Skip to comments.
Group Calls for De-Legalization of Marriage
FoxNews.com ^
| 10/09/2003
| Steve Brown
Posted on 10/09/2003 12:48:23 PM PDT by FormerLib
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:37:21 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
CHICAGO
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; marriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
I'm not surprised at this is the least. It is quite clear that these people are dedicated to the destruction of our society and they will use whatever methods they can to do so.
1
posted on
10/09/2003 12:48:23 PM PDT
by
FormerLib
To: *Homosexual Agenda
PING!
2
posted on
10/09/2003 12:48:50 PM PDT
by
FormerLib
(The enemy is within!)
To: FormerLib
Heh. You gotta give them this: at least they're imaginative!
3
posted on
10/09/2003 12:49:50 PM PDT
by
Egon
(I collect spores, molds, and fungus...and other Liberal artifacts.)
To: All
Aww man! Enough of the fundraiser posts!!! |
|
Only YOU can make fundraiser posts go away. Please contribute! |
4
posted on
10/09/2003 12:50:42 PM PDT
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: FormerLib
This is another way of saying make religion illegal and idolatry of feelings mandated.
5
posted on
10/09/2003 12:51:03 PM PDT
by
JudgemAll
To: FormerLib
"University of Houston Law School professor Victor Flatt"
Another item for the Texas budget cutting list of priorities.
6
posted on
10/09/2003 12:51:54 PM PDT
by
WorkingClassFilth
(TAR & FEATHERING - AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS RETURNED)
To: FormerLib
Tax Benefits???? It's obvious this guy doesn't have a background in accounting. I'm a CPA, and it's common knowledge that most married couples end up paying more in taxes than they would if they were single. Hasn't he heard of the marriage penalty?
7
posted on
10/09/2003 12:54:39 PM PDT
by
exile
(Exile - proudly ticking off the Left since 1992)
To: FormerLib
When marriage is outlawed, only outlaws will have in-laws.
8
posted on
10/09/2003 12:55:28 PM PDT
by
KarlInOhio
(Current time travel velocity: 3600 seconds/hour.)
To: FormerLib
De-legalization of property ownership will be the next step. Why should anybody own their own house when other people can't? It's not fair. Everybody should be housed in barracks with a regulation-size cot, chair and nightstand apiece. This is the actual Utopia these neo-Bolsheviks have in mind for us.
9
posted on
10/09/2003 12:57:14 PM PDT
by
Argus
((Ninety-nine and forty-four one-hundredths percent Pure Reactionary))
To: FormerLib
Well, that's one way to reduce the divorce rate.
10
posted on
10/09/2003 1:01:32 PM PDT
by
billb
To: FormerLib
Getting government out of people's personal lives isn't "destruction of our society". And while Professor Flatt is listing the perks that government showers on people who get their marriages licensed by the government (University of Houston (search ) Law School professor Victor Flatt cites social security, immigration, tax benefits and travel benefits as some of the perks married couples receive , he forgets to mention all the welfare payments that government showers on single moms as long as they DON'T possess one of these government issued marriage licenses. That practice definitely has contributed to the "destruction of our society". Get rid of legal recognition of marriage, and the government will no longer be able to bribe women not to marry the fathers of their children.
To: FormerLib
It is quite clear that these people are dedicated to the destruction of our society and they will use whatever methods they can to do so. Instead of being 'me'-centric, think about what this group wants. They want equality. They want the benefits that society bestows upon a married couple, that they are denied bases solely upon the gender of thier mate. When they asked for gay-marriage, the uproar was that somehow allowing them to be married would destroy the American family. I can't speak for your marriage, but frankly, mine would not be affected if a couple of gay men, or lesbians made a legally binding commitment.
As they have been denied the ability to marry and obtain the legal benefits found in marriage (spouse automatically inherits in case of death, spouse may sign to permit surgery in emergencies, Alimony, taxes, Social Security, insurance, property ownership, ect). Their next step is to show that the 'married' group is patently uncounstitution under the equal protection clause.
You simply can't have it all your way. Either we openly and freely discriminate against homosexuals in work, school, property, religon, housing, health and education; or we allow them equal access to all benefits the rest of us enjoy.
12
posted on
10/09/2003 1:07:37 PM PDT
by
Hodar
(With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
To: FormerLib
Hmmm, if this gets wide airplay, it may help to show regular folks just what the agenda of the homosexual activists really is. Most people don't know what the homosexual activists have in mind, they haven't been paying attention because they figured it would never affect THEM. This kind of stuff WILL, and I'm thinking the average married couple in America won't take to kindly to monkeying with the institution.
13
posted on
10/09/2003 1:13:39 PM PDT
by
SuziQ
Comment #14 Removed by Moderator
To: Hodar
Every "legal benefit" you list can be bestowed upon non-married persons with contracts and power of attorney except one notable exception - Social Security. That's right, the government run program. The answer to that is get rid of Social Security and allow everyone to have private savings for retirement (or none). Once it is in the private marketplace then you can designate who gets those funds (if they exist) upon your death, just by putting a name in a box.
In reality all of those benefits enjoyed by married people are just an implied contract we "sign" by getting married.
15
posted on
10/09/2003 1:32:43 PM PDT
by
mikesmad
To: FormerLib
You mean it really is about destroying traditional marriage after all. But they said ...
Duh!
16
posted on
10/09/2003 1:39:14 PM PDT
by
Salman
(Mickey Akbar)
To: Argus
"Everybody should be housed in barracks with a regulation-size cot, chair and nightstand apiece. This is the actual Utopia these neo-Bolsheviks have in mind for us."Us. Not them. They are the elite.
17
posted on
10/09/2003 1:39:32 PM PDT
by
onedoug
To: FormerLib
Duplicate Post.
We thoroughly thrashed this out here
18
posted on
10/09/2003 1:43:02 PM PDT
by
gridlock
(Remember: PC Kills!)
To: mikesmad
BTW, mikesmad and governmentshrinker are right.
Get government out of the marriage business, before it defines marriage out of existance.
Given that the government has botched the job in every other area of human endeavor it has been involved in, I wonder why so many people want it central to the institution of marriage?
19
posted on
10/09/2003 1:45:03 PM PDT
by
gridlock
(Remember: PC Kills!)
To: mikesmad
In reality all of those benefits enjoyed by married people are just an implied contract we "sign" by getting married. And is there any reason that gay couples can't "sign" the same type of contract? If people have a problem with the word "marriage", maybe they could call it "bonding" or some other PC term. While I may not agree with their lifestyle and choices, I do think they have a valid arguement, as long as we are talking 'equality' and NOT "protected status".
20
posted on
10/09/2003 1:45:58 PM PDT
by
Hodar
(With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 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