Posted on 07/12/2004 10:26:34 AM PDT by abnegation
And so it begins.....
I actually got a few minutes to see what was going on and tuned in to hear her invoking the 10th Amendment!(I thought that was code for racism, that's what the dims have told me ;-)
As she said, nowhere is the word 'marriage' found anywhere in the Constitution, but neither is abortion, but that doesn't stop her ilk.
Homosexuality is an orientation, not a "behavior" or a "choice." They choose to be gay to the same degree that you choose to be black.
Homosexuality is an abnormal, deviant, behavior.
john, I am not convinced at all that this is unnecessary. MA judges have taken it on themselves to define marriage. I think we need to fight back. I think Hatch is right when he says this issue is not going away. Maybe the amendment won't pass, but the debate is serious and it matters, IMHO.
Hatch has one of his infamous "chart". LOL He can't seem to get on the floor without one. BTW he is quoting "the swimmer". LOL
Of course, the Founders never imagined any one would question marriage. Its amusing to see liberals invoke the Founders as the gold standard for NOT protecting traditional marriage. These are the folks who after all, view the people who founded our country as DWM.
What did Zell say? Did he use the Not-Needed line (i.e. abdicate the issue to the courts) or did he protect the family. I have emailed him multiple times on this issue.
Why don't you tell everyone here exactly where you are coming from.
Are you a homosexual?????
It won't go away. Somewhere a friendly federal judge will agree with the ACLU and the Left and strike down the DOMA statute. Its simply a matter of time. And I do think the votes are there on the Supreme Court to make gay marriage the law of the land.
Sure thing. Close your eyes and keep repeating that and it just might come true.
Hmmm... Why not make CFR a Constitutional amendment? Some judge might strike that down at some point in the future.
Hatch rightly points out the effect of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Says his fellow senators want to avoid getting crosswise with the people. Yes, Orrin, they are cowards.
Always wondered why this didn't come up in Willie's terms. Those sodomites LOVED one another back then, didn't they?
I should have looked at your link. Zell is a co-sponsor. Give em H' Zell.
Heard Rick Santorum just a few minuites ago. Said it was about giving childen the best and that means a Mommy and a Daddy. He said this is all about children. Right on Rick!
Wish they would cite the child abuse statistics for the Scandinavian countries after marraige was redefined. It is a shocker.
Before I reply to some of the points you raised.. ( and I enjoyed your rant..hope it was good for you too ..LOL)..what PRAY tell..is a "pro-Constitutional" view of homosexualit?????
Even if it never passes it will have served its purpose. It puts everybody on paper as to their vote on marriage. I can see the commercials in every district now.;-)
Judicial activism on the courts tends towards the Left. Judges do want to be liked by their peers and colleagues and you can guess on what side elite opinion is on regarding the issues of the day.
Well now, if you are going to fault them for their oversight by not including the definition of marriage in the Constitution, you must also take them to task for not defining what "is", is. ;-)
Those who oppose the amendment don't really have the guts to come out and say gays deserve to be married. I would respect them more if they took a principled stand.
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.