Anybody who wants on or off of the Arkansas ping list, let me know.
Posted on 10/09/2004 3:27:15 PM PDT by sweetliberty
Anybody who wants on or off of the Arkansas ping list, let me know.
I hope FReepers will all support Jim's campaign!
This race'll problem tighten more -- SurveyUSA had it at 14 points -- and it's my longshot upset pick, but it's still tough to get those last couple percent.
For anyone who has heard Jim talk - and I'm sure at the event listed in this article, Jim talks about a lot of things. The fact is, any good politician will target his message to the audience. But Holt is not a "one-issue" candidate.
No, he certainly isn't a single issue candidate. It's just that he realizes the implications of this particular issue. He also realizes that it is an issue that can separate the sheep from the goats, and nowhere is this more true than among the blacks in diehard RAT districts.
I certainly hope not. I'm a religious conservative, but not everybody is, even in Arkansas. Louisiana and Arkansas still have a taste for Dems, as the defeat of Hutchinson and the reelection of Landrieu proves. You've got to field serious candidates, esp to defeat incumbents. I hope Holt is one such individual.....
I would posit that the next time such an amendment is intruduced, it might not be a bad idea to include a provision explicitly allowing states to continue to grant some recognition to "marriages" performed before the amendment's ratification without having to either grant full recognition to such marriages or recognize ones performed after its ratification. Although I would expect such marriages would, for a time, pose problems, I would expect that with time the number of such marriages still in existence would decrease sufficiently to become a relative non-issue.
I have heard Jim Holt speak and was impressed with his ability to articulate specific issues of concern to Arkansans. He is energetic, positive, and smart. I think his wife is an asset also and very supportive of his campaign. Arkansas would benefit from his election to the senate in many ways, not the least of which would be that once again we would have senatorial access to the White House. Jim Hold can provide another conservative voice for Arkansas at the national level and be a loyal supporter of Pres Bush that he can count on. We have supported him financially and have a big HOLT sign next to our US flag. Holt is a good man and our prayers are with him for success in his senate campaign to defeat his liberal opponent, Blanche Lincoln.
The difficulty comes with the fact that if same-sex couples can claim that they are "married", they will almost certainly be able to use this claim to force private companies and private/state/local institutions to treat them as any other married couple. This is the overt intention of some of the groups pushing for "gay marriage"; the threat is hardly imaginary.
One of the things that makes any society strong is the notion of "kin"--a set of people with whom one has a blood relationship which is irrevokable. There is a set of people whom you will help out in time of need because you are related to them. Although you may decide to stop supporting a brother because you don't think enabling his bad behavior will help him until he solves his problems on his own, he would still always continue to be your brother.
If a married man and woman adopt a child, they become the baby's mother and father. Although not biologically related, the child's place in the family is no different from a biological child of those parents. The mother's sister is still che child's aunt, and the aunt's child is still the child's cousin. As far as anyone is concerned, the married couple are the child's legitimate mother and father.
One of the key factors that distinguishes a legitimate child from a bastard is having an identifiable mother (biological or otherwise) and an identifiable father. Even if a mother or father is no longer living or no longer with the child, the identity of that person forms a key part of the child's identity. A child adopted by two women will be fatherless, and a child adopted by two men will be motherless. How can such adoption--except in cases where the child has acknowledged and continues to acknowledge his parents (e.g. a twelve-year-old who gets orphaned and is adopted by his uncle--who continues to be his uncle and not his father) not create bastards?
Good questions. Based on my only other post to this forum I feared another set of angry rants. I will think about what you said.
Liberals like to portray anyone who opposes "gay marriage" as a gay-bashing thug, but the reality is that I couldn't care less what people do in private but these people are seeking government power to do things which I, and many Americans, oppose.
One thing I think I should make clear, at least regarding my own opinions, is that I do not see homosexuality as being an absolute 100% disqualifying factor for adoption, but I do see it as being a major negative. They way I would put it, a child who does not have a married mother and father will be at a substantial disadvantage compared to one who does. Sometimes a child may be forced to endure such disadvantages due to factors beyond anyone's control, but I see no reason for anyone to deliberately impose them upon a child.
There are times when I think a gay adoption may be the best thing for a child. If a child's parents are killed and the only relative who is willing and able to take the child is an uncle who happens to be living with a gay partner, I would think that being adopted by that uncle may be preferable to being adopted by strangers. Even if the child would no longer be able to meet Mom and Dad, the child would still know who they were, and who the other relatives were.
Generally, however, I would say that except when kinship demands otherwise, married couples should get 'first dibs' on adoptive children. Unfortunately, FWIU, too many adoption agencies seek to promote "diversity" by giving away babies to everything but traditional married couples.
Sounds like our semi-Republican answer to Ed Case (who took over for Patsy Mink when she was EWD [elected while dead]) in Hawaii. Some really strange guy otherwise but who is really passionate on the gay marriage issue.
You got it Fruminous- and Jim Holt says it at about every stop, but the press never seems to get around to reporting it.
Lincoln is being deceptive when she claims she is for marriage because she "supports" the state amendment but opposes the federal. She knows very well that all state amendments will be no protection at all when the federal courts throw them out.
We must have a federal amendment to keep the courts from shoving homosexual "marriage" down America's throat. Lincoln knows it, Holt says it, but the papers won't print that simple statement regardless of how often Holt repeats it. They make it seem like he is making a big deal over nothing, since slippery Lincoln "supports" the state amendment.
Too right. His website talks about more substance than Lincoln's. So does he. The press pretends it is all he talks about because they want people to write him off. Check their websites. Jim Holt has by far the most depth on issues.
Maybe Jim Holt should be on TV to get more recognization and substance to the voters of Arkansas. Or perhaps get George W. Bush to help him out before it is too late.
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.