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

Skip to comments.

How Politicians From Hillary Clinton To David Cameron Reacted To Ireland's Same-Sex Marriage Vote
The International Business Times ^ | May 23, 2015 | Kerry Flynn

Posted on 05/23/2015 3:02:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Ireland became Saturday the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriages by popular vote. Within the U.S., Maine, Maryland and Washington in 2012 were the first states to legalize such unions through popular votes. Meanwhile, 37 states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

A measure to legalize such unions via popular votes could be added to the ballots in the 13 other states during the 2016 general elections, when it conceivably could have the support of at least one presidential candidate, as Ireland’s action motivated one White House contender to express her approval on the microblogging site Twitter:

Hillary Clinton
✔ ‎@HillaryClinton

Well done, Ireland. -H

1:57 PM - 23 May 2015

Clinton has flip-flopped with respect to same-sex marriages over the years. During her 2008 presidential race, she opposed same-sex marriages and supported same-sex civil unions. This time around, the former U.S. secretary of state has changed her position and would back a constitutional amendment to that effect, CNN reported. “Hillary Clinton supports marriage equality and hopes the Supreme Court will come down on the side of same-sex couples being guaranteed that constitutional right,” Clinton representative Adrienne Elrod said in a statement.

Clinton’s opponent in the run for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who openly supports lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights in general and same-sex marriage in particular, has yet to tweet about the Irish law passing on his personal Twitter or campaign account. But he did send another message consistent with his social liberal agenda Saturday, this one centered on environmental conservation....

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


TOPICS: Canada; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Israel; Politics/Elections; Russia; US: Arkansas; US: Massachusetts; US: New York; US: South Carolina; US: Vermont; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2016election; akadeblasio; benghazi; berniesanders; canada; carlyfiorina; clintoncash; clintonfoundation; election2016; elizabethwarren; europeanunion; fartyshadesofgreen; fauxahontas; hillary; hillaryclinton; hitlery; homosexualagenda; iran; ireland; libya; lieawatha; martinomalley; maryland; massachusetts; newyork; pages; peterschweizer; russia; southcarolina; treygowdy; unitedkingdom; uranium; vermont; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: bryan999

You know what, re-reading my post - I think my point might be lost. I don’t want to mince words here.

I am a conservative who supports traditional marriage. I dont like what the “gaystapo” is doing at all. I don’t think it’s good for society for these shrill activists to be hijacking the concept of marriage and I certainly do not like how this sort of thing affects the impressions of children. They have enough to be confused about these days without all this madness. I also don’t understand how Ireland and the Catholic Church plans on enforcing this, either (I was raised Catholic, btw).

So having said that, I think my strongest feeling here is a desire to “punish” the government for their failure at “defending” marriage and I think that is my impetus for suggesting we do away government recognition of “marriage” altogether and just call it something else. I realize that this is probably a tough call, perhaps unrealistic, but the notion that a couple states are diving into this concept makes me think it might be a necessary option. The government is completely out to lunch, and we all know this, but seeing what happened in Ireland (a place I’ve been to and truly enjoyed), doesn’t exactly exude confidence in the direction things are going... I’m sure I’m not alone here, but I just want to make all these points clear. Thanks for reading .


21 posted on 05/23/2015 5:27:02 PM PDT by bryan999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: WTFOVR

Evil bitch from Hell.

A monster.


22 posted on 05/23/2015 5:28:54 PM PDT by Rome2000 (SMASH THE CPUSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gator113; Captain Peter Blood
"You might want to check to see what Pope Francis now has to say about this perversion, etc.... seems he is ‘evolving’."

If Pope Francis is "evolving," he's evolving in the direction of "Let's be more vocal in defending traditional Catholic faith and morals."

Do look at the evidence.

