Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
"What I propose is a Constitutional Amendment where the voters of each state will decide whether or not to allow same-sex marriage in their state, . . . "

That would also destroy the rule of law, every bit as much as the Mass. Supremos did.

One more time: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS AN OXYMORON!

The word, marriage, is already defined. Neither the courts, nor congress, nor the people have the right to destroy the definition of a word that is already legally and socially defined across continents and cultures.

If you allow it, you allow any word to be changed at the whim of any majority vote.

You're asking for chaos.

Same-sexers need to get their own word. Hijacking the word, marriage, is comparable to the islamofascists highjacking the word, Islam -- (assuming it really IS a peaceful religion.)

8 posted on 12/22/2004 11:07:11 AM PST by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Eastbound

Asking for chaos?

No, I am not. I just see no way for the proposed Federal Cons. Amend to pass. There are too many Senators and Rep's hiding behind the "this is a states right issue", when they are just doing that...hiding.

With this Amendment there would be no where for them to hide. They would have to support it, or be exposed as liars.

As well, the purpose of this thread is to expose the "that's majority rule tyranny" when the courts engage in majority rule tyranny all the time.

I would rather have majority rule by the people than by the courts, and I am showing a way for people to get just that.

Its time to crush the power of the courts who have consistently given the numerical minority what they want and have spit in the faces of the numerical majority on issues like abortion, evolution, etc.... This will do just that.


10 posted on 12/22/2004 11:14:39 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Eastbound; All

Asking for chaos?

No, I am not. I just see no way for the proposed Federal Cons. Amend to pass. There are too many Senators and Rep's hiding behind the "this is a states right issue", when they are just doing that...hiding.

With this Amendment there would be no where for them to hide. They would have to support it, or be exposed as liars.

As well, the purpose of this thread is to expose the "that's majority rule tyranny" when the courts engage in majority rule tyranny all the time.

I would rather have majority rule by the people than by the courts, and I am showing a way for people to get just that.

Its time to crush the power of the courts who have consistently given the numerical minority what they want and have spit in the faces of the numerical majority on issues like abortion, evolution, etc.... This will do just that.


11 posted on 12/22/2004 11:14:45 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Eastbound; All

Asking for chaos?

No, I am not. I just see no way for the proposed Federal Cons. Amend to pass. There are too many Senators and Rep's hiding behind the "this is a states right issue", when they are just doing that...hiding.

With this Amendment there would be no where for them to hide. They would have to support it, or be exposed as liars.

As well, the purpose of this thread is to expose the "that's majority rule tyranny" when the courts engage in majority rule tyranny all the time.

I would rather have majority rule by the people than by the courts, and I am showing a way for people to get just that.

Its time to crush the power of the courts who have consistently given the numerical minority what they want and have spit in the faces of the numerical majority on issues like abortion, evolution, etc.... This will do just that.


12 posted on 12/22/2004 11:14:47 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Eastbound

This "Definition of Marriage" argument is ridiculous. I don't care what it's called, I don't want my tax money supporting a lifestyle that is a choice.

That's the issue here.

As for SCOTUS, I think that a if a referendum can be overturned, like when the people voted against gay marriage in California in 2001 or 2002, then why not overturn who we elect, since our electors "know better?"


19 posted on 12/22/2004 11:48:57 AM PST by bummerdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson