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

Skip to comments.

Morford: The Love That Killed America (Bible-clutching homophobes recoil, violently to gay marriage)
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Wednesday, November 19, 2003 | Mark Morford, Always a Bridesmaid

Posted on 11/19/2003 8:35:10 AM PST by presidio9

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:44:56 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

The gays are marching in. The end is near. Sheer unadulterated evil and scary anal sex and superlative hair products and new blasts of fresh happy love are to be unleashed anew upon the country. Horror is nigh. Everyone into the bunker.


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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: antibush; antichristian; assbandit; bushbashing; bushobsessed; buttpirate; culturewar; fagagenda; feceslicker; gayporn; godhaters; goodridge; hatethebible; hideyergerbils; homosexualagenda; idiotarian; karlrovesucking; kiddiepornisok; lovesbarneyfrank; mancrushonbush; markmorford; militanthomosexuals; moonbat; morford; nambla; pornaddict; queermarriage; rearadmiral; rectaladdiction; shirtlifter; tradegodforfags; usefulidiot; worshipsanalsex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-165 next last
Comment #121 Removed by Moderator

To: johnb838
What's wrong with a man marrying his 12 year old daughter if his wife is cool with it, Or better still, his 12 year old son. Then you have Incest, Polygamy, Pederasty, *AND* Homosexuality.

Pat Ireland says If it feels good do it.

...or I'm a feminist I'm in your face

...or something.

122 posted on 11/19/2003 11:18:35 AM PST by Truth Table
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: bc2
No tax credits for married couples.

** ****

Newsflash, there is no tax credit. There is a tax PENALTY instituted way back by democrats to PENALIZE married people because they had an inadvertant tax benefit.

They also wanted to penalize couples who had a stay at homewife/mother. (there is actually an ecconomic benefit but that would be anti-pc)
123 posted on 11/19/2003 11:19:47 AM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Truth Table
no problem, just gave me a funny image of a drunk alfrankin trying to chat up a woman by explaining how we have a prepublic.

take care
124 posted on 11/19/2003 11:22:03 AM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: johnb838
But people who choose to marry and not have children still support the mother and father paradign of family.
125 posted on 11/19/2003 11:24:18 AM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
This person is a lunatic and needs a major head-check.
126 posted on 11/19/2003 11:26:19 AM PST by No Dems 2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Javelina
1. Choice is not a more, it's bad law. It is not something that impacts society as a whole.

2. The military is an institution. When I was enlisted in the Air Force I was serving the federal governemnt as a citizen of my state, which at the time, was Arizona. As to your question about Iraq, several towns have passed resolutions against the war. But the citizens of Cal serving in the reserves or active duty are goverened by a different set of laws, the UCMJ, becuause our society had a compelling interest to require military members to live under a different set of laws.

3. You do not think that in the present climate of political correctness, we can avoid the tyranny of the minority? Tyranny is tyranny.

So does having a national set of standards (our Constitution with your proposed amendment) violate the meaning of our Republic? Since folks should be able to move to a state that suits their mores (as per your republic definition) a national set of standards would seem incompatible with a republic.

This is exactly how our government was set up. Powers that do not fall under the state are delegated to the federal governent. It's in the constitution.

127 posted on 11/19/2003 11:32:11 AM PST by Truth Table
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
lol
128 posted on 11/19/2003 11:35:00 AM PST by Truth Table
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: stayout
Exactly why even have marriage just have civil unions. I promise between this and the Episcopal church I am on gay overload, I need to make myself get off this subject.
129 posted on 11/19/2003 11:36:51 AM PST by mel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"Religious people, in particular. Hyperzealous, evangelical, white, borderline fanatical religious people who apparently don't see a lot of sunlight and never read books and believe everything their homophobic intolerant Bible-spouting evangelical pastor and maybe Ann Coulter say, even more particularly."

Will someone please tell this candyass to go f**k himself?

