You got the zot from the Big He himself. That's something to cherish.
I'd print the screen and frame the page if I were you. And don't forget to tell all your DUmmie buds abut it. Maybe Skinner will make you a Mod there. 
Posted on 08/19/2010 6:18:04 AM PDT by throwback
Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California's constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.
My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the "traditional" definition of marriage and press for an "activist" interpretation of the Constitution to create another "new" constitutional right?
My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.
Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
BobJ got the zot? Sorry I missed that one!
OH and one other thing, you have NO idea what you are talking about.
The decision to strike down Prop-8 had nothing to do with equality of rights. As the Judge even had to admit in his ruling, gays have, under Ca. law the SAME exact rights as married couples have.
So what “right” don’t they have? The right to pay a marriage penalty under federal law? Strike that down and we’ll talk.
There’s a word that comes to mind and here it is.
“EXACTLY”
Olsen, grow up. Matrimony, by definition, is the legal institution that undergirds motherhood....family.
How do I put this so that even you will understand?
How about males and females make babies.
How about boys have penises and girls have vaginas.
How about there is only one natural, potentially procreative union.
govenment or ANY authority figures condoning sin is irresponsible at best...I am sure that my 'feelings' of at least partial responsibility for my eldest son's ill advised path to drugs is warranted on that opinion...
unfortunately, my need to be honest in my past, to illustrate the absurdity of 'free' will, did condemn my son to think its ok, since i was fortunate enough to find the other end of the tunnel...
fortunately though, I KNOW that God's Plan for me and my son are perfect, and that what I did was in preparing me to be a useful tool for his Glory, and I can honestly pray that my son shares in that Grace...
the sins are all abominations and condemned by the Lord...the agendas are very different and driven by man...
Oh I can read - I’ve been reading your pretzel logic for advocating for gay marriage. You hop from a biblical basis until called on that, to trying to use the founders to back up your beliefs and anything else you can think of to justify your belief that Gays should have a right to marriage.
Go on with your bad self and all of that.....
It is also true that homos advocate legalization of drugs, and druggies advocate same sex marriage. Not all, but most.
Coincidence? In a world that operates pretty much at random, coincidences are to be regarded as highly suspect.
Tax advantages - SS survivors benefits - and many more, mostly financial items.
If you read the rest of what I said, you would realize that I did read you links - and find them ENCOURAGING religion, but not any one specific one (Christianity is a combination of several "flavours"). I saw NO requirements for anyone to observe any pariticular belief.
Yes, the founders only applied to the constitution to the federal government - would that we did that today! How many STATE constitutions allowed the state government to restrict/dictate religious practices?
For the record, so you don't argue down that road - I am a firm believer in the sovereignty of the people themselves and that each and every level of government derives its powers from the consent of us - since you seem to favor the same argument, we need not debate the point.
Jim Rob got him here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2570904/posts?page=43#43
http://www.freerepublic.com/~bobj/
Well said.
Oh, so gay couples in Cali have SS survivors benefits? (to name only one ...)
I dont argue that gay couples should be allowed to marry - instead that the government has no need to be bothered with “marriage” at all.
All aimed at rewarding moral behavior.
Christianity is a combination of several "flavours")
Christianity is Christ and Christ only. Islam is a mish mash of everything.
We are done.
It is also a protection for health, property and above all, the well-being of children. That is why civil marriage has existed alongside religious marriage for centuries. Societies that are not crazy recognize the manifold civil benefits of stable marriages between one man and one woman.
Or.... why not between a dog and a weirdo?...
I will not vote for anyone that sponsors a different point of view, especially a moral-less, unprincipled weasel politician that all he wants is votes, no matter how they come.
SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES will not bend on principles as deep as this.
When a guy is honest with himself, I know he is going to be honest with me.
God will continue to do great things with your life. Your son is lucky to have you. May you each continue to benefit from His many blessings.
Thank you FRiend.
Your apology was appreciated, but I hadn’t felt I was due one.
I thought so a long time ago when I noticed his pro-”gay” agenda.
He speaks like a true believing practitioner.
I'd print the screen and frame the page if I were you. And don't forget to tell all your DUmmie buds abut it. Maybe Skinner will make you a Mod there.
Oh, so you’re telling me they can’t get their SS? Really? Seems to me they make out better and have MORE rights since they do not have to decide, as married couples do, which persons SS benefit they wish to receive.
So in fact your argument is that we should throw out an institution that has existed for thousands upon thousands of years so they can give up the right to have 1 persons social security and a check for $200 to offset burial costs?
Yea, that’s going to convince people.......
I’ve got an idea - let’s throw out society as a whole because at least one group will find some government agency that cuts checks they are not qualified to receive. That will just make the entire world right, won’t it?
Homos getting married is no more conservative than NAMBLA members adopting boys. Both events are probably related.
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.