Posted on 05/17/2004 12:11:17 PM PDT by george wythe
President Bush renewed his call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday as gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts became the first in the United States to marry legally.
"The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges. All Americans have a right to be heard in this debate," the Republican president said in a written statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at wireservice.wired.com ...
They are misguided, this is not frivolous. It is taking a stand against the abuse of our constitutional system by the judiciary. They could be stood up to and impeached, but this would be for Massachutes to do, and they won't.
Since it is the constitution that requires states to regard other states marriage laws to be given consideration, it is a federal solution that must be found.
Thanks again ;)
In the face of one other's insults, I truly appreciate someone who is willing to carry on a discussion without ad hominem attacks. And I apologize once again for mistaking the author; as noted before, I am quite new to this site.
Is President Bush a king,a dictator,a Tsar,or has the president of the USA lately been granted powers I don't know about?
Has the GOP Governor of Mass. fought against this? Yes, he has and lost this round.
Sooooooooooo,by your way of thinking,a Kerry presidency would fix this matter AND make this nation safer and more prosperous? Is that it? You loved both of Clinton's two terms...right?
I've stated before on FR my marital state, and I don't owe you anything or any explanation.
KKringle signed up on FR today and is pushing the liberal leftist agenda. All his posts today are either criticizing Bush and the WOT or supporting the "gay" agenda.
Even if he doesn't answer about his personal life, he owes everyone on this thread the answers to the others. If he isn't a conservative in any way, shape or form, he should find himself another place to play.
You need to get around more. It's perfectly legitimate to ask questions about the poster which is related to the topic. Hypocracy whould be discounted or brought out to the light. He has the power to make this go away by answereing a simple question. Get mad at someone who evangelizes constantly about 1 subject and doesn't answer a question, not the questioner. You have your priorities backward.
I don't think Krispy Kringle was trying to do that, he was just trying to answer Little Jerimiah's question about who he voted for, and who he might vote for.
I'll admit, KK's stated stands don't reflect the average FR poster, but he seems to be relatively right of center on a lot of issues. He resembles a lot of voters out there who are truly trying to decide between Bush and Kerry. It's my opinion that if we can persuade people who tend to side with conservative causes at least a little bit, to see the President's positions as being closer to their philosophies than Kerry's positions (when you can nail one down), then we can win this election quite decisively.
Going on the attack against a person who has come here to discuss things is not going to do it.
Since you answered the question before your refusals yesterday were very disengenuous. And to continue now is just bullheaded and disrupting.
First it is not frivolous, but relates to one of the most fundamental social institutions, and second, the activist judges through their sweeping rulings based on vague and elastic Constitutional principles are "amending" the Constitution all the time. An actual amendment is the only way the people can fight back against judicial tyranny.
Please answer my questions that you have avoided. If you have no conservative viewpoints, you are on the wrong forum. Did you read Jim Robinson's statement yet?
Note to breakem - if you think I am a homosexual, you are stark raving mad.
You want to actually put forth the idea that because you feel Bush has done whatever... then you would waste you vote on socialist agenda that changes every three minutes (Kerry's flip-floppiness)?
You have provided no intellectually honest reason why you should vote for Hanoi John Kerry.
If you are gonna be dissatisfied with both major parties, you should be honest enough to waste your vote on a fringe candidate that comes closest to your standards, or, heckfire, write in yourself!
I don't buy your argument on voting for Kerry one bit.
re 64 and tell me who's being pointless? He has made the information public before, knew it, yet dragged it out with me for two days. I accept your apology in advance.
Actually, I did not bring up Qerry. I find Qerry extremely boring and elitist to be worth any interesting discussion. Even my Democratic friends walked out on him when Qerry came to Bal Harbour a few weeks ago.
A Jewish friend said, "Qerry has the personality of a matzo."
I prefer to discuss more interesting subjects, like the great President George W Bush.
I answered all of the questions in the original post. I don't intend on answering the other post, as you seem focused only on personal attacks. If you can carry on a discussion politely, I will gladly answer your questions.
Incidentally, I have indeed read that statement, and I agree with most, though not all, of the statements put forth there.
You still have not answered your own questions; I am curious, but if you do not wish to answer, you need not.
Firts you say you won't answer. Then you said you've answered in the past. Now you give an indirect answer.
Stop squirming, give and answer and feel the power of truth around you.
The issue is that here the government is promoting homosexual behavior through civil gay marriage, which it has no business doing given that in a free society people have the right to have differing views on the morality of homosexual activity. People are free to live together as man and wife now. Civil same sex "marriage" adds nothing to people's freedom, but rather gives government imprimatur to the behavior. The government should be neutral at most on homosexual activity. It should not be promoting and affirming it. That is precisely why gay activists want civil same sex marriage and precisely why it is so objectionable to those of us with moral and religious objections.
Knock it off.
I may indeed vote for a third party, or simply not vote at all. However, as you say, that is wasting a vote; I think instead I should vote for the candidate I find less distasteful.
That's hardly a "plus."
BTW, the Roman Empire is extinct.
Knock what off?
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.