Posted on 04/26/2009 5:27:47 PM PDT by reaganaut1
So if you are overweight or smoke and they can exempt you from socialized health care because you engage in risky behavior, does that mean that if you're *gay*, you are exempt from socialized health care because you engage in risky behavior?
The ACLU would have a tough time in that case because the Muslims make Christians look like far left liberals in regard to homosexuality. It’s not only not tolerated it’s still cause for execution in many Mid-East countries...
I understand you point. Of course we have a constitutional right to religious freedom. But they will counter with (and backed by liberal judges) that religious freedom ends when we religious types 'impose' our beliefs on someone else, for example, by not allowing them to marry in our churches. They will say that's discrimination against couples legally qualified to marry, and therefore our churches' tax exempt status must be revoked.
They've already mounted a similar campaign against the Boy Scouts of America, and have won some victories. One that comes to mind is ending the subsidy granted to the BSA for campgrounds by city governments. I think it was San Francisco that revoked permission for the BSA to use a park for a jamboree for the price of one dollar. Instead, because of 'discrimination' of the BSA against gay kids and scoutmasters, they were charged an exhorbitant price which essentially canceled the jamboree. The atheists are trying to shut down the BSA too, since of course the BSA is God-centered, not secular.
As you pointed out, allowing gay marriage has far-reaching consequences that will ultimately lead to the complete destruction of western society.
Muslims are not powerful in this country -- yet. I can't think of a single place in this country under sharia law. It's starting to happen in the UK though.
Muslims are not regarded as a threat to gays in this country since Muslims as a whole are not vocal and have essentially no power.
Muslims in other countries don't concern liberals here either. If they did the feminists would be all over them with protests. Yet, for example, they scarcely mention female genital mutilation as the sick practice that it is, though it is widely practiced all over muslim enclaves in Africa. When Saudi princes visit the U.S. there's no outcry from the feminists, though the Saudis are nearly as repressive toward women as the Taliban.
Our entire legal system is based on ancient and modern interpretations of the Judeo-Christian ethic. Gays view this as a direct threat to their ability to recruit others into their hedonistic, perverted lifestyle.
If only it were so easy -- our kids are being brainwashed by the government schools to accept the gay lifestyle, and our academia has succeeded in talking older kids into voting for the same. Just look at the percentages of young people that voted for zero.
I personally also blame our church leaders that are afraid to speak out on this issue.
I recently attended a new church and the part of the sermon mentioned 'certain hedonistic behaviors' but neglected to mention the words homosexual or gay. Our religious leaders are too cowardly to speak the truth, for fear of offending someone or being labeled as gay-bashing, etc.
Getting the laugh on the taxpayers.
Obama is taking care of that. He's cutting our ability to claim tax exemptions on mortgage interest and charities, including of course church contributions.
But Obama's not doing God's work. He's not a Christian, no matter what the media says.
Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and “marriage” as we know it isn’t something they can achieve, or even desire.
Bears repeating.
Excellent post.
Ditto. I said that once to a homosexual guy, and he just broke down crying. He knew I knew that was it in a nutshell.
I agree. You have to cut out all the cancer, and that includes Romney.
Well - I have a thought or two about what needs to be done but too many people are too wrapped up in their amusements, luxuries and distractions to give a damn. A lot of talk won’t “git ‘er done”.
marker
Selective Memory
The issue didn’t suddenly appear in the schools because of the Mass SJC decision. It was in the schools for many years before. Homosexuality has not been hidden in Mass, at least not in Boston and Provincetown.
How do you avoid discussing it when over half of eastern Mass vacations on the Cape and it’s Gay Vacation mecca of Provincetown. Who’s survival is linked to not only Gays coming but everbody else coming to gawk at them.
Of course “Maybe” the originators of Mass Resistance managed to get the only Straight waiter in Boston’s UNO?
Face it you run into Homosexuality issues in Mass because it’s been out in the open for decades, and it’s arguably the most liberal state in the union. Give it another 40 years and it won’t be controversial in most any state.
Yes it will because the agenda doesn't stop with acceptance, it's revenge for some bully who gave these people nipple twist in seventh grade.
They will team up with hard left commies to attack the church and hurt people who have never done a thing to them...even helped to bring understanding for them.
It's not right to force people to redefine a biblical term to get revenge and have people put in jail for not agreeing with their definition.
In 1995, Kevin Jennings gave a speech to a homosexual group bragging how they had tricked Gov. Weld and the Massachusetts Legislature into funding homosexual programs by “framing the issue” — claiming that it was all about “safety”.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/gay_strategies/framing_the_issue.html
Ironic choice of words. A "faggot" is a bundle of wood. A bundle of wood is a "fasces," the symbol of fascism. Co-incidence?
I noted the part about the Bar Exam. One of the last
barriers seems to have fallen there.
"I voted for John Anderson for president and Michael Dukakis for governor." Brian Camenker He doesn't even pass the litmus tests he describes for Romney as he has a past of suporting abortionist and pro-homosexual candidates.
