Skip to comments.
Defense of Marriage Amendment debate on CSPAN2 LIVE THREAD
CSPAN
Posted on 07/12/2004 10:26:34 AM PDT by abnegation
And so it begins.....
TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: anarchy; anarchyinamerica; civilization; dirtyrottenhomos; fma; homosexualagenda; homosexualbehavior; lawlessness; marriageamendment; nambla; protectchildren; protectfamily; romans1; senate; sexualperversion; wayneallard
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 581-588 next last
To: IamConservative
Then why don't the Democrats come out openly and say gay marriage is good for America? I mean if traditional marriage is outdated, then just say so. Stop dancing around the issue.
141
posted on
07/12/2004 11:39:32 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: goldstategop
"Actually the FMA would preserve federalism by leaving the issue of civil unions up to the state legislature."
YES.
142
posted on
07/12/2004 11:40:06 AM PDT
by
Bahbah
To: johnfrink
If a gay man wants to marry, let him find a good girl to show him what he has been missing. Gay haven't married for thousands of years, a few more thousand won't hurt one bet.
Gays didn't expect to be married as their straight counterparts as they grew up, they shouldn't expect it now.
143
posted on
07/12/2004 11:40:11 AM PDT
by
Sybeck1
(Kerry: how can we trust him with our money, if Teresa won't trust him with hers!)
To: ken5050
what PRAY tell..is a "pro-Constitutional" view of homosexualit????? Meaning: you can't, at a federal level, take away the rights of people to hurt themseleves/do stupid things, that otherwise do not break any enforcable laws. I mean, we are talking about consentual adults here.
144
posted on
07/12/2004 11:41:10 AM PDT
by
BureaucratusMaximus
("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" - Hillary Clinton)
To: goldstategop
That's a good answer, except that it contradicts the very language of the amendment. The amendment would prohibit any state constitution from being construed to grant the "legal incidents" of marriage to a homosexual couple. So that if, for example, the Hawaii constitution required that same sex "civil unions" receive all of the legal benefits of marriage, the FMA would prohibit such a construction.
145
posted on
07/12/2004 11:41:19 AM PDT
by
lugsoul
(Until at last I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside.)
To: Bahbah
146
posted on
07/12/2004 11:42:10 AM PDT
by
lugsoul
(Until at last I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside.)
To: lugsoul
If one State allows it, then the other 49 will be forced to acknowledge it also. One State shouldn't be allowed to decide for another, period.
147
posted on
07/12/2004 11:42:58 AM PDT
by
abnegation
(If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose righteousness TR)
To: finnigan2
The irony lost on the other side was that if they left things well enough alone, we wouldn't have to consider an amendment. Like President Bush, I'm not in favor of casually amending our Constitution. But they forced it by telling Americans they will shove gay marriage down their throats whether we like it or not. After all, progress is for our own good. And we are fools to try to stand athwart history and yell "stop!"
148
posted on
07/12/2004 11:42:59 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: abnegation
Have you ever read the Defense of Marriage Act? Read it, then come back and post again.
150
posted on
07/12/2004 11:43:45 AM PDT
by
lugsoul
(Until at last I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside.)
To: reagandemo
From Section 2 of H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act:
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."
As someone has pointed out on this thread already, no court has even considered ruling the DOMA unconstitutional, nor, in my opinion, will they.
151
posted on
07/12/2004 11:44:15 AM PDT
by
eiffel
(pioneer of aerodynamics)
To: johnmorris886
Are you a homosexual????? No. Are you?
To: abnegation
How dare the Democrats accuse the Republicans of "politicizing" and "forcing" this issue. This wouldn't be on the radar screen if not for the complicity of activist judges and mayors who took it upon themselves to revise laws they didn't agree with. This is something Republicans would much rather not be dealing with at the moment - but their hand has been forced and they must take action.
Rick Santorum is a brilliant, strong man with a gift for conveying his message in simple, effective terms. He is one of the leading young lights of the party and one of the most consistent across the board conservatives. What are the chances of him garnering the nomination in 2008?
153
posted on
07/12/2004 11:44:41 AM PDT
by
ICX
(The Dem VP race is like a wildebeest giving birth - it's ugly, loud, and ultimately doesn't matter.)
To: abnegation; StriperSniper
Hatch has one of his infamous "chart". Who was it that brought "THE SPINNER" out ??? McConnell?
To: lugsoul
If that's the problem, the language can be changed. The Democrats can bring up an amendment and we can vote for it. Let's see them come up with an alternative.
155
posted on
07/12/2004 11:45:29 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: abnegation
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.".
156
posted on
07/12/2004 11:45:31 AM PDT
by
lugsoul
(Until at last I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside.)
To: OXENinFLA
157
posted on
07/12/2004 11:46:25 AM PDT
by
StriperSniper
("Ronald Reagan, the Founding Father of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy." - Mark Levin 6/8/04)
To: goldstategop
And how exactly does DOMA not serve your purposes?
158
posted on
07/12/2004 11:46:27 AM PDT
by
lugsoul
(Until at last I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside.)
To: lugsoul
I see what you are saying, lugsoul, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this be a state by state vote, each state deciding whether this was or was not acceptable law, and is that not federalism.
159
posted on
07/12/2004 11:47:11 AM PDT
by
Bahbah
To: lugsoul
"`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'. "
And what was this "have I read it"? If this passes, my State won't have to put up with what Further Left and the Swimmer's State decides for us. I'm a bit confused about your "have I read it" crap.
160
posted on
07/12/2004 11:47:52 AM PDT
by
abnegation
(If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose righteousness TR)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 581-588 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson