Posted on 11/12/2004 1:20:12 PM PST by neverdem
hehehe ummmmm I UH, EM, ER HAW HAW HAW
Good. They should be required to make their case to legislatures and voters, not use the courts to do an end run around democracy.
the harder they push, the more we will push back. why do they not understand that?
my gay sister is no longer speaking to me because I told her I would rather see her safe from terrorism than married.
she, who has no religious beliefs whatsoever, insists that she has to have a religious ceremony - just to keep the lawyers in business handling all the divorces? Truly I am not sure she understands what she is asking for.
Bit off more than they could chew.
The amendments make it more difficult to overturn those laws,
Lawsuits Lawsuits Lawsuits. All of their legislative arguments are for one purpose only: to facilitate their legal arguments so they can ready the judges to legislate gay marriage for the entire nation. Privacy? HA! Sucker!!!! States' rights? HAHA!!!! Big fat sucker if you are had twice. Civil Unions? HAHAHA!!!!! They are a distinction without a difference and serve only to confuse people.
Like any cancer...these clueless hypersodomite champions just keep eating away at the foundation of society.
bump
Or swallow.
Your sister can already have her religious ceremony. She just cannot force the rest of us to recognize it and shower it with public awards and benefits. We have freedom too. That means we all have a say in how our public institutions are defined. We are not obligated to reward every orgasm.
Big shock, seeing the homosexual activists attempt to use the court system to thwart the will of the people.
They got bit by backlash. At least we slowed 'em down some.
I didn't think that anyone has a RIGHT to get married. Getting married requires a license. People have had to get permission to marry for centuries.
I've got it...
Keep the definition of Marriage as-is; One man + One woman.
Define Same-Sex unions as; Sodomiage
Married people pay higher taxes. Tell that to your sis.
Even in Massachusetts the homarriage was created by the stealth court.
Another poster made the point that nobody has the "right" to get married. That is true since one has to get a marriage license and the State can refuse to issue the license (i.e. if the intendeds were too closely-related). Just "getting married" in a church isn't enough to be legally married in the eyes of the law. So much for the "wall of separation between church and state."
What was stealthy about 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.