Posted on 06/17/2006 8:42:57 AM PDT by Jeremydmccann
Control the borders.
So I guess Zarqarwi getting killed, Al-Qaida demoralized and decimated, Rove not getting indicted, Iraqi government stepping up, and Democrats falling apart & being in disarray means nothing to the writer.
I was going to say, thae author should have submitted this article about two weeks ago.
39 Democrat Senators and 43 Democrat Congresscritters tell the Democrat Party leadership to eat crap on Iraq this week and BUSH is in trouble? Only in the Junk Media world
This argument that the President is using this to distract is getting old. Numerous Senators and in fact the President ran on this issue. This issue ,especially in states that has a gay marriage referendum, helped drive GOp turnout. This has been to put this years agenda this for some time.
Likely as not he did submit it weeks ago and it was edited to be a "perfect cheer" for his 'Team".
When Bush started touting the marriage amendment a couple of weeks ago, I posted that it was an effort in futility, because the amendment would never pass Congress.
I got skewered on FR.
It didn't pass.
All those skewerers got very quiet.
He did. I just now posted it.
I will amend that statement for you, they mean something but they are not everything. Security begins at home and the President has failed miserably on that point, as have our senate, the house is still pending! We need to enforce the existing immigration laws, this will secure our borders better than any new bill waiting for passage.
There is more then a single issue(Iraq)here, we have illegal aliens, we have a one world government(or a north American government), we have spending, we have a total disregard for our constitution in many areas. While Bush has done well in some, he has failed badly in many others.
He wants his real cheerleaders back? Then all he has to do is stop trying to subjugate us to foreign powers and enforce the immigration laws now on the books. He won't do it, and tries reward them at the same time, while spending even more of our monies on them! What a politically blind move this is. Sorry you can't see it.
It was a stale lie from the beginning. I do not trust anybody who makes any excuse not to do something about it...
Is it a sin to be repulsed by something repulsive? To be grossed out by the gross? Is it now considered uncivil to verbally condemn that which God condemns? I just have a problem with the way things are defined these days. I do not wish to be uncivil. Nor do I wish to be dishonest. When you tack on "all people deserve respect..." to a behavior then you make it wrong to condemn any behavior. That's ridiculous. How respectful must we be towards those who create Supreme Court protected virtual kiddie porn? Can nothing be condemned these days?
Oh, I was going by the 6/17 date! Well, then the timing is right!
Bush's constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage is a politaical ploy to lure Christian conservatives back into the fold. Why do this when it stood no chance of passing in the Senate and was rejected by a wide margin. A real conservative looks for action not talk. Reign in the budget and secure the borders would be a good start for me.
The Activism sidebar is reserved for Activism, protests, news and business of Free Republic Chapters.
Not this.
Please read the following for FR's posting rules for further guidelines.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1611173/posts
Thanks,
Why an ammendment though? I oppose marriage being defined by anyone, especially by the homosexuals and the government. The only person with the authority to define such is God. The federal government has no authority in the definition of it. I totally oppose these mock marriages which are based on sodomy, but a Constitutional ammendment is not the way. Especially this one which will grant civil unions which I also oppose and which of course is the same thing. Under Article IV Section 4, the federal government is obligated to ensure the states their republican governance. True republican governance would never allow homosexual marriage. Judicial fiat is why this is happening, so this ammendment is totally unnecesarry. Also, Article IV Section 1 gives government the license to ignore when a state or federal judiciary goes beyond its bounds anyways and breaches it's "full faith & credit". Besides, what will stop the supreme court from ignoring this ammendment as they have reguarly ignored the others? We don't need an ammendment. What we need is government leaders who will stand up and say that all sodomy based marriages are null and void and any judicial ruling which claims otherwise simply breached the "full faith & credit" and will be ignored as well as judges impeached who voted favorably for sodomy based marriages. Though I must admit, we don't have anyone with the fortitude to do such.
Sorry about that.
I have mixed feelings on this because of the Federalism issues. I am not sure at this point that DOMA is going to protect the States. My main concern is that the States are protected from not having to recognize a gay marriage under the full faith and credit clause. If that could happen I would be happy. That way the battle would be reserved to the State legislatures
I agree-- BUT like Rome we shall die by suicide.Destroyed
by the enemy within our own borders as surely as Rome was
destroyed.
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.