Its amazing that even though the Supreme Court weighed in on this matter just two weeks ago - that they still were trying to force the issue. This is only going to get hotter...
Posted on 01/19/2005 6:54:55 PM PST by neverdem
That's still not a mandate. That's why we must use the courts. To keep matters like this out of the hands of a bunch of ignorant, sexist, homophobic voters. :) Denote sarcasm.
Was there something wrong with the judge? Didn't he get enough sleep last night and was too tired to legislate from the bench, or to consider how they do it in Europe? </sarcasm>
Is a marriage suit anything like a birthday suit ?
I threw out all my old same-sex-marriage suits. My wife made me throw them out, actually.
I threw out all my puffy shirts, too.
I kept the lime-green one.
So much for those who think this is a state issue.
More of good judicial news.
``This is a legal shot heard 'round the world,''
Heck yeah, with cheers!!! Fireworks and all.
Not loud enough apparently if they aren't going away!
Definitely good news.
Good !
This is the 11th DCA. Very smart court.
IF I am not mistaken these are the two lesbians who want to establish a marriage so that the homosexual partner of the woman with children can adopt the children.
If marriage is established in FL, then they can use that to attack the FL ban on homosexual adoption. (six states have bans on homosexual adoptions, two are outright bans, four are severe restirctions. 27 states do not allow for homosexual sex partner adoptions.)
This is being appealed.
This should also be read with the recent LA upholding their state DMA which outlaws civil unions as well as homosexual marriages. (the homosexuals challeged based on the one subject rule of referendums) This means and indicates that a duplicate of the LA amendment in other states will help keep marriage lite out of the debate.
Now we need to educate the public about homosexual behavior is a choice and that "born 'gay'" is a political phenominon NOT a scientific conclusion.
related article here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1324087/posts?page=6#6
This will hopefully fan the flames for the FMA.
It will also demonstrate the need to bar civil unions.
With any luck, the ABA will have to rewrite their far leftist Model Divorce Code.
Thanks for the link.
There are no winners where logic loses.
With any luck, the ABA will have to rewrite their far leftist Model Divorce Code.
They are already divorcing in MA. Quite something, considering their marriages aren't really legal to begin with.
The ABA sponsors what the call the "model laws project". They come up with model laws which states can use to come up with laws which are in harmony across states. (ala the UCC which was such a model code.)
There is only ONE model code used by legilators and its the leftist tripe of the ABA.
The homosexuals are seeking to get divorced in other states too. IF a state recognizes a homosexual marriage in divorce court, then it has to arguably recognize the existence of the marriage. They tried the same stunt with Vermont civil unions in TX, GA, CT, and FL with no success.
LOL -no, this is a slap heard 'round the world', selfish disordered homosexual depraved activity does not warrant social acceptance.
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.