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

Very good points. Those who claim this is about the 14 amendment are idiots. The constitution has never forbade classification in relationship to the law. If so a person deprived of a drivers license could make an argument under the 14th amendment or if someone is denied a tax cut for buying an "environmentally friendly vehicle"/Green vehicle. The left needs to be careful because they are going to find the precedent this would set very distasteful if it holds up in the Supreme Court which I don't believe it will.
1 posted on 08/05/2010 5:41:08 PM PDT by Maelstorm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Maelstorm

regardless ...I am not ready to explain this to my grandson.


2 posted on 08/05/2010 5:42:57 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Maelstorm

Traditional marriage proponents need to start referring to it by its full title: “holy matrimony.”
That would put a quick end to any claim by homosexual couples.


4 posted on 08/05/2010 5:48:13 PM PDT by counterpunch (Heckuva job, Barry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Maelstorm

What it is about is the end of “the consent of the governed.”


5 posted on 08/05/2010 5:48:13 PM PDT by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Maelstorm

Exactly why must the government get into the business of promoting relationships of any kind? How about eliminating the differences in the tax code and other areas of law between married and single folk? All this goes away in an instant the moment the government gets its nose out of this area of life where they have no business (just like about 4 million other areas of our lives that they have no proper authoity to be involved in).


6 posted on 08/05/2010 5:48:40 PM PDT by Teacher317 (remember dismember November)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Maelstorm

When it comes to any law, terms such as ‘love’, ‘happiness’, etc, have no relevance. This is simply a matter of defining standards of contracts and measure (in this case, standardized meanings of terms and definitions on the contract).


7 posted on 08/05/2010 6:04:07 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Maelstorm

The US needs to reexamine the role of the Fed in family life. I suspect the ‘tax perks’ for the traditional family has run its course.


10 posted on 08/05/2010 6:15:32 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Maelstorm

How come nobody makes the argument that we want to encourage traditional marriage, as a society.

1. There is a cost to marriage. Ask any guy. There has to be rewards to compensate.
2. We (used to, anyway) want as a society to limit the number of unclaimed children underfoot. Having a stable family structure was a big help here.
3. Despite all the fake studies to the contrary, children need both a mother and a father. Only the willfully blind think that other arrangements are just as good.
So society decided to give special privileges to man and wife marriage. Sorry, other types of marriage do not help us.


11 posted on 08/05/2010 6:24:44 PM PDT by AdSimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Maelstorm

bullshit!!

No one can ever make me accept queers in any way under any circumstances!


16 posted on 08/05/2010 6:42:51 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Maelstorm

5700+ years of Jewish and Christian civilization define marriage for me. Gays are supremely arrogant to defy this. Judaism was a rebellion against paganism which included the sexually bizarre including sanctioning homosexuality. Gays are just a pimple on the ass of our civilization and its history


18 posted on 08/05/2010 6:49:07 PM PDT by dennisw (2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Maelstorm

Exactly.

This is not about rights or laws, they can do all that with civil unions and powers-of-attorney.

It is about all of us - each and every one - accepting and believing and promoting this type of “marriage” as being the same in every way, and just as acceptable and normal as traditional man-woman marriage.

And they will NEVER be happy until that happens, and it will NEVER happen.

I continue to get the impression that many gay people, in fact most of them, are deeply ashamed. They don’t want to admit it. But they want to FORCE us to accept them as normal to somehow give them legitimacy.

I will never do that. Period.
It is a perversion.


28 posted on 08/05/2010 7:04:18 PM PDT by djf (They ain't "immigrants". They're "CRIMMIGRANTS"!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Maelstorm
That’s what the decision was exactly about: Commanding society to view homosexual relationships with a favor that society has been unwilling to grant.

Precisely! They don't want tolerance, they want acceptance.

34 posted on 08/05/2010 7:42:03 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Maelstorm
The money quote:

That’s what the decision was exactly about: Commanding society to view homosexual relationships with a favor that society has been unwilling to grant.

Re-education camps, here we come.

37 posted on 08/06/2010 9:13:37 AM PDT by jimt
[ 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