have those guys around. Take their money. Accept their votes, but they have to stay out of party matters and public office. Else we cannot win elections, which is all these campaigns are about.
Here’s the more succinct version:
As Governor, Mr. Romney has claimed that he had no choice but to obey the Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion. This claim is false for several reasons.
First, Mr. Romney was not a party to the case. Only parties to a case are bound to obey a court order. As President Abraham Lincoln said in support of his refusal to enforce the United States Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott case – the nation’s policy regarding slavery was not determined by a court opinion, even by the highest court of the land. Likewise, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ policy regarding marriage may not be determined by the Supreme Judicial Court, the State’s highest court.
Second, the Supreme Judicial Court did not order any party to do anything. Rather, it issued only a declaration that, in its opinion, excluding otherwise qualified same-sex couples access to civil marriage was unconstitutional. Thus, even the Massachusetts Department of Health, which was a party to the case, was not ordered to do anything.
Third, the Massachusetts Board of Health was not authorized by statute to issue marriage licenses. That was a job for Justices of the Peace and town clerks. The only task assigned by the Legislature to the Board of Health was to record the marriage license; it had no power to issue them even to heterosexual couples. So the Department of Health, the only defendant in the case, could not legally have complied with an order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Fourth, if the court were to order the Department of Health to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, then Mr. Romney’s duty as governor would have been to instruct the Department that it had no authority to do what the court ordered. Nor could the court confer such authority, such an authorization being in nature a legislative, not a judicial, act.
Fifth, the decision whether to implement the Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion was, as the court itself acknowledged, for “the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of [the court’s] opinion.” By the very terms of the order, the Massachusetts legislature had discretion to do nothing.
Sixth, because the legislature did nothing, Mr. Romney had no power to act to implement the court decision. By ordering justices of the peace, town clerks, and other officials authorized to issue marriage licenses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Mr. Romney unconstitutionally usurped legislative power, a power denied him by the Massachusetts constitution that separated the three kinds of powers into three different departments.
— Herb Titus
http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/santorum-is-right-romney-is-still-wrong/
To me, he looks like an updated Michael York from the Three Musketeers (1973)
Here on FR, Have you seen any anti-christian threads started by any other religion? Any athiest starting any anti religion threads? I haven’t but I have seen numerous anti-mormon and anti-catholic threads.The ant mormon threads are started for only one purpose, that is to trash it. And no, I am not mormon, just sick and tired of people starting a thread for no other reason but to trash some one elses belief system.
Oh yeah, that's it. And absolutely anyone doing anything other than the RINO plan is a vote for obama, don't forget to add that.
I held this back, but you deserve it:
Brokeback Romney...non-bots might get a laugh out of it.
Speaking of cats, I have a love of cats that is admittedly embarrassing for a male. Free Republic has some of the greatest kitty links from around the world interspersed with the other fabulous postings. FReeper posters provide such wide variety of stories from finance to science to archeology that I am on FR for most of the day every day.
That is why I was determined to maintain my monthly DONATION even when an ABO stance could not be posted for a short period of time. Now with the TRUCE I can be unconflicted about continuing to DONATE to FR!
Yep....I can see that resemblance.
I also see a bit of Austin Powers, LOL.
Some of it is pretty subtle so you'd have to know more about their own religious beliefs to figure it out. An insult really can go under the radar and nobody will notice.
Most likely your idea of a religious attack is different than mine though. I count Jains, Hindus, Moslems, Buddhists, RCs, Orthodox and Jews of all kinds ~ as well as Christians of all kinds ~among my own personal friendship circles, and to a degree, marriage and blood ties.
There's ways to get along. The first one is always assume that the guy making the attack may not know everything he needs to know about the target. The second is always assume the guy being attacked knows enough to not dwell on inanities and misconceptions regarding his own or the other guys religion.
I'll never forget when my cousin reminded me the Nazarenes had abolished their dress code and were now pretty much the same as Methodists. Now that was an embarrassment. I'm sure there are a million stories like that.
Did you realize the etiquette with burning candles inside religious buildings is pretty much the same with all religious groups? There's a sound reason for that!
The thanks goes to you, good sirs!
I can’t donate a lot, but I donated on my last payday and intend to again on my next payday since this FReepathon is going a bit long.
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.