Posted on 08/26/2011 10:37:32 PM PDT by newzjunkey
WASHINGTON – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released the following statement today announcing that Gov. Rick Perry has signed their marriage pledge:
"Kudos to Gov. Rick Perry for making it clear: he's a marriage champion!," said Brian Brown, president of NOM. "The purpose of NOM's Marriage Pledge is to move from vague values statements to concrete actions to protect marriage. Gov. Perry joins Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum as a signer of NOM Marriage Pledge. By doing so, Perry makes crystal clear that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, gay marriage is going to be a bigger issue in 2012 than it was in 2008, because the difference between the GOP nominee and Pres. Obama is going to be large and clear. We look forward to demonstrating that being for marriage is a winning position for a presidential candidate."
How about conservative rights? How about worldwide political incorrectness, forever?
Then for the same reason we need drinker and smokers rights, we are born with it too” - dila
People aren't born smokers or drinkers. They're almost certainly born gay. So your analogy doesn't work (IMO).
Not only that, but you don't have to believe civil unions are required under the equal protection clause, to believe that they should be made available.
To straights who might want to pool their resources as well. They are a contract between two people, that simulate marriage, w/ the rights and burdens.
If gays want the spiritual part, and they can find some holy man willing to do it, well that's between them and him. But it has nothing to do w/ civil unions or the government.
“This is a mistake on his part. It should be left up to the states” - Winstons Julia
I believe in gay rights, but I don't see anything wrong w/ this pledge other than the “vigorous defense of DOMA”. I would have no problem signing the rest of it.
The President has nothing to do w/ constitutional amendments, so why not let the states debate it, whatever it is?
And I don't want nine unelected priest-kings on the bench deciding these things.
I also disagree that social conservatism has no place in this election. It's necessary to explain why Presidential appointments are important, and to get out the so-con voters.
Let Obama explain he wants to appoint Justices who want to treat KSM the same as a purse snatcher, and we'll see who wins the issue on Judges/Justices.
I guess I should say that it’s a state issue, but it’s also a “social issue” and the left is expert at throwing these “social issues” up as cosmic grievances.
I’d never support penalizing churches for not performing gay marriages or denying facilities, services to things they don’t agree with. We can say that we think that a civil union is ok... but that’s not enough for some because they claim that it doesn’t have the benefits of a “straight marriage.”
There’s a portion of the gay community that presents themselves in a manner that causes people to say “faggotry is afoot”. These are the liberal gay people. And I don’t like the liberal gay people. When I was in college I had some friends that went gay (men) and I had to tell them that harassing a straight man was as bad as some guy harassing ME. I hope I educated some of them.
I recall reading about Reagan getting a letter from a schoolgirl about how he was going to handle the Lesbianese (Lebanese) and he asked, “How can I answer that without alienating a political action group?”
I think we need to remember that our basic unit of strength is the family. I’d never shun a family member for being gay. If gay people want to form a union... and look to form a cohesive unit....then great.
It’s only the bisexuals and willy nilly ... @#$% everyone all the time crowd that I detest.
“One, support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification.”
You actually do know the mind of God. It’s innate. Willful ignorance is a choice you’ve made. You had nothing to do with how modern society works. You only flatter yourself that you have something to do with it now. I don’t want a argument with you but either you or I are wrong in the extreme.
How exactly have liberals 'ruined' the economy? Why it is from 'social' liberalism. People can run into the tall grass to escape in a blind fear of 'social conservatism', but that is exactly what these heathen liberals have taken advantage of US ridiculing US as 'evil'. I can't wait for the big heavy foot of liberal conservatives back hand 'social' conservatives so they can cough cough 'win'.
Where is your evidence that ‘perverts’ are born that way. Personally I am sick of being required to pervert the language to demonstrate I accept such nonsense. Do a history check and find the last ‘great’ nation who survived over blessing a perverted lifestyle.
I will seek no argument with you.
They are not still married as far as insurance benefits and things. They are not considered married except as they see it themselves. There are no spousal rights.
Posted on Friday, July 01, 2011 10:13:29 AM by Jim Robinson
“The presidential race is heating up. We now have conservatives Bachmann and Cain officially in the race fending off RINO Romney; and Palin and Perry could possibly jump in. My hopes are with Palin, but if she decides not to run I could be happy with Bachmann or Cain. Also, if Palin does not run but Perry does, he’d probably suck all the air out of the race. Either way, Palin, Bachmann, Cain or even Perry would all be excellent alternatives to Obama the commie. Anyone but RINO Romney the big government chief architect of CommieCare!”
…… Posted on Friday, July 01, 2011 10:13:29 AM by Jim Robinson”
Also see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2764368/posts
Old flip flopper showing his true colors, tomorrow he may flop back.
Well, lets not mix social and socialism. Similar, but not the same. Also, all issues are social or economic to a degree.
Entitlements brought on by socialism will bankrupt the nation. This is liberal economics. Is there a social aspect to it? Sure. But socialism without an economic mechanism is just sappy sentimentality. Who cares about a 'social contract' if it doesn't cost anything?
With, say, abortion or gay marriage, those are pure social issues. The economic impact is negligible. There are some costs that go into either, but the real dilemma is the moral aspect of it. How are these issues handled in a just society.
While you can certainly make the case that if you're soft on social issues, you'll be soft on economic issues, most Americans aren't going to grasp that connection. It makes some of the work we need to do more delicately presented to the people than it should have to be. If that means avoiding ruffling some social feathers in order to ruffle economic ones, that's probably a good strategic move when the situation has deteriorated as far as it has with us.
Unless you are pointing out to clueless liberals screaming about hateful conservatives that their messiah doesn’t approve of gay marriage. Or does he? No one has asked lately ... so why is it a PURITY TEST for conservative candidates when Obama has the same views?
YOU go to DU ... feed them your ham-fisted sandwich.
Looks like Perry signed this pledge. What? You not happy?
So, basically, your’e a Bachmannbot who can’t be satisfied unless she wins? Super. But she’s not going to win. The sooner you can climb onto the reality bus, the better.
Wholesale abortion and queer unions have an 'economic' price few are willing to accept or even calculate. Also few are able to comprehend since our beginning what was set in motion that graced US with the blessing of wealth and health unseen ever in the history of flesh man. People who snuff and ignore the source of these blessings and protection will sell out in a heart beat.
I am a Christian, and I cannot begin to describe what it is to hear so called Christians participate with, celebrate and cheer on BamBamKennedy's policies of literally the redistribution of this nation's wealth. God said thou shall not steal. And God also said if an able bodied man does not work he/she should NOT be fed.
The majority may well fence out the God given rule of law, but then history is filled with those who deceived themselves they could do things better.
What any mangod society cannot stand is an independent productive middle class. Well we middle class are teetering on the edge of a rain drenched cliff. There is nothing productive in abortions or a bunch of perverts demand recognition over their sexual lusts. And the heathen liberals know that the majority of human beings cannot handle their ridicule and so they have US over a barrel from the get go.
Exactly! Who decides between New York and Georgia? The Supreme Court or Congress will rule, one way or another. That’s what libertarians totally miss in this debate. If conservatives sit idly by, liberals in the courts and government will force the homosexual agenda on every state.
Conservatives should not be fooled by “everyone relax, just leave gay marriage up to the states and nobody will bother you.” That’s a convenient argument for libertarians who don’t care about social issues. But not for conservatives who worry about the future of marriage and civilization.
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.