Skip to comments.
Push for national gay-marriage ban
UPI ^
| Apr. 24, 2006
| UPI
Posted on 04/24/2006 5:50:17 PM PDT by sirchtruth
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
To: sirchtruth
2
posted on
04/24/2006 5:52:18 PM PDT
by
CIDKauf
(No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.)
To: sirchtruth
Well, all weddings should be gay affairs, but that's where I draw the line.
3
posted on
04/24/2006 5:53:38 PM PDT
by
Buck W.
(If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.)
To: sirchtruth
some political observers say that the public attitude toward the issue has shifted with a recent poll finding 51 percent of respondents opposed, compared to 63 percent in 2004.
I doubt it. Honestly I think I have met like 2 people who are pro-gay marriage. People seem to be really against it or just don't care about the issue. Since they don't care they wouldn't vote for it or against it.
To: sirchtruth
Interesting timing ...
We saw postcards at [Catholic] Church this past Sunday, but it was for putting a question on the ballot in Massachusetts, the epicenter of this "homosexual marriage" nonsense. So far we have not been able to vote on the issue, because the libs know we can get the state constitution amended if there is a vote.
5
posted on
04/24/2006 5:54:59 PM PDT
by
Disturbin
(Hey Hey, Ho Ho, The Crimaliens Have Got to GO)
To: sirchtruth
I agree in principal with this, but I don't think I could support it. I think that the Constitution exists to tell the government what it cannot do, not to tell citizens what they cannot do.
6
posted on
04/24/2006 5:59:27 PM PDT
by
frankiep
To: Buck W.
"all weddings should be gay affairs"
So you're FOR gay affairs, but pretend to be opposed to gay marriage?
Maybe it's time to come out of the closet!?
7
posted on
04/24/2006 6:00:53 PM PDT
by
Nova
To: Disturbin
So far we have not been able to vote on the issue, because the libs know we can get the state constitution amended if there is a vote.Yep! They are scared to death if vote takes place...These people have no idea what damage they are causing to society and don't really care who they harm with their selfish, "All About Me" attitudes.
8
posted on
04/24/2006 6:01:07 PM PDT
by
sirchtruth
(Words Mean Things...)
To: Disturbin
well don't you know that everyone is MA is in support of gay marriages? thats why we don't get to vote on it, because everyone agrees that its a good idea, so why waste time writing out the question to put on a ballot?
I seriously hate Massachusetts sometimes.
To: frankiep
I agree in principal with this, but I don't think I could support it. I think that the Constitution exists to tell the government what it cannot do, not to tell citizens what they cannot do. Thanks, I agree with you 100%
To: escapefromboston
I seriously hate Massachusetts sometimes.Well, you better not set foot in Vermont because you'll hate it more!
11
posted on
04/24/2006 6:04:49 PM PDT
by
sirchtruth
(Words Mean Things...)
To: conserv13
Using the Constitution to put restrictions on what citizens can do would set a VERY dangerous precedent. There are other ways to stop gay "marriage".
12
posted on
04/24/2006 6:09:00 PM PDT
by
frankiep
To: conserv13
"I think that the Constitution exists to tell the government what it cannot do, not to tell citizens what they cannot do."
The amendment would tell the U.S. government that it could not recognize gay marriage. Pretty simple, really.
To: escapefromboston
some political observers say that the public attitude toward the issue has shifted with a recent poll finding 51 percent of respondents opposed, compared to 63 percent in 2004. That's what the polls say, but for some reason everytime there is a vote on this issues, around 70 percent oppose gay marriage.
To: frankiep
I agree in principal with this, but I don't think I could support it. I think that the Constitution exists to tell the government what it cannot do, not to tell citizens what they cannot do.It would be a restriction on government power. An amendment would tell federal and state governments they cannot recognize gay/lesbian marriage.
15
posted on
04/24/2006 6:16:14 PM PDT
by
JCEccles
(Darwinism is the kazoo in the grand orchestra of science)
To: frankiep
I agree in principal with this, but I don't think I could support it. I think that the Constitution exists to tell the government what it cannot do, not to tell citizens what they cannot do. This really doesn't say they can't marry, it is just not recognized by the government. This doesn't stop two people from doing anything.
To: frankiep
Using the Constitution to put restrictions on what citizens can doYou're making no sense. An amendment wouldn't keep gays and lesbians from carrying on as if they are married or even prevent liberal churches from recognizing or blessing their "special relationships" as marriages according to any private interpretation of the word.
17
posted on
04/24/2006 6:21:44 PM PDT
by
JCEccles
(Darwinism is the kazoo in the grand orchestra of science)
To: frankiep
I agree in principal with this, but I don't think I could support it. I think that the Constitution exists to tell the government what it cannot do, not to tell citizens what they cannot do. I would second this.
With the added proviso that tax-exempt religious organizations should not be jumping into the political fray so overtly. Just sets them up for legal issues down the road.
18
posted on
04/24/2006 6:42:42 PM PDT
by
mancogasuki
(Live Free Or Die.)
To: sirchtruth
"Yep! They are scared to death if vote takes place...These people have no idea what damage they are causing to society and don't really care who they harm with their selfish, "All About Me" attitudes."
Well yes they are scared. However, the most recently proposed amendment doesn't go far enough for some folks. Me included. It's still better than none, but it really doesn't eliminate anything.
And I disagree with them having no idea, I think, make that I know, they have a very good idea of what they are doing to society. Indeed the powers that be pushing this agenda most certainly know. Destroying society is what they want!
19
posted on
04/24/2006 6:49:31 PM PDT
by
gidget7
(PC is the huge rock, behind which lies hide!)
To: mancogasuki
I would second this.How would an amendment that restricts the power of government violate the principle that a constitution is designed to restrict the power of government?
20
posted on
04/24/2006 6:52:22 PM PDT
by
JCEccles
(Darwinism is the kazoo in the grand orchestra of science)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson