Posted on 06/24/2011 8:06:12 PM PDT by PROCON
We did that in California 3 times. Each time it was overturned by the FEDERAL courts.
Tell me that this is a "states rights" issue when every time California has tried to define marriage in a traditional manner, the FEDERAL courts have effectively told all of us to pound sand.
How is it my fault when I live on the other side of the country? Tell your legislature to tell the federal government to go pound sand, and to have a vote free of the influence of the federal government.
We all know the Obama government won’t allow a Conservative agenda to advance if they have the power to stop it.
So if two homos get married in New York and then move to Alabama, they would have the same rights to adopt children as any other married couple would have.
The homosexual agenda is a cancer upon the nation. When you allow it in one part of the body, eventually it will kill the patient.
P is not figuring out only the strong shine right now. It takes a Jesus understanding. There are times when all falls down. Only those that listen carry on.
Huh?
Under what order would Alabama have to recognize the marriage, the Commerce Clause? Where in the US code does it say something to that effect?
I vote Conservative, it’s not my fault that elected NY Republicans are spineless puddles of mud. Also, I don’t remember ever being asked by my local representative my opinion on the matter, compounded with them holding a vote late at night, when most people are sleeping.
Petition your local representatives to propose a bill to not honor a same-sex marriage from another state. You have the right to, and your state has the right to under the 10th Amendment.
Monarchy? Laws against perverion = monarchy?
So I guess you’re a Liberal/tarian. Anything goes as long as it’s vice? But restraint on vice is the big no-no?
I’m not saying “ban desires” - they’re within the mind. That has nothing to do with the state forcing same sex marriage on everyone - recognizing it, cooperating with, photographing it, announcing it in the papers, teaching children about it, giving mentally ill sex perverts other peoples’ children via fostering and adopting, and on and on and on.
And as others have noted, votes of the people are routinely overturned by Federal Judges Gone Wild.
So apparently necrophilia, bestiality and incest would be fine with you if people in a state voted to legalize them.
It means carry a towel.
P-Marlowe - you are absolutely correct! I hadn’t thought of it that way. Intercepting enemy correspondence, that’s exactly what it is.
And to accuse you! How could a mod not know your position?
Just the other day I pinged out an article about AG Holder saying he’s going to aggressively enforce “civil rights” on all kinds of institutions and he especially mentioned “churches” - he was referring to the fag agenda.
It’s not a slippery slope any more, it’s a screaming nosedive.
What does a monarchy have to do with not legalizing sexual perversion in the name of fake marriage?
You’re supporting the homo agenda while pretending not to. That’s called duplicity.
The contracts clause and the full faith and credit clause.
The Congress recognized this issue and passed the defense of marriage bill. That will ultimately be declared unconstitutional as our country continues in its moral decline.
Petition your local representatives to propose a bill to not honor a same-sex marriage from another state. You have the right to, and your state has the right to under the 10th Amendment.
In today's judical atmosphere, such a law would be declared an unconstitutional impairment of a contract.
Tell me such a law would be upheld under the following test:
The Supreme Court laid out a three-part test for whether a law violates the Contract Clause in Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light 459 U.S. 400 (1983). First, the state regulation must substantially impair a contractual relationship. Second, the State "must have a significant and legitimate purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem." 459 U.S. at 411-13 Third, the law must be reasonable and appropriate for its intended purpose.
An overreaching federal government micromanaging people’s lives, telling them what to do, how to live, you know, what Obama is trying to do. It’s not fair to us, and the converse wouldn’t be fair to everybody else.
Liberaltarians like to dance around mincing words and pretending they aren’t advocating what they are clearly advocating.
Gotta crawl to bed - catch this thread tomorrow.
Why are you trying to say I’m supporting something when I specifically said I don’t support it? You’re like the MSM saying Conservatives are against all immigration, when we’re against people illegally crossing our borders. It’s misinformation, and you’re not helping the Conservative cause.
An overreaching federal government micromanaging people’s lives...
The overreaching federal government is forcing the fag agenda on us all. The fag agenda is a tentacle of the overreaching fed gov and many state govs have swallowed the koolaid as well.
The founders of this country who actually wrote, signed and understood the Constitution thought that laws against sodomy were perfectly fine and Constitutional. They of course didn’t need any federal laws about it because they didn’t have a leftist SCOTUS overturning states’ rights nor did they have a fedgov larded with fags and fag agenda supporters overturning states’ rights and the votes of citizens.
I strongly suspect I have been posting on this forum a lot longer than the mod who made that accusation.
Sometimes the mods just get on their own little power trip and when you challenge their authority or their judgment, they just lose it.
I've been suspended a few times after getting into tussles with the mods over stupid decisions they have made. I suspect it will happen again.
As I said, I am not going to sit idly by when ANYONE accuses me of actively promoting the homosexual agenda.
ANYONE.
You’re tacitly supporting it. It’s like saying “I’m personally against abortion, wouldn’t have one myself, but it’s fine with me if other people want them.”
If I get banned or suspended before that, xzins has my e-mail.
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.