Vaticanista Sandro Magister, writing for the Italian L’Espresso magazine, notes that since the extraordinary synod last October, Pope Francis has spoken out on questions like abortion, divorce, homosexuality, and contraception 40 times -- 40 times -- “without swerving a millimetre from the strict teaching of his predecessors Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.” And, adds Magister, Francis has said “not a single word in support of the innovators” who want to “soften” doctrine or pastoral practice on these issues.

And --- the gay agenda?

"Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; this is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."

That's Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio --- now Pope Francis ---opposing a “gay marriage” bill in Argentina. Has he evolved away from that?

“The family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage. These realities are increasingly under attack from powerful forces which threaten to disfigure God’s plan for creation.”

That's Pope Francis supporting a referendum in Slovakia which aimed to:

Don't anybody think I'm saying that Pope Francis, or any pope, is above criticism.

I'm just saying: Consider all the evidence before you reach a verdict, and then --- judge justly.

23 posted on 05/23/2015 6:11:54 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners only. For respectable people, the Anglicans will do.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

Who’s the fat broad on the right?


24 posted on 05/23/2015 6:50:27 PM PDT by beethovenfan (Islam is a cancer on civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Don't anybody think I'm saying that Pope Francis, or any pope, is above criticism.

Sorry, but I can't help but think you are doing the very same thing with your selective, and questionable, quotations, all at the expense of a good priest's name. Are you related to Michael Voris?

25 posted on 05/23/2015 9:42:15 PM PDT by ebb tide (We have a rogue curia in Rome.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: beethovenfan

Bill Clinton’s pimp.


26 posted on 05/23/2015 9:50:56 PM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bryan999

I agree with you. Create some kind of legal institution administered by the state, but don’t call it marriage. I remember years ago there was a proposal to do something like this, and it wasn’t necessarily related to people being a “couple” in the sexual sense, but simply legal benefits for a household (could be two adult siblings, for example, or a grown child and an elderly parent living together, or just about anything else). It would simply relate to taxes, inheritance and decision making rights, etc.

Marriage is something that should belong to the churches. If gays want to have their own mock “weddings,” I’m sure they can come up with a format and find some obliging organization to do it for them - after the civil arrangement has been entered into. This means they have no leverage over the churches, since the state civil process is giving them the legal status they want, and anything religious or even ceremonial then is purely under the control of the church or other entity providing it.

Get the state out of marriage, and the gays lose the club they are beating us with.


27 posted on 05/24/2015 3:13:10 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide
"...with your selective, and questionable, quotations..."

LOL! All quotations are "selective," in the sense that they are generally one or two lines, as opposed to 30 or 40 pages. The question is whether they are fairly or unfairly selective: that is, whether the quotation reasonably representes the gist of what the speaker or writer was trying to say. I think my quotations are fair and representative.

As for "questionable," you haven't made it plain whether you mean "I question whether these are really quotes," or "I question what they mean." As to the first, yes, they are really quotes: I don't write "pope fiction." As to the second: that's what this conversation is inevitably all about: your questionable quotes vs my questionable quotes. That's not an accusation: that's, unavoidably, the topic of the discussion.

"...all at the expense of a good priest's name."

Explain this. You will notice I wrote words of sincere respect for Fr. Linus Clovis, if that's who you are referring to, and I don't think I mentioned any other priests. So what are you talking about?

"Are you related to Michael Voris?"

Yes.

Same way I'm related to you: he is my brother in Christ. You are, too.

Let's try to keep that in mind.

28 posted on 05/24/2015 4:25:30 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners only. For respectable people, the Anglicans will do.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Exactly the point, Vlad, it’s wishful thinking. It was also my opinion years ago that I could support the cause and be left alone, but questions were posed that made that doubtful. Even more recent events confirmed that I was wrong years ago about civil unions being enough.


29 posted on 05/24/2015 7:34:32 AM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...
Clinton has flip-flopped with respect to same-sex marriages over the years.
She was against it, which is why she okayed the murder of the US ambassador in Benghazi.
30 posted on 05/24/2015 8:14:21 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (What do we want? REGIME CHANGE! When do we want it? NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 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