Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 11/26/2002 10:18:01 AM PST by Mike Fieschko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Mike Fieschko; scripter; *Homosexual Agenda
Bump & Ping
2 posted on 11/26/2002 10:30:22 AM PST by EdReform
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mike Fieschko
Bump!
3 posted on 11/26/2002 10:33:27 AM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mike Fieschko
By the way, the legal briefs filed in the Massachusetts court case argue that there is a "right to marriage" for same-sex couples under the U.S. Constitution.

I would contend that any successful attempt to find a "right to marriage" in any form under the U.S. Constitution is going to have very interesting consequences. If such a right exists, and states are forbidden to legislate against "gay marriages" on this basis, then states would also be forbidden from legislating against any other kind of "marriages," including the following:

1. A marriage involving more than two spouses (Utah can go back to the days before they were admitted into the Union),

2. A marriage involving close family members (no more incest jokes about Appalachia),

3. A marriage involving a person and an animal (if you think the future of Social Security was in bad shape now, wait until pets start collecting survivor benefits),

4. A marriage involving an elderly retiree and a 5 year-old family member (to allow the youngster to collect insurance, Social security, and pension benefits for decades after the other "spouse" dies),

4. A marriage involving large numbers of committed Christians who use such a travesty in a cynical, manipulative manner to their own advantage (I'll probably never pay another dime in income taxes for the rest of my life, since I could easily come up with 30 or more "spouses" to put on my income tax returns).

Providing insurance benefits to same-sex couples is one thing, but I suspect that any attempt to change the legal definition of a marriage will stop in its tracks once Items #4 and #5 become a common practice.

7 posted on 11/26/2002 10:49:42 AM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mike Fieschko
We all know most Americans are against same sex marriage because:

1)It mocks the institution of matrimony;

2)It will open the door to incestuous, "intergenerational" and interspecies marriage.

But it looks like, once again, a small group of people stand poised to shove the perversion of a divine union down the throats of everyone else. And they will be allowed to get away with it because, "We are a republic, not a democracy," or we would otherwise be called intolerant homophobic bigots.

In a song recorded by Christian artist Carman, he said:

"When it comes to the point where we would rather come out of the closet than clean it, it's a sign the Judgement of God is gonna fall."

Indeed.

8 posted on 11/26/2002 10:52:03 AM PST by Houmatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mike Fieschko
Good article, but I don't like the way he referred to adoption and insemination as "second best." Even for some heterosexual couples, that's the only way to start a family. If it were me, I sure wouldn't want to think of it as "second best." I would prefer to think of it as "God's Plan."
10 posted on 11/26/2002 10:54:00 AM PST by LibertyGirl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mike Fieschko; *Catholic_list; .45MAN; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Angelus Errare; ...
In general, political avoidance of the gay-marriage issue, combined with the false analogy to civil rights, has obscured the true effect that same-sex marriage will have on the institution of the family. Yet as soon as next summer, the gay-marriage issue may finally beak out into the open. At that point, the Republicans will have to call Al Gore and the Democrats on the radical and damaging implications of their social philosophy for the institutions of marriage and the family.

Unfortunately, the GOP do not and will not have the guts or conviction to do it.

12 posted on 11/26/2002 10:56:30 AM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mike Fieschko
I don't see why regulating marriage should be a government function. Government will regulate anything it can get its hands on.
15 posted on 11/26/2002 10:58:50 AM PST by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mike Fieschko
Hey, we just found the only person who has purchased Gore's book!
24 posted on 11/26/2002 11:24:24 AM PST by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mike Fieschko
Right now, proponents treat the gay-marriage debate as a question of civil rights. But the real issue is what effect gay marriage will have on the institution of marriage itself.

This seems to me to be the crux of the biscuit, STS. When I was married, I never once felt in the least bit threatened, swayed, influenced or otherwise effected by same-sex couples wanting to marry, or at least have a civil ceremony.

Hetero marriage has been around for eons. This little blip on the radar won't do a thing to change it, and it's at least a little disengenuous, IMHO, to maintain otherwise.

25 posted on 11/26/2002 11:25:49 AM PST by Pahuanui
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mike Fieschko
Homosexuality is a lifestyle of peace
27 posted on 11/26/2002 12:00:28 PM PST by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mike Fieschko
If the gays get homosexual marriage, will the Islamic fundamentalists be right behind, demanding polygamy?
28 posted on 11/26/2002 12:02:18 PM PST by valkyrieanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mike Fieschko
Marriage is simply a legal contract between two individuals who have the right to enter into such a contract.

As it concerns my church, this contract, while legal, can never be considered holy matrimony. (A sacrament)

Like it or not, our laws guarantee this type of contract.

We do believe in the rule of law, don't we?
36 posted on 11/26/2002 12:44:10 PM PST by WhiteGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mike Fieschko
Just be glad you don't live in California. Though the voters passed Prop 22 (Marriage protection), the State legislature which is controlled by democraps, is spitting in our faces every chance they get. With Gov. "Gay" Davis at the helm, we're doomed.
40 posted on 11/26/2002 3:47:06 PM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mike Fieschko
Marriage and De Facto Unions (homosexual marriage and cohabitation)
50 posted on 12/06/2002 9:14:30 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson