[mrustow]

Who needs time-wasting, expensive institutions like representative goverment, when you've got the media and courts?

[mrustow]

This may be of interest to you and other FReepers on your ping list.

[King Black Robe]

BTTT!

[Conspiracy Guy]

Gay couples have fewer abortions. So I guess that is a plus, but I still can't support same sex marriage.

CG

[skeeter]

The mainstream media is queer for queers.

[spodefly]

BTTT

[SunkenCiv]

found this following a link out of a FR topic:

RealClearPolitics 'blog
J. McIntyre
Friday, February 27 2004

MORE GAY MARRIAGE: Al Sharpton from last night'sDemocratic debate:

I think this is not an issue any more of just marriage. This is an issue of human rights. And I think it is dangerous to give states the right to deal with human rights questions. That's how we ended up with slavery and segregation going forward a long time.

I, under no circumstances, believe we ought to give states rights to gay and lesbians' human rights. Whatever my personal feelings may be about gay and lesbian marriages, unless you are prepared to say gays and lesbians are not human beings, they should have the same constitutional right of any other human being.

When I heard this it occurred to me that for those who believe that gay marriage is an issue about fundamental fairness and equality of the law, this is really the only intellectually sound position. If this issue is truly analogous to the old laws which barred interracial marriage in many states (a common arguing point for the pro-gay marriage side) then Sharpton is exactly right that leaving this to the states would be immoral and wrong.

Does anyone think for one second that this countrytoday would stand for the argument that it is OK for Virginia or Alabama to pass laws barring interracial marriage? Of course not.

So if gay marriage is fundamentally about basic civil rights for all citizens in this country, then I don't see how gay marriage proponents can honestly argue for a "states-rights" system that would legally discriminate against individuals in some states.

FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT:

I understand the reticence to alter the Constitution, and I myself am unsure whether I would support the FMA. But it is disingenuous for Senator Kerry to say he is against gay marriage and that the issue should be left up to the states.

Given what is happening in the real world in Massachusetts and San Francisco, and given the Supreme Court's decision on sodomy earlier this year and the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, the reality is that if you are truly against gay marriage and you want the laws of the nation to reflect that opposition, the only viable option is probably an amendment to the Constitution.

So where do you stand? If you think this is an issue of basic human equality then Sharpton is right and a "states-rights" position is morally wrong. If you are against gay marriage and want the laws to reflect that position then you are going to have to face the uncomfortable truth that a Constitutional amendment might be the only way to make that a reality.

A simple question to someone who is supposedly against gay marriage would be:

"Would you support an amendment to the Constitution enshrining marriage as between one man and one woman if that was the ONLY way to legally preserve the sanctity of marriage. Yes or No?"

If the answer is "no" then it doesn't seem to me from a public policy standpoint that that person is against gay marriage.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping - lots to chew on here.

One main point - the media are bought out whores of the "gay" rights movement. No doubt about it.

What can we do?

1. Become educated ourselves, and not fall for the lying propaganda permeating the airwaves, print media, TV and government and other institutions. There is no better place than FR and this website:

http://www.abidingtruth.com/index.php?viewmode=resources

2. Do our best to educate others - our children, family, fellow employees or workers, co-religionists, neighbors,the public - through any means we can come up with. Some ideas here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1076476/posts
What We Can Do To Defeat the Homosexual Agenda

3. Contact all elected representatives over and over again. Can't give up on this one, even though it seems useless at times.

4. Assist others who are on the front lines - give our support, whatever we can afford in time, money or other assets, to organizations or individuals, including right-minded people in or seeking public office that are fighting the culture war.

5. Pray.

6. Put other ideas on the above thread.

[backhoe]

Cross-link:

-A Gay ( or not! ) Old Time- GM links--

[Desron13]

"If it weren’t for that grand old scourge of the socialist media, Accuracy in Media founder Reed Irvine, we wouldn’t know, that according to New York Timesman Richard Berke (who is now the paper’s Washington editor), 75 percent of the top honchos at the Times on the editorial side were gay … and that was in 2000!"

Seventy five percent gay? You don't suppose there's any discrimination in hiring going on here do you? Naw, can't be. Just like there's no discrimination in hiring college professors even though they're ninety percent Democrats (read Marxist/Socialist). Where's the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when you really need them. Apparently nowhere to be found. What a surprise.

[Free ThinkerNY]

Their Great Dream

[anniegetyourgun]

NO, NO, NO....I'VE HAD IT WITH EVERY OTHER THREAD ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS. I SWEAR, THE WORLD HAS GONE GAY FAD. I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE.....

It's not you, mrustow....it's this subject....the 'love' that won't shut up....

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

This is not only law breaking but a public safety/health issue.Granting these licenses is akin to advocating the spread of AIDS/HIV.