He also demonstrated with Rev. Phelps. I am as anti gay as the next guy, but to put it nicely, both he and Phelps seem to have a bit more fanaticism than your typical conservative when it comes to this issue.
____________________________
Mitt Romney has always opposed same-sex marriage. He diligently lobbied Congress in favor of a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. Romney 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 and Rudy Giuliani oppose the FMA. Institute For Marriage and Public Policy President Maggie Gallagher, writing for National Review Online, wrote that the Governor's testimony on the issue before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee was "the single most eloquent and articulate defense of our traditional understanding of marriage I have heard from an American politician." (Maggie Gallagher, "In Defense Of The Family," National Review Online, 6/25/2004)
Governor Romney: "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 and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary." ("The Importance of Protecting Marriage", Letter from Gov. Romney to U.S. Senators, 6/02/2006)
Governor Romney: "A lot of people get confused that gay marriage is about treating gay people the same as treating heterosexual people, and that's not the issue involved here." "This is about the development and nurturing of children. Marriage is primarily an institution to help develop children, and children's development, I believe, is greatly enhanced by access to a mom and a dad." "I think every child deserves a mom and a dad, and that's why I'm so consistent and vehement in my view that we should have a federal amendment which defines marriage in that way." (George Stephanopoulos, "Mitt Romney: The Complete Interview," ABC News This Week, 2/18/2007) • (Mitt TV Clip)
Governor Romney: "I oppose discrimination against gay people. I am not anti-gay. I know there are some Republicans, or some people in the country who are looking for someone who is anti-gay and that's not me." (Brendan Farrington, "Romney: I am not anti-gay," The Associated Press, 5/24/2007)
When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Gov. Romney identified and enforced a little-known 1913 state law that forbids nonresidents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state. This prevented gay couples living outside Massachusetts from flocking to MA to be married and then returning to their home states to demand the marriages be recognized, thus opening the door for nationwide same-sex marriage. Implementation of the 1913 law was contested in court by same-sex couples from outside MA, but the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in March, 2006 to uphold the application of the law. (Jay Lindsay, "Mass. high court says nonresident gays cannot marry in state," The Associated Press, 3/30/2006)
Gov. Romney provided active support for a citizen petition drive in 2005 that collected 170,000 signatures for a state constitutional amendment protecting marriage, breaking a 20-year-old record for the most certified signatures ever gathered in support of a proposed ballot question. He rallied citizens to place pressure on the Legislature for failing, through repeated delays, to fulfill their constitutional obligation to vote on placing the marriage amendment on the ballot. Gov. Romney filed suit in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) asking the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote on the issue of the amendment, or place the amendment on the ballot if the Legislature failed to act. The SJC declared that legislators had a constitutional duty to vote on the petition in a ruling handed down on Dec. 27, 2006. The suit was successful in pressuring the Legislature to vote on the issue of the amendment. A vote was taken on January 2, 2007 and the measure passed. Through Governor Romney’s considerable efforts and leadership, a state constitutional amendment defining marriage to be between one man and one woman passed a critical hurdle to get it placed on the 2008 ballot where voters in Massachusetts would have the power to restore traditional marriage in their state.
Update: Democrat Governor Deval Patrick, a proponent of gay marriage, lobbied Massachusetts lawmakers to kill the proposed constitutional amendment. In a vote of the MA Legislature on June 14, 2007 the amendment received 45 votes, failing to get the required 50 votes necessary to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot. The measure needed 50 votes in two consecutive legislative sessions to advance to the ballot, and it had passed with 62 votes at the end of the last session in January. Commenting on the latest vote, former Gov. Mitt Romney said, "Today's vote by the State Legislature is a regrettable setback in our efforts to defend traditional marriage. Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the voice of the people did not need to be heard in this debate. It is now even more important that we pass a Constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. Marriage is an institution that goes to the heart of our society, and our leaders can no longer abdicate their responsibility." (Steve LeBlanc, "No Gay Marriage Vote for Massachusetts," The Associated Press, 6/14/2007)
Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement on the court decision issued August 30, 2007 striking down Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act: "The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman." (Romney for President, "Governor Mitt Romney On Iowa's Defense Of Marriage Act," Press Release, 8/30/2007)
Mitt Romney does not favor action at the national level to sanction civil unions and would leave it to the several states to define the permissible contractual relationships between two people. Romney would not seek to impose, at the national level, a prohibition on contractual relationships between two people. (George Stephanopoulos, "Mitt Romney: The Complete Interview," ABC News This Week, 2/18/2007)
Governor Romney strongly defended the right of Catholic Charities in Massachusetts to deny placing adoptive children in the homes of gay couples; saying it was unjust to require a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to satisfy a special-interest group. Romney filed "An Act Protecting Religious Freedom" in the Legislature, a bill to exempt Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from the state anti-discrimination law. (Brooke Donald, "Romney files 'religious freedom' bill on church and gay adoption," The Associated Press, 3/15/2006)
Rand, Huxley, and Orwell never predicted this, did they? I read other books predicting a frightening future, too, but I never came across one that predicted this. Yet, real-life Massachusetts is just as frightening as any one of those stories (if not more so).
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.