Skip to comments.
Frist Wants Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
Yahoo! ^
| June 29, 2003
Posted on 06/29/2003 5:51:41 PM PDT by mrobison
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 421-428 next last
To: Steve Eisenberg
"I am afraid that on the current Supreme Court there will be at least 7 votes saying that a gay marriage in Massachusetts (assuming they adopt gay marraige, as expected) must be given full faith and credit in every state."Post #161.
201
posted on
06/29/2003 8:10:05 PM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
(Cuba será libre...soon.)
To: chance33_98
Good post
To: Antoninus
Now kindly tell me why you're on this thread trying to convince people not to follow their consciences when it comes to this issue? What's your point? My point is that there are many important issues to be addressed, and I don't feel this should be at the top of our priority list. Seems to me that this is a fair place to state my opinion.
Are you ambivalent about this issue or so opposed that you feel the need to convince people that gay marriage should be allowed?
I don't think gay marriage should be allowed, but in all honesty I can't get myself very worked up about it either way. I'm more concerned about terrorism, huge government subsidies, etc. as I stated earlier.
To: Luis Gonzalez
Can you read? I want the Constitution amended to constrain the SCOTUS from exercising power never granted to it in the Constitution.
I can repeat it a few times if you'd like.
To: pram
If you really don't care, that is.
They do care. They're just pretending not to. They think they're somehow being "enlightend."
Personally, I think they sound eerily like the Clinton defenders in 1998: "It's all about sex. Darn puritanical Republicans. Leave poor Clinton alone."
205
posted on
06/29/2003 8:12:27 PM PDT
by
Antoninus
(In hoc signo, vinces †)
To: jwalsh07
Well, I'd submit that the precedent of Roe and now Lawrence is demonstrative of a federal government branch wielding extra Constitutional power in a heavy handed manner that needs to be constrained right now. I agree wholeheartedly, and don't think I've argued against that point. Hopefully the President can do something about that very issue this summer, but until the court's composition changes I'm afraid there's little hope.
To: jwalsh07
Do you approve of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996?
207
posted on
06/29/2003 8:13:18 PM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
(Cuba será libre...soon.)
To: mrobison
So, mrobison, I suppose you think it was just a wonderful thing when the federal government sent troops into Utah to put a stop the God-given institution of polygamous marriage. I have little tolerance for Mormon hypocrisy on this subject. The government has no business interfering with the freedom of citizens to run their personal lives in accordance with their own sincere beliefs, even if the overwhelming majority is convinced they're a bunch of disgusting perverts (and in the case of gay marriage, there's nowhere near an overwhelming majority, though there certainly was in the case of polygamy).
To: chance33_98
If a company wants to give them benefits, that is up to the company to decide. Oh, I agree.
And the second they try to FORCE an employer to pay benefits is the instant I'll oppose them with everything I have.
To: Luis Gonzalez
Copy and paste if you'd like but I don't think I can be much clearer than I've been.
To: Kevin Curry
For those of us who are concerned for the health and well-being of the traditional family--and there are many of us in the Republican Party--this amendment is critically important. You can include me in that group, except for the part about critical importance.
Seems to me you're a libertarian, so nothing beyond your narrow focus of three feet and a cloud of smoke is important to you.
I wouldn't have expected anything more out of you. What a mature argument.
And for the record, again, I'm a Republican who voted for Bush in 2000. But believe whatever you'd like if it gets you through your day.
To: Luis Gonzalez
Go cook yourself some arroz con pollo.
To: DAnconia55
Twelve percent of the 1994 voters identified themselves as members of the Christian Right in exit polling.
Wow are you that naive? First off, the media's been on a 30 year campaign to demonize the term "Christian Right." Heck, I might not even say that I was part of that particular group if asked, though my voting pattern and and ideals closely mirror theirs.
You may as well try an exit poll asking how many Democrat voters consider themselves "socialists"?
213
posted on
06/29/2003 8:15:59 PM PDT
by
Antoninus
(In hoc signo, vinces †)
To: Luis Gonzalez
We've been down this road before. Sodomy was illegal for ALL men and ALL women in Texas before the Lawrence decision. ALL of them. That's 100 percent of them, Luis.
All women were forbidden from sexual intercourse with all women, and all men with all men. All+all+all+all==ALL
Get it?
Of all the justices, Sandra "Feeble Mind" O'Connor was the ONLY justice to buy into your bizarre math, Luis. The six sodomy-enobling justices didn't bite. Scalia ridiculed your math outright.
But you still can't let it go.
Time to go on the warpath against theft and gambling laws, Luis. Theft laws clearly discriminate against thieves, and gambling laws discriminate against gamblers. It just ain't fair, I tell ya!
To: Luis Gonzalez
I can't believe the depth and breadth of the ignorance of posters on this issue, and the willingness of all these "smaller government" types to surrender State's Rights to define marriage to the Federal Government. Not to show any disrespect, but did you somehow miss what happened last week with the Supreme Court? It's too late for your argument, unfortunately. This amendment is needed (that is, assuming you think that marriage is important).
215
posted on
06/29/2003 8:16:15 PM PDT
by
Republican Wildcat
(Help us elect Republicans in Kentucky! Click on my name for links to all the 2003 candidates!)
To: GovernmentShrinker
Interesting use of the word "pervert." Keep up the good work.
To: Luis Gonzalez
"I can't believe the depth and breadth of the ignorance of posters on this issue, and the willingness of all these "smaller government" types to surrender State's Rights to define marriage to the Federal Government."Read my posting at #180. I don't think any of the laws you posted would come into play if a State makes an amendment to their constitution saying same sex marriage is legal.
217
posted on
06/29/2003 8:16:37 PM PDT
by
Spunky
(This little tag just keeps following me where ever I go.)
Comment #218 Removed by Moderator
To: mrobison
This post proves there is little need for me to try to win anybody over. Fair enough. We'll let the readers decide, but just to recap: I asked you to name some tangible impacts of this ruling; you went on the all-out attack and avoided the issue.
To: HairOfTheDog
Oh good.... Now you want our constitution talking about genitalia.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but the Supreme Court of the United States was discussing anal sex the other day. This sick nonsense has been foisted on us quite against our will. Are we not supposed to fight the battle just to keep talk of "genitals" out of the constitution? Of all the idiotic arguments....
220
posted on
06/29/2003 8:18:15 PM PDT
by
Antoninus
(In hoc signo, vinces †)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 421-428 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson