Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Importance of Protecting Marriage (Letter From Mitt Romney to the US Senate)
RealClearPolitics ^ | June 6, 2006 | Governor Mitt Romney

Posted on 06/06/2006 3:41:48 PM PDT by RWR8189

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

1 posted on 06/06/2006 3:41:50 PM PDT by RWR8189
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

big GIANT bump


2 posted on 06/06/2006 3:47:23 PM PDT by coincheck (support our troops, they are the best bar none (sua sponte))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Nice to have this posted again. It looks like you're a Allen supporter . . . at least that's what your photos seem to indicate. What's your opinion of Romney?


3 posted on 06/06/2006 3:50:54 PM PDT by Jeff Fuller (http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Mitt, sounds like don't have much control over your state. We better ask the federal government to step in and override the institutions of government so you'll feel better.

Glad you want to protect the sanctity of marriage. There are 10 million couples living outside of marriage, 1 million divorces a year, and 6000 same sex marriages in a two year period that do not impact heterosexual marriage in the slightest. So exactly which of those problems is the greatest danger to marriage?

4 posted on 06/06/2006 3:56:54 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
First Governor Romney condemns those who marriage is an "evolving paradigm." But then, he states, "Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states--which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life."

One or the other Mitt. Either you accept that, as time may change the requirement and definition of federalism, that it may also change the definition of marriage. Or you accept that neither changes. You don't get to pick and choose.

5 posted on 06/06/2006 3:57:26 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

I email-ed my Senator (Harry Reid) and got some bullcrap form letter response about the Constitution not being changed. Well, scratch the Bill of Rights, bring back slavery, and deny women the vote if ammendments are bad.


6 posted on 06/06/2006 3:57:59 PM PDT by beckstcw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Might want to ping this to the libertarian list, re: Federalism.


7 posted on 06/06/2006 3:59:18 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beckstcw
I email-ed my Senator (Harry Reid) and got some bullcrap form letter response about the Constitution not being changed. Well, scratch the Bill of Rights, bring back slavery, and deny women the vote if ammendments are bad.

With two exceptions I can think of, when the Constitution has been amended it has been to further restrict government or to expand on the enumerated rights. The two exceptions were Prohibition, which was repealed, and Income Tax, which was probably the worst Amendment ever made to the Constitution.

It's question whether homosexual marriage is an individual right, but to amend the Constitution in that manner is a road to disaster.

8 posted on 06/06/2006 4:04:28 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

If we don't amend the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman our traditional institution of marriage will be on the endangered list.


9 posted on 06/06/2006 4:29:19 PM PDT by conservative blonde (Conservative Blonde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: conservative blonde
If we don't amend the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman our traditional institution of marriage will be on the endangered list.

You mean if gays start marrying, then men and women will stop marrying each other? Mighty influential these homosexuals.

Something to consider: Society is moving more and more towards accepting homosexuals. If this amendment goes through and society continues on its present course, it will soon be repealed. Only when it gets repealed, it won't be a simple repeal. It will constitutionally guarantee a right to homosexual marriage.

10 posted on 06/06/2006 4:37:51 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

For me, the real issue is reigning in activist judges and mayors. They are making the ammendment necessary.


11 posted on 06/06/2006 4:53:03 PM PDT by RedRover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

I'm sorry that you never knew your dad, and did not have an intact family to grow up in. Sad.


12 posted on 06/06/2006 5:40:15 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

Clueless.


13 posted on 06/06/2006 5:52:09 PM PDT by msjhall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
I'm sorry that you never knew your dad, and did not have an intact family to grow up in. Sad.

You are apparently responding to the wrong poster. I'm not sure what you are referring to.

14 posted on 06/06/2006 6:20:53 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage.

This is why we are losing. This debate has NOTHING to do with the purpose of marriage.

It has to do with the meaning of words, and who can change them.

Every human, every where, and at all times, has understood what the word "marriage" means. Marriage is antecedent to society, and to government.

Government cannot change the meaning of the noun, not by a million laws or a million court decisions.

Forcing people to speak lies (and it is a lie to say that two men are "married") is tyranny. THAT's what this issue is about.

15 posted on 06/06/2006 6:26:31 PM PDT by Jim Noble (And you know what I'm talkin' 'bout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msjhall
Clueless.

Well, by golly. You sure shot down all of my arguments.

16 posted on 06/06/2006 6:30:05 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
Mitt, sounds like don't have much control over your state. We better ask the federal government to step in and override the institutions of government so you'll feel better.

Mitt sounds no different than you when it comes to having the government step in and override the institutions of private property and individual choice and personal responsibility.

17 posted on 06/06/2006 6:38:15 PM PDT by Gabz (Proud to be a WalMartian --- beep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
There are 10 million couples living outside of marriage, 1 million divorces a year, and 6000 same sex marriages in a two year period that do not impact heterosexual marriage in the slightest

No matter how many times this line is repeated, it remains the big lie.

When government puts it's imprimatur on homosexual marriage, it becomes incumbent on government to teach that homosexual marriage equals heterosexual marriage. They prefer to do that in the public schools where stealth and inncoent minds are the coin of the realm.

Will parents have recourse? Of course not because nothing constrains the public schools from preaching "equality" of marriage once the state has stamped it's approval.

And that's how homosexual marriage affects traditional marriage.

So please keep the left wing talking points on the left wing websites.

18 posted on 06/06/2006 6:44:04 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Government cannot change the meaning of the noun, not by a million laws or a million court decisions.

Nonsense, equality now means preferences for some.

19 posted on 06/06/2006 6:45:23 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
Mitt sounds no different than you when it comes to having the government step in and override the institutions of private property and individual choice and personal responsibility.

Please don't try and hijack this thread. If you want a constitutional amendment to recognize the autonomy of cigarette smokers, fine, but on the other thread please. If you want to discuss the FMA, this thread works fine.

20 posted on 06/06/2006 6:49:55 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson