Posted on 02/15/2004 9:21:34 AM PST by Houmatt
IF the government is in the business of giving licenses then it must determine why some taxpayers are left out and not provided equal opportunity under the law. There is no right to marry, as far as I can determine. But the government has an obligation under the constitution to provide equal protection under the law and that means not affording separate opportunites to different taxpayers.
You did not answer my question about the support of the agenda and why you misrepresented my position, so I will not be answering your new question. I realize you just shot first without aiming. Just admit your mistake and we'll move on to the next question. It is the honorable thing to do.
tm, this is the guy you're supporting? LOL!
As do I. But I also understand what those rights are, and what they are not.
Speech, religion, owning firearms and a fair trial are all rights. Marriage, adoption and killing the unborn in the name of convenience are not.
Can you see and understand the difference?
I included child molestation as a "right" some people would like to have - along with polygamy and incest. You seem to like to ignore the point of a post and use your own interpretation. Since child molestation is so inarguably heinous, you are trying to use it as a way to make my post seem controversial.
Why is there no freedom for child molestation, as opposed to Canada where the age of consent is 14, or Amsterdam where it is 12? Because we as a majority have determined that to do otherwise is immoral. How do we know activist judges won't soon find a "right" to sexual behavior for minors? This is already the goal of many UN NGO's who are attempting to use international "soft laws" to overturn sovereign laws. International laws were cited in the Goodridge decision.
Yesterday a guest on O'Reilly, Al Rantel, a homosexual man, stated that he totally disagrees with the homosexual agenda re: marriage. He argued it is not the redefinition of marriage but the deconstruction of marriage.
I hope you and Al Rantal live a happy life. I don't get my opinions from talk show hosts. I get them by reading, listening to a variety of sources, and by thinking. Turn off the radio and give it a try.
What? A marriage license is a contract? Would you be so kind as explain how you came up with this idea?
And while you are at it, could you also tell us how homosexuals are being discriminated against? Homosexuals can marry if they so desire, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.
But what you fail to understand is, the state does not have to allow anyone to marry if they don't want to. You see, marriage is not a right. It is not mentioned in the Constitution. In fact, it was left up to the States to decide, if you have read the Tenth Amendment. Furthermore, in 38 states, there is now a Defense of Marriage Act in place that firmly establishes the definition of marriage as being a legal union between one man and one woman. To date, this has not been challenged by anyone, in any of the 38 states, because of the aforementioned fact.
What the Mayor of San Francisco is doing is in clear violation of state law. He knows it, we know it, and those marriage certificates he has been handing out are not worth the paper they are printed on anywhere outside of the city.
What's your point?
What Al Rantel did was affirm that homosexuals are not interested in marriage except to further their own agenda. He said he spoke from an insider's perspective and proved the opinions expressed here by homosexual activists are actually mainstream within the homosexual community.
Goodridge was not decided on equal protection but "rational basis." You are echoing the Mayor of San Francisco's arguments, and he, at this point, is a lawbreaker.
I told you about my neighbors marriage and so what, you would have me throw out what I know from direct observation because Al Rantal has a different opinion. I hope all doesn't tell you to become homosexual, you will implode. LOL!
No, I don't. You seem to, however. And you have not told me how you came up with such a silly conclusion.
Of course, that is not the only thing you have intentionally ignored:
But what you fail to understand is, the state does not have to allow anyone to marry if they don't want to. You see, marriage is not a right. It is not mentioned in the Constitution. In fact, it was left up to the States to decide, if you have read the Tenth Amendment. Furthermore, in 38 states, there is now a Defense of Marriage Act in place that firmly establishes the definition of marriage as being a legal union between one man and one woman. To date, this has not been challenged by anyone, in any of the 38 states, because of the aforementioned fact.
Now, if there is any part of this you do not understand, (and it is obvious you don't understand any of it, since you ignored it) please re-read the United States Constitution.
I will not spend one minute explaining marriage contract to you. You can ignore the legal and vivil aspects of state marriages all you want, that won't make it go away.
Please re-read #75.
I will not spend one minute explaining marriage contract to you.
That's because you can't. As with the above issue, you have no idea what you are talking about.
My first post was that the homosexuals I know, male and female, have neither long-term nor monogomaus relationships. The male homosexuals were especially promiscuous and involved in all kinds of sexually aberrant behavior. The lesbians may have been quieter about it but were supportive of such behavior.
Al Rantel must have the courage of his convictions to come out against the homosexual party line.
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.