Skip to comments.
48 Liberals Line up Against Same-Sex Marriage (Gay marriage in Trouble in Canada)
Globe and Mail ^
| CAMPBELL CLARK and KIM LUNMAN
Posted on 08/11/2003 3:07:29 PM PDT by nickcarraway
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
To: nickcarraway
I guess the Canadians aren't as whacked out as first thought.
2
posted on
08/11/2003 3:15:07 PM PDT
by
vpintheak
(Our Liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain!)
To: vpintheak
But if 54 percent of the public supports gay marriage, they must be pretty far gone. Could the elected officials actually be LESS liberal than the voters? It's bad no matter how you slice it.
3
posted on
08/11/2003 3:19:12 PM PDT
by
speedy
To: nickcarraway
If these 48 liberals were American voters, I would gladly invite them into the Republican party.
To: nickcarraway
Canadians use the word "Liberal" correctly.
These aren't Merkin Leftists who have appropriated the word "Liberal"
To: vpintheak
I guess the Canadians aren't as whacked out as first thought.Not all of 'em
6
posted on
08/11/2003 3:52:30 PM PDT
by
jla
To: nickcarraway
Hopefully there has been a little pressure against Canada after they turned their backs on the U.S during the Iraq war.
Hopefully a few of the liberal vermin has been told it may be their jobs.
Hopefully their has been some economic pressure and the libs are in trouble there?
To: nickcarraway
What is this about 'minority rights' thinking. Do people really think that if you are gay that the label of minority should be attatched? That special meanings should be used? In the'Christian Bible' Rom 1:26-28 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting. I say this to the politicians who are undesided,"because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."(Rev 3:16)
Now, are you just going to 'smile,' and ignore this or are you going to do something? I say this and mark these words well, 'If same sex marriage is made legal, the amount of government spending for medical aid for the gay people will skyrocket so fast and so high that it will make your head spin'. 'The after cost of this will bankrupt the goverment medical money'. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
8
posted on
08/11/2003 4:34:37 PM PDT
by
AIC
To: speedy
they must be pretty far gone....I vacationed in Toronto 21 years ago and they were pretty far gone then!
9
posted on
08/11/2003 4:37:37 PM PDT
by
GrandMoM
("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)
To: nickcarraway; scripter
"
Although they're not opposed to same-sex unions, they don't understand at all why we would change the definition of the term marriage..."
Here's an explanation from the homosexual community:
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine:
...to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely." "Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."
The Homosexual Propaganda and Media Manipulation Game
What Homosexuals Say About Homosexuals - Is This Gay Behavior Sick?
Choice4Truth
10
posted on
08/11/2003 4:38:12 PM PDT
by
EdReform
(Support Free Republic - Become a Monthly Donor)
To: GrandMoM
Hello Bump! I owe you a FReepmail, don't I?! :o)
Sorry for the delay (I'll get to it shortly...)
11
posted on
08/11/2003 4:40:26 PM PDT
by
EdReform
(Support Free Republic - Become a Monthly Donor)
To: nickcarraway
The definition of marriage is "man and woman joining."
You can't very well say that a "man and man" joining is the same thing. Not remotely. Different physiologies, different psyches, different hormones, different child-bearing capacities, different.....you name it.
12
posted on
08/11/2003 5:54:45 PM PDT
by
xzins
To: nickcarraway
Just a passing thought, but let's assume the worst case: Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage; Federal Courts, possibly including the Supreme Court effectively annul the '96 Defense of Marriage Act; and the Marriage Amendment fails passage. It goes without saying that courts all over the country will be flooded with suits insisting that say Texas recognise the marriage of Joe and Fred, who have just moved back from Massachusetts.
I suggest that we call on our friends in the NRA to file an amicus curie suit favoring the gay rights side, and simultaneously request that the precedent set be used to guarantee that a legally obtained concealed carry permit issued in one state be honored by another. If Constitutional law doesn't bother these nitwits, perhaps the thought of Texas tourists packing .45ACPs in shoulder holsters will give them the willies. Might even get them to look at the second half of Article IV Sec 1, to wit: and the Congress may by general law prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
13
posted on
08/11/2003 6:20:18 PM PDT
by
barkeep
To: barkeep
that's a thought.
To: AIC
I'm with you until the next to last sentence. It's difficult for me to see how that is a necessary or even realistic outcome. Your thinking?
15
posted on
08/11/2003 6:39:30 PM PDT
by
jammer
To: nickcarraway
INTREP
To: nickcarraway
"He's not going to preach. He's going to outline again what his position is..."That should be interesting.
17
posted on
08/11/2003 6:56:03 PM PDT
by
arasina
(Anyone know where I can get a good tagline?)
To: arasina
junior minister for multiculturalism and the status of womenIf we ever get one of these in the USA, please, just shoot me.
18
posted on
08/11/2003 6:59:17 PM PDT
by
Guillermo
(Proud Infidel)
To: speedy
Could the elected officials actually be LESS liberal than the voters?I think the provincial break-down of the results explains it. The poll mentioned in the article shows there is much more opposition in Ontario than in places like BC and Quebec. Most Liberal seats are centred in Ontario (which are crucial for the Libs to hold on to government in the next election).
19
posted on
08/11/2003 7:02:27 PM PDT
by
Int
(Ever notice how the Freepers that have been here longest are the most 'moderate'?)
To: nickcarraway
The citizens and the legislatures are irrelevant. Their rulers in the judiciary have decided to bet against 4,000 years of established civilization and religion, and bless gay marriage.
Marriage is anything the judges say it is. Today, homosexuals. Tomorrow, your mother. Thursday, your sisters, and Friday everyone at the bathhouse.
Saturday will be renamed Satyrday, and goats will have their way with women. Married, mind you.
20
posted on
08/11/2003 7:27:45 PM PDT
by
Uncle Miltie
("Leave Pat, Leave!")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 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