US Constitutiona Amendment to Save Marriage...NOW!

Self | 11-18-03 | Always Right

[Always Right]

Now that the Mass. Supreme Court has acted to force the legislature to adopt gay marriage, the time is now for Republicans to act to save this most basic institution of this country. We need a US Constitutional Amendment to save us from activist courts who assult religion and basic family values. The public will be outraged over this and the GOP must capitolize on it. The GOP must put the Democrats in a bind. Oppose the Amendment and lose their base, or support it and expose themselves as the radicals they are.

Now is the time to act. Put this issue at the forefront for the next election. Don't just make it an issue, make it a real topic with real Amendments that are gonna be passed.

[richtig_faust]

it's published by the "Christian Research Foundation".


And that makes it erroneous? typical liberal crap head .

[Belial]

And that makes it erroneous? typical liberal crap head .

Your inability to perceive the difference between accepted scientific findings and discredited propaganda is amusing, in a pathetic sort of way. I hear there's one of you born every second.

[WOSG]

My marriage of 33+ years does not need to be "protected" by a constitutional ammendment - thank you. For all those who have been married only once, faithful, and in good standing with all your vows - don't need protection. Only those who are unsure of themselves and their relationship need protection.

Get into a mistaken marriage where a women dumps you and tries to take it all and get reamed by the family law courts and your mythical "i dont need protection" would get washed away. I've seen men destroyed by divorce that was not of their own making. Your swagger is foolish in the extreme.

[concerned about politics]

They want to lower the age of sexual consent to 10. If they're allowed normallacy, including marrage, the kids are the next target. Allow one incremental step tward more perversion and vileness, it won't stop there.
These people are enraged with hate for themselves, and they try to sooth that hate with sex. If they can hurt the most innocent among us, it gives them one of the biggest orgasims they can ever get. Hate is their motovator. Hate against themselves and those who live a normal happy life.
They're like those who lust for the tourture and dismembermant of the innocent unborn. The more pain they cause, the happier (temperarily) they'll be.

[kegler4]

It's kind of frightening to find "conservatives" actually proposing a Constitutional amendment to regulate something like marriage. And even worse to find some of those conservatives admitting it's not really right but saying we should do it anyway to try to pick up some Senate seats. That's a plan worthy of Bill Clinton, I'd say.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Tinkering with social behavior worked so well the last time it was handled by Constitutional amendment, I can't imagine why anybody would object to such a change now.

[eye rolling sarcasm]

[concerned about politics]

. Your inability to perceive the difference between accepted scientific findings

True -It's proven gays have no gay gene. It's not biological. It's all a lie. It's a sexual dysfunctional perversion, like those who have sex with animals.

[concerned about politics]

It's kind of frightening to find "conservatives" actually proposing a Constitutional amendment to regulate something like marriage.

It's an affermation. No regulations would be changed.

[Snidely Whiplash]

Sorry. Next step is to give them your boys. They want the age of consent lowered to around 10 years old.

Sure, for values of "they" that equal "a few dozen people, universally thought to be whackjobs."

It'll never happen. I don't mean "gay marriage will never happen" kind of never, but Never, Ever. People under 15-16 years of age are simply incapable of consent. Gays getting married is at the very least an act between two consenting adults. Marrying a 10-year-old, or your pet parakeet, is not.

Now get a grip.

Snidely

[NeoCaveman]

If FR is a sample of the right half of the political spectrum, then the ammendment stands no chance I am sorry to say. Look at how your post has attracted so many "conservatives" who are social liberals like moths to a flame. The culture is doomed.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Hope someday you let go of your god of logic and science...

Hoo, boy, now there's a keeper.

A statement for the ages.

[WOSG]

I do fear.

