Gay Marriage Issue Death for Democrats

EIB ^ | 2-19-04 | Rush Limbaugh

[farmfriend]

Short list.

[speedy]

But the main Dem politicians, like Kerry, will get around it by saying they are against legalizing gay "marriage" which most of their supporters understand as a wink and a nod. Meantime, they let the courts, using judges they appoint, and a few radical local legislators do the dirty work for them. Voila, it becomes law, and then of course we all must uphold the law no matter how we feel personally. They will work this the same way they worked abortion.

[Brilliant]

If it's so unpopular, then why are the politicians afraid to touch it?

[Blood of Tyrants]

Every single one of the Rat Party supporters left wing wacko ideas will not and cannnot be made to work. We have seen what happens in CA when they run all three branches of government. And now we see what happens when they decide social issues.

Rule number one in ANY situation: When your enemy is determined to destroy themselves with their own ineptitude, stand back and let them.

[Blood of Tyrants]

What? Homosexual "marriage" or illegal immigration?

[Cicero]

The judges will go along with this, unless overwhelming political pressure is dropped on their heads. Such as impeachment, recall, and refusal of the executive to obey their illegal directives. Nothing less will stop them.

[cripplecreek]

I believe a solution to the anarchy that seems to rule SF has allready been found some years ago by Hollywood. A movie called "Escape from New York" comes to mind.

[Lady Eileen]

bump

[vaudine]

All the talking heads are talking about this--about whether or not the Mayor of SF was rigbht or wrong; because he relies on the CA Constitution and the US Constitution under the equall protection clause. My question is this. Since marriage is and always has been between a man and a woman, how can the equal protection clause be invoked? If a man and a woman of different color, ethnic origin, etc. were refused license to marry, the clause could be invoked. Two men or two women should not be allowed to marry because it interferes with their equal protection under the law. The Const. cannot make either set of applicants into a man and a woman.

These activist judges have gone so far, as in Mass. that I believe it will be a fight among the judiciary. I am afraid there have been too many Dem judges appointed, and just one judge on any court can turn our cultural heritage, the law, and the three branches of govt. on its ear.

vaudine .

[expatpat]

the Democrats themselves are going to have to take this out

Good point. And the screaming and gnashing of teeth when they do it is going to be on top of the Deaniacs' cries of betrayal by the Paarty.

[maica]

They are altering the form, they are invalidating the form and thus making the form illegal, every one of them. None of these forms will be accepted. This is all symbolic which makes it even worse for the Democrats

*****

What is happening in SF is street theatre. That's all! The so-called marriages are not being recorded in Sacramento. Thus no state authorization of the so-called union.

When oil and vinegar are 'married' salad dressing results. That is what marriage IS- a permanent union of two dissimilar items into a new 'whole.'

Something permanent. Vinegar added to vinegar will never be salad dressing. It will always be vinegar.

[goldstategop]

The Democrats ARE for gay marriage. They're against it now, not out of principle but purely for reasons of timing. That's how out of touch they are with Peoria.

[tinamina]

If I still lived in SF, I would go around town and round up a bunch of homeless people or whoever I could get to go to City Hall with me, walk in to the main rotunda area and start smoking cigarettes one after the other. The smoke would float up to all the offices, but I would challenge the "authorities" about our "equal protection under the law". Why should we have to ride at the "back of the bus"?The press would come running, they'd have to report the incident. They are promoting anarchy here, right? Freedom is whatever I want to do, right?
Then of course we would have to perform some other form of "civil disobedience" inside City Hall. Any ideas?

[CommandoFrank]

If it's so unpopular, then why are the politicians afraid to touch it?

Great question... I'm very disappointed in Arnolds response (or lack thereof) to this issue. I think he should relinqish his title of 'Terminator' and assume the Republican mantra of reacting like a wimp.

I guess that means he should now be know as the 'Wimpinator'...

[CounterCounterCulture]

Funny how "equal protection" doesn't apply under "progressive" income taxation.

Naw, I'm not laughing.

[TheGeezer]

You are absolutely correct in that the definition of marriage is what is the question. But the debate was lost long ago, when sex was divided from reproduction. If you can have sex without the possibility of conception, then any use of sex is OK. Contraception made homosexual marriage possible. Interesting, eh?

[applemac_g4]

>The judges will go along with this, unless overwhelming
>political pressure is dropped on their heads. Such as
>impeachment, recall, and refusal of the executive to obey
>their illegal directives. Nothing less will stop them.

Too late. The fix is in. The city of San Francisco is suing the state of California seeking to have the law banning gay marriage thrown out by a superior Nazgul.

I'm sure that they already have the list of sympathetic judges drawn up.

The gay marriages will continue until this lands in front of the SOCUS, which will declare gay marriage to be the law of the land.

[TheLion]

"you can't believe that the law can be so wantonly violated and nobody stand up and do anything about it".

"I'm very disappointed in Arnolds response (or lack thereof) to this issue"

This is a great opportunity for Republicans to step up to the plate and have the courage to speak their convictions. I am so tired of all the gutless wonders. In Arnolds case, he may be waiting to see which way the wind blows....typical politics.

[claudiustg]

---The Democrats ARE for gay marriage. They're against it now, not out of principle but purely for reasons of timing.---

Art Torres is for it! He came out last night, dressed like a pimp, and put his big fat stupid head right in a noose. He dismissed the will of the people and defended the "marriages".