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

To: bahblahbah

...but we were told - by Republicans no less - that we didn’t need a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. So I guess we don’t.


2 posted on 08/18/2007 1:10:58 PM PDT by Old_Mil (Rudy = Hillary, Fred = Dole, Romney = Kerry, McCain = Crazy. No Thanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Old_Mil

Is there any treaty to this effect?


3 posted on 08/18/2007 1:15:50 PM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Old_Mil

The day is going to come when the Supreme Court hands down a Roe vs. Wade type judicial fiat stripping states of the authority to “discriminate” based on gender in their marriage laws. This ruling will be followed by an assortment of Doe vs. Bolton type fiats federalizing the issue completely.

When that happens, libertarians will say something like this: “Well, gosh, I really don’t like these rulings...but at least we didn’t clutter up the Constitution with a Federal Marriage Amendment which would have violated states’ rights.”


12 posted on 08/18/2007 2:06:30 PM PDT by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Old_Mil

Fred Thompson would have no problem with this. he is fiercly opposed to a Constitutional amendment that would protect traditional marriage.


17 posted on 08/18/2007 2:18:46 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

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