Posted on 02/10/2005 10:34:34 AM PST by davidosborne
Black-robed tyrant -- Judge Doris Ling-Cohan -- decreed on Friday that it would be "irrational and perverse" to deny homosexuals the "right" to marry. Can you believe it! Now it is "perverse" NOT to allow homosexuals to marry! With a single arbitrary slam of her gavel, Ling-Cohan impose HER INDIVIDUAL WILL on the City of New York and struck down a New York law which was originally established in the 19th Century. Ling-Cohan did not just make a travesty of the law when issuing her proclamation. She trampled on the will of the people of New York, the will of the American people, the will of the governor, the will of the President of the United States and she trampled on the Constitution like it was her personal door mat. However, Ling-Cohan in making her proclamation just made a liar of all the liberal and RINO (Republican in Name Only) Senators -- like John McCain -- who told us last year that a Federal Marriage Amendment was simply not necessary. We need a Federal Marriage Amendment NOW! Now is the time to renew the fight
>>>decreed on Friday that it would be "irrational and perverse"<<
Um excuse me but wouldn't allowing them to marry be irrational and perverse???? Sodomy is still a felony in some States.
passing it on...
This is exactly why we must accelerate the Federal Marriage Ammendemnt !!
Calendar No. 620
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. J. RES. 40
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
July 7, 2004
Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. FRIST, Mr. HATCH, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. KYL, Mr. LOTT, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. MILLER, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. TALENT, Mr. CRAPO, and Mr. CRAIG) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read the first time
July 8, 2004
Read the second time and placed on the calendar
Actually, I think all those laws were overturned by the Supreme Court concerning Texax a couple years back.
Not since the Supreme Court's ruling a couple of years ago.
Well I guess it is possible for two gentlemen to get "married" and never commit the act of sodomy. Maybe they will just be "friends".
Excuse me. But why do we need to immediately jump to amend the Constitution over this? The judge's ruling does not apply outside of New York and it hasn't even been through the appeals process (where it will most likely be overturned).
It's this kind of knee-jerk reaction that is the cause of a lot of crappy laws in this country. Calm down, drink decaf, and wait for the process we already have in place to work before overturning the apple cart.
Being a conservative means that you want to conserve things the way they are, you don't want to go out all flame-eyed and radically alter things just because you have your panties in a wad. Leave that to the Democrats -- that's what they do best. We are better than they are.
criminal homosexual sodomy was overturned.
The question is where the NY Supremes will allow the case to stand. I don't think they will.
There is also the CT situation which has some legislators attempting to prevent DOMA by making homosexual marriage legal first.
Then Virginia is going to put outlawing civil unions right next to their DOMA in 2006.
The FMA is needed. The problem is that senators want to sit on their cushy posteriors and let the 1996 DMA overturned FIRST before they do anything. It is playing politics rather than solutions.
There is no jump. Marriage is already a federal issue. Immigration spousal visas and joint tax returns.
If anything by amending the constitution the issue is returned to the states for any marriage lite they may wish.
Judges have the responsibility to interpret laws. Rational assessment may sometimes be required in this duty. Perversity, however, is an emotional term with very negative connotation. Sounds like this activist mixed emotion with jurisprudence, and proposely inflamed the public by claiming her higher moral understanding. The people need to remove her from the bench.
BTTT!!!!!!
This issue is such a fundamental social question, that I believe if we do not settle the question of the DEFINITION of marriage we will be having this debate forever... I don't think it is wise to jump to the constitution on every little issue, but this has simply gone too far for too long... lets pass the FMA and move on with our lives, and as a nation stand up for the definition of marriage as being ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Letting this silly "debate" go on does tremendous damage to our nation, and destroys the values of our society. PASS THE FMA, and settle the issue period!
>>>criminal homosexual sodomy was overturned.<<<
Criminal sodomy - Is there any other kind? lol!
You can't change your skin color or ethnicity by simply not being black, brown, or Lithuanian anymore. But by not having gay sex anymore you stop being gay. Sexual technique is the only identifier with being gay, i.e., it is a behavior. Behaviors can be started, stopped, or modified.
Now, if there are any gay genetic researchers out there that can prove beyond a reasonable scientific doubt that homosexuality is genetic, I'll be the best man at your wedding.
BTTT
You must be kidding.. no one is suggesting we prohibit religous organizations from conducting ceremonies of any type. However we as a nation do not need to be forced to recognize those ceremonies, they can have meaning to the individuals involved, and mean nothing to the rest of us. Botom line, LEGAL MARRIAGE in the USA must be between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.
Letting this silly "debate" go on does tremendous damage to our nation, and destroys the values of our society. PASS THE FMA, and settle the issue period!
Agree, this issue is responsible for all the other connecting issues, and in fact the gay agenda planned it that way. It is responsible for the hate crimes laws, the homosexual organization and their teachings in our schools, all of it. Marriage is, to them, the foundation for normalization. If it is considered normal to be homosexual, they then can teach it in school, get more hate crime legislation passed, any number of hundreds of issues.
It is a federal issue when you take Social Security and federal income tax into consideration. Plus, being education HAS gone federal.........the federal government is forced to fund the teachings in schools, via tolerance education. If we had the amendment, the government could then be in a position to say no funding for schools who teach unnatural sex to children.
But you assume that those states will be allowed to vote on it, and it is pretty clear, that leaving it up to states, is in fact leaving it up to Judges. We need the amendment which calls for the ability of Judges to impose this on states to be stopped.
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.