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


1 posted on 05/16/2008 6:40:18 PM PDT by Zender500
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: wagglebee

For the ping list?


2 posted on 05/16/2008 6:46:26 PM PDT by Das Outsider (Chocula '08: Get Counted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Zender500

When will the first recall petition hit the streets? I’ll sign one!


3 posted on 05/16/2008 6:49:22 PM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Zender500
They are the Neville Chamberlains of the cultural wars.

A "piece" in our time!

5 posted on 05/16/2008 6:57:25 PM PDT by Old Sarge (CTHULHU '08 - I won't settle for a lesser evil any longer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Zender500
In brief if Governor Schwarzenegger had any cojones he'd toss this bunch in prison and convene the legislature by force and direct them to remove all of them from office.

But, alas, Schwarzenegger has no cojones and is looking forward to a few homosexual marriages himself ~ no doubt encouraged in that direction by his Robert Kennedy look-alike wife.

Didn't this happen to that guy who was married to that crazy Greek woman out there, Arianna Huffington?

6 posted on 05/16/2008 8:32:45 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Zender500

This is so true.

I’m not even really all that anti-gay, I mean, I think it’s a sin, but there are an awful lot of people out there committing sins, you know? It’s not at the same kind of level as murder. If the gays would just shut up and do their thing quietly with other consenting adults and not bother anybody else then it would be between them and God for the most part. And if they wanted to be monogamous about it so much the better.

But no, that isn’t good enough for them, they want to force everybody else to validate them all day long and wreck our institutions and destroy our beliefs and teach our children about them in school and they just never shut UP.

You can’t give these people an inch without them taking a mile. It’s too bad because I think a lot of folks like me would be willing to just live and let live, but we can’t, because any time you give them anything it does become an appeasement. They’re just not willing to get out of our faces.


7 posted on 05/16/2008 8:34:44 PM PDT by CatherinePPP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Zender500

Bump for later reading.


8 posted on 05/16/2008 9:23:04 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Zender500

Nominees for the Neville Chamberlain Award on this issue?

How about...

GEORGE W. BUSH

“I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so. I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others.”

Bush also made it clear that he disagrees with the Republican Party platform on the “civil unions” issue. On Good Morning America only days before the 2004 election, interviewer Charles Gibson pointed out that the GOP platform opposes civil unions, to which Bush replied, “Well, I don’t.”

Gibson pressed the point, asking, “So the Republican platform on that point, as far as you’re concerned, is wrong?”

“Right,” Mr. Bush replied.


MITT ROMNEY

“All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship.” (Romney for Governor 2002 campaign website)

“Mr. Romney yesterday told TV news stations that he would support a Vermont-style civil union law in Massachusetts, but reiterated his support for a constitutional amendment that would clarify that ‘marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.’” - Washington Times, 11/20/2003

“In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage protected by the Constitution, Romney denounced as ‘too extreme’ the effort by pro-family groups to enact a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits.” - Boston Phoenix, May 14-20, 2004

“Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney campaign spokesman, said Romney opposes gay marriage but also opposes the amendment, since he sees no reason to change the current laws, which allow for domestic-partner benefits to public employees.” - Boston Globe 3/22/2002

“Romney was unaware his family members had signed the amendment petition said Fehrnstrom, and he does not support the ‘Protection of Marriage’ amendment. ‘He is opposed to gay marriage but in the case of the Defense of Marriage amendment, Mitt believes it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnerships for non-traditional couples. That is something he is not prepared to accept.” -Bay Windows 3/28/02

http://caucuscooler.blogspot.com/2006/11/whats-disingenuous.html

Rudy too, of course.

On “civil unions,” Chamberlains all.


10 posted on 05/17/2008 11:46:20 PM PDT by AFA-Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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