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


1 posted on 12/18/2003 8:51:54 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: JimKalb; Free the USA; EdReform; realwoman; Orangedog; Lorianne; Outlaw76; balrog666; DNA Rules; ...
ping
2 posted on 12/18/2003 8:52:33 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RogerFGay

Oh really? Is the news so slow these days that someone has to make up this crap to sell papers?

4 posted on 12/18/2003 8:56:13 AM PST by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RogerFGay
"We're encouraged the administration appears to be embracing that centrist stance," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, one of the key backers of the amendment now pending. "The president's statements today reflect where most Americans are on this issue."

Bush is crystal clear: he is not going to come out against people being able to set up legal agreements with each other, something that they can do now.

The Gary Bauers and Robert Knights of the world see even the status quo as a threat to heterosexual marriage, and, of course, they're just being hysterical.

"Civil unions" is essentially a legal issue, and can be done now. The radical right is just trying to grab on to an issue, since Bush supports the Federal Marriage Amendment.

5 posted on 12/18/2003 8:58:49 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RogerFGay
"We need clear leadership in a time of judicial tyranny, not politicians who don't have the spine to stand up for something as basic as marriage," said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute.

How DARE Knight ask for clarity from President Bush! Doesn't he know he's supposed to salute at everything Bush does? Doesn't he read freerepublic?

9 posted on 12/18/2003 9:06:29 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RogerFGay
I realize that some of these groups want Bush to try to make a national law against same gender sex. But given recent court rulings, it just wouldn't stand up in the Supreme Court, so why waste his time.

Bush says he is leaving it to the states to determine whatever legal arrangements they want to make as long as it doesn't endanger the sanctity of marriage. I don't know how they deem that to be support of civil unions.

54 posted on 12/19/2003 7:14:18 AM PST by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RogerFGay
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055 § 1; cf. GS 48 § 1).


1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:

- not being under constraint;

- not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.




69 posted on 12/19/2003 6:28:20 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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