Look at this whole discussion: Centered on gays. That is exactly how the gay and lesbian activists like it: Here we are, accept us. I AM SORRY BUT THE PROBLEM ARE NOT GAY PEOPLE - THEY ARE FINE. And as the debate drags on, with a gay-friendly media it is oh so easy to change soft minds on these kinds of issue. see, even a church-going lutheran on this thread buys the myth that above-average-income succesful gays face the same 'civil rights' trials as the oppressed blacks of the 1950s and 1960s. minds can be fooled. And as for most conservatives, if its done 'right' and not in our face, no we wont care. In fact, if this was a massachusetts law, I'd have 1/10th the problem with it. Democracy is somewhat self-correcting.

I do have a problem with the destruction of family and marriage, and yet this fight is just a piece of the puzzle.

And yes, Dean is "in bed" with the gay activists (no pun intended), and it can be tied to him, and that may help 'sell' the people on the cultural socialism that the Democrats represents (pro-death anti-family etc) but that's a lesser form of politics that DOESNT SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

THE PROBLEM IS A COURT- CENTERED TYRANNY THAT OVERRULES THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!!!!

Sure we can win a few elections - BUT ARE WE GOING TO SAVE THE COURTS FROM JUDICIAL TYRANNY????

[Belial]

True -It's proven gays have no gay gene. It's not biological.

Interesting! I'd love to see the announcement of this finding. It's pretty difficult to prove a negative. Further, you'd need to be able to trace the source of a complex behavioral pattern to environment and choice.

I think there are two possibilities: you read some propaganda pseudo-science, and believed it outright. Or maybe, you just made all that blather up yourself on the spot.

[familyofman]

"Get into a mistaken marriage..."
That's the point, choose wisely and you won't need the protection of a constitutional ammendment to cover your sorry a**.
"Your swagger is foolish in the extreme."
Only if it can't be backed up by action little grasshopper. I walk the walk, not just talk the talk. That's self-confidence, not swagger.

[concerned about politics]

It'll never happen. I don't mean "gay marriage will never happen" kind of never, but Never, Ever. People under 15-16 years of age are simply incapable of consent. Gays getting married is at the very least an act between two consenting adults. Marrying a 10-year-old, or your pet parakeet, is not.

The gay's are already lobbying to get it passed at the UN. under the propaganda of "Tolerance for lifestyle choices." They say kids should be sexually active by then, and should be allowed to find the pleasure of it.
They're way ahead of you. It's the U.S. that's falling behind.
Give them marrage, and all ther desires are up next. Does NAMBLA ring a bell?

[Snidely Whiplash]

Get government out of the marriage business, before it is too late!

But see, it's bad to have government interfering in our lives, except when we're after a certain sort of social engineering. Then it's okay.

I don't even want the states involved in defining marriage; I mean really, think about the people in your state governments...do you really want THEM involved? They can't even figure out how to remove snow from the roads properly, let alone define or protect a social institution.

Snidely

[WOSG]

"Trust me - I do. I see no need for "protection" in my marriage & anyone who has a strong one would need any either. Those that are weak & unsure of themselves might need outside help in their personal relationships, but I don't need or want any."

Are you in a common-law marriage or did you go to the courthouse like real married couples. If the latter, your statement is self-refuting.

Your comments are like saying you dont need 'consumer protection' laws because you only frequent honorable businesses!

[concerned about politics]

how your post has attracted so many "conservatives" who are social liberals like moths to a flame. The culture is doomed.

Libertarians. liberal/conservatives.
Party, but don't pay to cure the diseases afterwards.

[Snidely Whiplash]

The problem is we have courts that are usurping power. The Mass. Legislature DID pass a specific definition, and the Court just threw it out.

Consider this: Let's assume for the sake of discussion that the Mass. Legislature passed a law allowing marriage between any two or more consenting adults of legal age. And the Mass. Supremes did the same thing - threw it out as unconstitutional (tho how they'd arrive at such a decision is beyond me, unless they had a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and polygamy).

Anyway, assume they threw it out. Would you view such an action as a usurpation of the Legislature's power? If no, why not? Be specific.

Snidely

[Always Right]

It was a decision about state constitutionality. They need to go back and rectify a poorly written law.

LOL, what the f are you talking about. All they did was define what a marriage was. The court said it was unfair to do that. It had nothing to do with whether the law was written poorly.