Posted on 08/18/2007 9:59:26 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
This is a cop out . Our constitution was based on Judea Christian laws, and legalizing homosexuality wasn’t one of them .
Start flames now .
Legally and respectfully, we are way beyond that.
We already have state bars and the american bar association groups (know because I have been there) which are saying it is only a matter of time before they affirmativly establish homosexual marriage as a constitutional right and thus superceed all laws. This is already in state courts via immigration and taxation based suits funded by groups such as HRC or ACLU.
They also ARE demanding civil unions be recognized AS MARRIAGE in states that do not have civil unions.
History is nothing to an activist judge other than an excuse to impose their personal view.
Remember the Judge who literally WROTE homosexual marriage into the Massachusets state law was copying VERBATIM an ABA funded Domestic Relations model law.
Fred Thompson had better dump the weasel words if he expects money and ethusiastic support.
If he is going to weasel like a guiliani or romeny, then his presense is irrelevant.
In a practical sense, you’re probably right. However, I will not stop pointing out that all of these constitutional amendments (a very high bar for us to clear) would not be needed if we had judges, and chief executives, and legislators, who understood plain English, unvarnished history, and who had the courage of those convictions.
But here’s the kicker in this case: We have the political power to pass a marriage amendment. An overwhelming number of Americans are on our side on this. It’s eminently doable.
No it isn't.
ping
Perhaps, but what are the odds of any of those laws passing?
The future is: “queerdom”. I mean the queers are winning now and in the immediate future. The heteros are beginning to fight back. Heteros can’t win on the federal level, and they will not be able to on the state level. That leaves counties and towns. Heteros must organize on this level. There is already such a town, Ave Maria, Florida. There maybe more that I don’t know about.
So then why the Lawyer, Guiliani, Clintonesque weasel?
Since it is such a proven slam dunk, why is thompson doing this BS “if necessary”.
We have a LONG documented history of lawyers and judges who abuse and rely on obfuscating the english language. (see second amendment, see slavery justifications, see voting rights, see the court packing scandal with the New Deal, see great society wealfare)
Fred can step up and just say what the super majority believe, instead I am seeing the same old same old BS politician who is going to be just another beltway effete elitist.
FredT is a big time believer in federalism. On this issue I part ways with FredT. IMO, the best option available for assuring the sanctity of marriage is upheld throughout America, would require a Constitutional amendment. And no, I’m no “idjut”. Make marriage between one man and one woman the law of the land and ban all other attempts to subvert the institution of marriage. To include a ban on homosexual/gay/lesbian marriages. This should include what has been commonly called, “civil unions”. If a homosexual wants an immoral relationship with another homosexual, fine, get it on. Just keep the door shut. If two homosexuals want to share in common aspects of life such as, retirement benefits, personal healthcare insurance, living wills or whatever, let them get a lawyer and draw up a personal contract. Otherwise, society isn’t obligated to accpet any form of marriage beyond that of one man and one woman.
It is also worth noting, the homosexual advocats are using the legal argument of polygamy vs “just two”.
They are using the “winning with words” guru Professor Lackoff’s spin of saying “its about two consenting adults wanting to live together in love”. (IOW Marriage does not include children BTW)
Marriage has also been a federal issue in immigration. While other nations allow for polygamy AND homosexual marriage, long before the 1996 DMA the immigration service (INS then and USCIS now) did not allow such federal recognition. That was mere federal regulation!
just FYI, Office Depot, OfficeMax, and Staples ALL sell cohabition forms which fit the legal bill you speak of. Cost is mere 15 to 25 dollars depending on location.
The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was passed BECAUSE this is a federal issue.
Federal IMMIGRATION, TAXATION, INHERITANCE, and FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.
Covering your ears and going “la la la” is not going to change the FACTS OF LAW.
There are right now, FEDERAL lawsuits for test cases on forcing this into Full Faith and Credit on immigration and taxation.
Saying otherwise is only playing into the hands of the homosexual advocates. Sticking you head in the sand on this issue will only leave you exposed in the wrong way.
LOL! I nearly had a heart attack last week when I saw the headline, forgetting that it referred to Tommy.
For the most part, I've stayed true to a goal of avoiding Presidential politics until after Labor Day.
Did you know that the ‘zoophile’ movement is growing .And so is the ‘sex before eight’ movement .Don’t take my word for it, go to search engines .
Romney has always opposed same-sex marriage. He lobbied Congress in favor of a Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. He testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on the Federal Marriage Amendment, and sent a letter to all 100 U.S. Senators on June 2, 2006 asking them to vote for the Amendment. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson are all previously on record opposing the FMA.
However, Fred said yesterday that he was in support of the amendment citing full faith and credit. Fred said THIS on the gay marriage amendment just yesterday. "A constitutional amendment will cure that." What?
Seems unclear....
Point taken
I will take your word for it, as I have no desire to see any kiddie-diddler sites.
The unfortunately part of your post is that even though you are correct in principal, courts have said that because of “equal protection”, one state’s legalized “right”, then becomes all state’s rights.
But notice how that does NOT apply to concealed carry laws...while some states allow open carry and some concealed carry - others don’t even allow you to carry one at all. And some municipalities make it illegal to even own one (unless you are of the wealthy ruling class).
“The point is to put the genie back in.”
And this is the catalyst for putting it back in? Weaseling out of taking a stand on a controversial issue I’d say.
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.