| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 07/13/2004 10:03:56 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Troll magnet, posted by troll. |
Posted on 07/12/2004 12:45:33 PM PDT by RavenMoon
WASHINGTON - Lynne Cheney, the vice president's wife, said yesterday that states should have the final say over the legal status of personal relationships. The Cheneys have a lesbian daughter.
That stand puts her at odds with the vice president on the need for the constitutional amendment now debated in the Senate that effectively would ban gay marriage.
"I think that the constitutional amendment discussion will give us an opportunity to look for ways to discuss ways in which we can keep the authority of the states intact," Cheney told CNN's Late Edition.
The Senate began debate Friday on an amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Sorry, Lynn, no one elected you, and it appears that's a good thing.
The queers are already suing to over ride state laws on the subject. An amendment is the only option.
"I'm in favor of amending the composition of the US Supreme Court, not the US Constitution. I would fire a few justices who are out of control."
How do you propose "firing" a few justices?
Then Utah should be allowed to have polygamy again. Geesh....Gay Marriage Legalized will be the FINAL nail in our coffin. USA....RIP.
I wonder if Ms. Cheney thinks Utah should have been allowed to join the Union without being forced to ban polygamy.
just so long as you are prepared then for the full gay agenda to be taught in public school. because once gay marriage is legalized, there is then no basis to say that it must be silenced in the schools. your 3rd grader will be told that Eddie can marry Bobby, and its no different then Eddie marrying Susie.
no, Rudy is against gay marriage, he is for civil unions.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Denying them their lifestyle choice would be discriminatory. They're waiting for their turn. Litigation is expensive. Let the other sexually dysfunctional groups clear the way. It's cheaper.
The North American Man/Boy Love Association can adopt their very own sex toys.
Impeach them.
Using foreign law to excuse their blatant disregard of the US Constitution is an impeachable offense.
If it is not, then it should be.
I'm "george wythe" and I approved this message.
Still, I can live with each state legislature having final say. This requires, however, that we use different wording for the sake of fluidity. That means that marriage is marriage as it has been for 5,000, and state legislatures can create civil unions that equal marriage if they want to. Make no mistake, civil unions are marriage. But you can't really offer states a choice if you are going to call them by the exact same name. It would be total confusion.
actually, its their own line of textbooks I am concerned about.
So there he was totally condoning whatever they were going to do and yes there was a sexual connotation. I find the majority of Democrats I meet are not Christians and the majority of Christians I know who are serious about the bible are Republicans. We would never publically or officially condone gays.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - So Mrs. Cheney apparently doesn't agree with the Veep. Too bad. She's not an elected official so I don't care much what her opinion is. Hope Mr. Cheney doesn't care either.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
P.S. Some things should not be states' rights issues. Homoseuxal marriage, abortion, slavery, murder - these are some.
In a former and better time I would have agreed. Unfortunately, the classic "states' rights" position has been overtaken by events. Here in Michigan, where I live, we'll probably pass a defense of marriage law this fall. But what good is it if we're eventually strong-armed into accepting a law made in Boston, Massachussetts? It's not just that 4 unelected judges in Massechussetts can make the law for its own citizens; they can make the law for the citizens of, say, southwestern Michigan.
For those who think amending the constitution is extreme, it is--but I would argue that the crisis forced on us by the gay gestapo is the kind of situation that merits extreme action. Of course, the easiest expedient is to restrict federal courts with a Senate vote. That, however, is only a stopgap measure. The gay marriage train needs to be derailed now.
LOL!
It's a cut and dried issue for conservatives. Not all Republicans are conservatives, unfortunately.
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.