Reddy would have the homosexuals just mind their own business, not going around changing the definitions of words to suit what they wish them to be. He is in agreement with the rest of the country (not just FR), everywhere they have been asked.
Posted on 09/06/2010 9:57:15 AM PDT by LonelyCon
Just two years ago, supporting homosexual marriage was such an extreme, politically radioactive position that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton – both Alinskyite progressives and long-time gay-rights supporters – saw fit to publicly and repeatedly declare their opposition to same-sex marriage.
Today, as the homosexual newspaper the Washington Blade puts it, "conservatives have taken the leadership role in achieving marriage equality."
That's right. Not only have high-profile conservatives like Glenn Beck, "The View's" Elizabeth Hasselbeck, Laura Bush, Dick Cheney and many others publicly offered their ringing endorsement of men marrying men and women marrying women, but some on the right are, as the Blade reports, actually leading the charge.
Case in point: George W. Bush's solicitor general Ted Olson has been dedicating his time as one of the two lead attorneys who successfully challenged California's Proposition 8, which had enshrined in the state's constitution the fact that, as Hillary Clinton put it, "marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman."
Indeed, proclaims the Blade, when it comes to the battle to legalize same-sex marriage, it is conservatives who "have achieved the most important success so far as they are the most willing and most able to take the case to the Supreme Court."
...
And S.E. Cupp, a young conservative Daily Caller columnist and frequent Fox pundit, goes so far as to say, "Conservatism and gay rights are actually natural allies. Conservatism rightly seeks to keep the government out of our private lives, and when you strip away the politics of pop culture, it's this assertion of privacy and freedom that the gay rights movement is essentially making."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Reddy would have the homosexuals just mind their own business, not going around changing the definitions of words to suit what they wish them to be. He is in agreement with the rest of the country (not just FR), everywhere they have been asked.
Slayer (or was it Slaughter) did a cover that wasn't too bad.
Do you really not understand the difference between explicit constraints on state action - which is what the 5th and 14th Amendment provide - and an affirmative obligation on states to do a particular thing? Really? If so, that you may really want to check this out:
Hank
Do you really not understand the difference between explicit constraints on state action - which is what the 5th and 14th Amendment provide - and an affirmative obligation on states to do a particular thing? Really? If so, then you may really want to check this out:
Hank
The song was about her affair with Warren Beatty. Like anyone needed all that info!
PS. Blech! LOL
Wow, that’s scarey! I never want to get zotted if that’s what happens!
That’s him, Robert Spitzer.
Thanks.
It’s obvious that you’ve drunk the Ron Paul kool-aid, and have no conception of what natural, God-given, unalienable rights are.
All officers of government, at every level, in every branch, have the affirmative IMPERATIVE obligation to protect the lives of ALL innocent persons. It's their first and most important sworn duty.
And the Fourteenth Amendment makes it clear that the States have the affirmative obligation to provide for the equal protection of the laws for EVERY person.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
But, since you're on a roll with this patent nonsense, I take it you apply the same "logic" to all unalienable rights, right? Not just the supreme right, the right to live?
If States want to, they can, under your rubric, deny the rights to free speech, freedom of the press, assembly, petition, the right to keep and bear arms, trial by a jury of your peers, parental rights, freedom of political association, etc. Right?
Hank
So, which other of our unalienable rights do you think the States can alienate, other than the right to live?
I agree. So I vote for representatives who I believe hold those same values. That doesn't make those values Constitutional obligations under the U.S. Constitution.
"And the Fourteenth Amendment makes it clear that the States have the affirmative obligation to provide for the equal protection of the laws for EVERY person."
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So is it your contention that the words "No state shall make or enforce any law which..." means precisely the same thing as "States SHALL make laws which ensure that individuals do NOT...?"
This isn't difficult. It's simple logic. Asserting that states may not do a thing is simply NOT asserting that states must ensure that private entities do not do that same thing.
"But, since you're on a roll with this patent nonsense, I take it you apply the same "logic" to all unalienable rights, right? Not just the supreme right, the right to live?
Don't be emotional. Leave that for the lefties. This isn't about anything but grammatical construction. The words mean what they say, and nothing more - however much you or I may wish them to.
"If States want to, they can, under your rubric, deny the rights to free speech, freedom of the press, assembly, petition, the right to keep and bear arms, trial by a jury of your peers, parental rights, freedom of political association, etc. Right?"
Correct with respect to to all but RKBA, which is a right explicity extended to "the people" by the 2nd Amendment, and the right to a jury trial which is explicitly extended to all citizens by the 6th and 7th Amendments.
I interpret the words in the 1st Amendment that read "Congress shall make no law" to mean, roughly, "Congress shall make no law."
But, hey, that's just me.
Hank
Nope, but you did. ZOT!!
You talk like the right to keep and bear arms and the right to a jury trial is a gift of government, granted by the Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If your rights were “extended” to you by men, surely men can withdraw them.
Just like you’re contending states can do with most of our rights, including the supreme right, the right to life.
Your views rob the Constitution of all real meaning, gutting it as you do of any true conception of individual, God-given, unalienable, rights, or of any real purpose behind the oath of office.
Look again. That isn’t a pentagram.
Exactly.
They are actually my friends. I work in theatre, and hence have many, many close friends who are gay and therefore I don’t choose to engage in the militant homophobia that often raises its ugly head on this site, as I am pretty sure I have more close gay friends than nearly anyone else around these parts.
I’ve had longevity on FR, if you had bothered to look at how long I’ve been around. It’s a shame that open debate is no longer encouraged. I’m sure I’m in for the zot, but it’s a sad, sad state of affairs when conservatives march in lockstep.
Longevity? Who cares.
Open debate no longer allowed on FR? I signed up in 2002 to read the news and to fight the homosexual agenda. I’ve been fighting it on FR almost nonstop for 8 years. I’ve seen so many people banned for pushing the militant homosexual agenda you don’t have enough fingers, toes or teeth to count ‘em by!
FR has never, ever been a site that allows promotion of the militant, radical leftist homosexual agenda.
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.