Posted on 07/12/2004 10:26:34 AM PDT by abnegation
And so it begins.....
Have I said that?
I'm all for it, and I think it should be debated. But the likelyhood of is passing is nil.
That wasn't my point, and you know it. My equation was actually between people who thought it was morally correct to discriminate according to skin color, and people who think it is morally ok to discriminate according to sexual orientation.
In other words, I was saying that bigots then were like bigots today.
Okie, dokie then (G).
A debate is still very important. We heard the Democrats mention they share the values of the American heartland. Now we have the once in a life opportunity to see if they cast their votes alongside their rhetoric. I've been waiting for this for quite some time now.
Of course, no Federal judge has done it with DOMA yet.
Why not make the prescription drug benefit a constitutional amendment? After all, some judge somewhere may strike it down.
I'll be SHOCKED if Kerry or Edwards comes to the floor to speak on this amendment.
They'll keep their distance on this and let their vote be their voice.
With that comparison, NAMBLA should be able to do whatever they wish without a fear of prosecution becuase it would be "bigotry".
Fineswine says the issue is not properly before them. It is for the states and the states are excercising that right. Hatch is up.
Hay FReeps its state rights ,Leave the Constitution Alone .
I For one, don't trust anyone in the guberment to write a bill that they would read or add more to take away state rights THINK ABOUT IT..... plus it will NEVER pass
It is just a waste of time!
The people of her own state didn't think so when 61% of them passed an initiative to protect traditional marriage by statute in 2000. A wedge issue, LOL!
As a black man I can tell you, you are wrong.
Being black is not a behavior. Having gay sex is.
Can't believe Hatch has on that ugly pink tie either. (g)
HATCH UP!
The rats know that the activist judges are going to do their bidding. They can act like it is a state issue, because they know that the Federal Courts are going to be the vehicle to redefine marriage later on.
We need to stop this now, either with the FMA, or with HR 3313.
Its delicious to hear this professed concern for "state's rights" emanating from the other side. They're usually the ones who ridicule it. Not this time around.
LOL, you made me get up and look. It is truly awful.
He'll never beat Byrd's wardrobe..............
You can actually show that pedophilia results in lasting damage to the victims and should be outlawed on that basis. Gay marriage is between two consenting adults--no crime. Huge difference. And, again, you know it.
A tip: when you go to the effort to construct a straw man, you shoud at least make sure that it can stand up to the slightest breeze.
It's part of the John Kerry Collection.
Exactly. The Democrats don't want this amendment cause they know gay marriage is going to be an accomplished fact down the road. They just don't have the guts to tell the American people they ARE for it.
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.