Posted on 05/29/2006 6:26:33 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Hillary Clinton wishes to lead the fight against protecting marriage in the upcoming debate on the matter in the United States Senate. Oh sure when my New York listeners call her office her spokespeople say that she supports marriage - she just doesn't wish to see the federal government over reach.
Right... Ms. Universal Healthcare wants government not to intrude!
This last week however, a little clue was uncovered that indicates Hillary is not neutral on the issue at all. Instead she is strategizing on how to promote the message of the radical homosexual activists while debating the Marriage Protection Amendment on the Senate floor next week. This tidbit came to light in the New York Blade newspaper - a mouthpiece for the radical homosexual lobby.
The article references a recent brainstorming session that was called by New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn who is openly homosexual and militant in her political approach. The purpose of the recent session was to gather New York politicos to figure out how to not only defeat the Marriage Protection Amendment - but to seize upon the opportunity to hi-jack the debate on the bill to put forward a pro-homosexual message and advance the special rights status of persons who chose to be sexually active with their same gender.
In an aside it is Quinn who reveals that this recent session was actually an extension of a closed door session Hillary Clinton had called in March.
Quinn said the gathering was an extension of a meeting of LGBT leaders held by Sen. Clinton in March. "In that meeting, herself and Senator [Harry] Reid and others asked for help from the community in messaging on how they could best - when they vote against the amendment - send a positive message about LGBT families during the vote," Quinn said.
So what is this innocent game of, "we just don't want federal law to over step its limits of power," routine she has been pulling with my listeners and those who call her office in recent weeks? Sad to say it’s nothing new. And important to point out that she is a candidate whose conviction on this matter is truly troubling.
In one breath to callers from her state she assures them of her support for the institution of traditional marriage and how the states should have every right to protect it. In the next she is hosting backdoor conferences, making propositions in smoke filled rooms to advance the radical homosexual activist cause - yet she must go to the activists to learn how to make their case.
It is one thing for a person to be a sworn enemy; you understand where they are coming from. It is entirely another issue to be so hostile to the welfare of the institution of marriage that you purposefully commit to destroying it but you can't articulate why.
Hillary hosted the discussion in March with the radical homosexual activists because she knows two fundamental truths...
1. The morally right thing to do would be to support the Marriage Protection Amendment when it is scheduled for a vote on June 7th.
2. Since that knowledge is impractical for her she must deceive those she wishes would vote for her, and she must be taught, even immersed in the talking points of the activist community as they seek to destroy the picture of the traditional family.
It is disturbing that someone who seeks to be elected Senator this year and President two years from now has neither the brains nor the ability to think for herself but must violate even her own conscience and use the activists talking points to make the case.
You would expect more from someone who is supposedly as brilliant as Hillary Rodham Clinton.
It is important to understand that when the Marriage Protection Amendment comes forward this time around, it will not be a polite debate on the issue of state's rights to determine their own laws on the matter. Judges in Nebraska and Georgia have already seen to it that the will of the voters can and will be summarily overturned if a federal judge feels so compelled. This leaves the voters of these and possibly the voters of nine other states vulnerable to judge’s whims. And it was that very fear that caused the voters in states from Mississippi to Oregon to turnout in huge numbers in 2004 and creates state constitutional amendments to protect marriage.
Judges are out of control over turning the will of the people. The activists are seeking to turn the debate over protecting marriage into a campaign to legitimize and promote publicly their behavior that none of the nation is interested in nor should be subjected to.
And all the while Ms. Hillary plots and schemes, lying to her own voters, making alliances with activists, and asking for the talking points to drag our nation even further from its necessary moral roots.
At least now we know...
Ping
bump
(thinking to self - Is Hitlerys goal to become the first woman, lesbian, pres?
Maybe Hillary ought to get the actor who played the gay Soprano's mafia guy and his lover Johnny Cakes to help her get support from the gay groups.
This is great for her resume.
If the MSM & MSP were not in their corner because they sell, they would be history. Classless trash; corruptible in the extreme.
Hillary, the voice of compromise on issues where there can be NO COMPROMISE...
In this culture war issue it is evident that the homosexual activists will not stop until stopped -the delusional goal of homosexual marriage must be quickly, soundly, and uncompromisingly defeated asap -no quarter must be given.
Those that cry, "Protect States Rights", when it is clear that no such platitude is possible on this issue advocate a position of compromise with the morally compromised and politically irrelevant...
I am so proud I live in the one (and only one) county in NY that did NOT vote for Hilary
Thankyou. You have every
right to stand tall!
Native Illinoisian.
If that's all there is to marriage, of course she's happy to oblige a bunch of activists who will help her get elected.
The danger goes beyond the threat to marriage itself but is more widespread--it may soon lead to any criticism of homosexuality or opposition to the gay agenda becoming a hate crime. In effect we may get something like the situation in China, where Christian churches are permitted to exist as long as they follow the rules set by the government. There was a piece in The Weekly Standard two or three weeks ago spelling out some of the implications of homosexual "marriage" becoming legalized.
Didn't you hear, they were her cigars. s/
Ping doug, wasn't it Fun with Dick... and Jane? Or am I confused? Enlighten us.
BTW, this will not get her MoveOn back, see has to ride Murtha's path somewhat, to seem less hawkish... who knows how.
Case in point, The Anglican Church - it is destroyed for ever because of gay interest groups within that progressive church. We also elect gay men and women to make our laws or govern our states; a huge politically correct mistake IMHO. Homosexuality has always had its place in society, ancient and modern however; giving it power for political gain has diluted moral values among our most valued institutions, those teaching our young and those professing faith in the Bible. Ms. Clinton is not the first to court those special interests to gain favor in her quest for power. She uses the homosexual as she does “for the children” as human shields…that and nothing more.
If you are ready for a song, raise your hand.
Memorialized in song --- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1640130/posts
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.