Never mind.............I'll do it...................

130 posted on 11/19/2003 11:46:12 AM PST by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Javelina

So does having a national set of standards (our Constitution with your proposed amendment) violate the meaning of our Republic? Since folks should be able to move to a state that suits their mores (as per your republic definition) a national set of standards would seem incompatible with a republic.

Just a quick clairfication: The question of marriage is one of institution; so it is by definition, something the states, in and of themselves, cannot address. An ammendment will be necessary only because a few judges in Mass will force the issue. I did not make this point clear in my last post to you, because I thought you were talking about choice. Sorry.

131 posted on 11/19/2003 11:52:36 AM PST by Truth Table
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: T.Smith
"Using the bible to suggest a basis for legislation is just wrong."

Wrong forum to try this tripe, slick.

Admit it...........you slept through your history courses, didn't you?

132 posted on 11/19/2003 11:52:55 AM PST by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"the prevailing sentiment...the majority response"

There is just that inconvenient detail about governing with the consent of the governed (the majority).

"proving that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional and immoral and just plain stupid"

Oh really? Anybody care to venture a guess what the actual drafters of the Constitution would say about that?

"Religious people (unlike the religious liberals), in particular.
Hyperzealous (unlike the rabid Marxists), evangelical,
white (oh, believing queers are perverts is a racial issue now? Who knew?),
borderline fanatical religious people (as opposed to completely fanatical lefties)
who apparently don't see a lot of sunlight (not to put too fine a point on it, but Satan is generally the one who does his dirty deeds under cover of darkness - see DemocRATic Underground)
and never read books (except that one, what's it called? Oh yeah, the BIBLE)
and believe everything their homophobic intolerant (you have some nerve calling anybody else intolerant) Bible-spouting evangelical pastor and maybe Ann Coulter say, even more particularly.

133 posted on 11/19/2003 12:10:43 PM PST by sweetliberty ("Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Who IS this hysterical whack job?
134 posted on 11/19/2003 12:12:25 PM PST by sweetliberty ("Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
San Francisco Chronicle--newspaper of the queer capital of the world--speaks volumes for credibility as to this racist attack on ordinary citizens who believe that queers shouldn't have special rights nor protection.
135 posted on 11/19/2003 12:15:45 PM PST by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Anal sex IS scary. Nasty and incredibly unhygenic also. I will never again look at a gay man without wondering whether or not he is wearing diapers due to having a herniated sphincter (sp?)...something about which I recently read. Until I read that I had absolutely no idea just how sick these people can be.
136 posted on 11/19/2003 12:35:32 PM PST by vikingcelt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
Admit it...........you slept through your history courses, didn't you?

Nope. Go ahead, try me.

137 posted on 11/19/2003 12:43:25 PM PST by T.Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: T.Smith
Does anyone know how many problems would get solved by simply outlawing judges?
138 posted on 11/19/2003 12:56:51 PM PST by princess leah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: johnb838
The push by perverts for marriage is all about being accepted by the majority

Actually, I believe it is all about the push by the neo-communists to destroy the fabric of America and the Judeo-Christian culture, and to destabilize the country until it descends into civil war, at which time they will REALLY make their move. Of course, their first move will be to kill all the homosexual and liberal useful idiots that did their work for them.

Agreed. However, I believe the neo-communists are just another layer of useful idiots who will also be liquidated when a global government is firmly in place.

139 posted on 11/19/2003 1:04:40 PM PST by GluteusMax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: princess leah

Does anyone know how many problems would get solved by simply outlawing judges?

I have no problems with judges as long as they strictly adhere to the constitution and not make up rights that never existed, or law that our legislatures (read we the people) never voted to enact.

Why d'ya think that Chucky S and Teddy K are filibustering 12 of 41 federal apelet judges? Judges and courts. That is what it is all about Judges and Courts.

140 posted on 11/19/2003 1:14:36 PM PST by Truth Table
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-165 next 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