Skip to comments.
Gay Marriage Ban Short of Votes in Senate
The Washington Times ^
| Jun 5, 2006
| LAURIE KELLMAN
Posted on 06/05/2006 10:00:29 AM PDT by kellynla
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 321-333 next last
To: Old_Mil
I've never seen their recruiting offices or their contracts, or their tv commercials; do they have a scholarship program? Do parents have to sign the contract for minors? How long does boot camp last?
I'll bet the uniforms are FABULOUS.
To: kellynla
It's over. Time to secularize the civil component of marriage and call it, whatever, Certficate of Joinment. Just the leave the word marriage out because it's going into the trashbin of history.
This is called progress!?
To: ModerateGOOPer
ModerateGOOPer = Rino = traitor. I need say no more.
43
posted on
06/05/2006 11:52:25 AM PDT
by
gedeon3
To: pec
Well put. Every time a couple of guys get married in MA, my wife and I grow further apart. Another 20 marriages or so, and we'll be unable to conceive. lol... Every time two sexual deviants get married, in nothing more than a blatant attempt to convince themselves and others that they are normal, it makes a mockery of marriage.
44
posted on
06/05/2006 11:55:04 AM PDT
by
N. Theknow
(Kennedys - Can't drive, can't fly, can't ski, can't skipper a boat - But they know what's best.)
Comment #45 Removed by Moderator
To: linda_22003
I'll bet the uniforms are Fabulous.
They look rather boring to tell you the truth.
(This picture of a gay "pride" parade was brought to you in an effort to reinforce the idea that we are in a real war, there is a real enemy, and that they are on the march. Thanks.)
46
posted on
06/05/2006 11:59:28 AM PDT
by
Old_Mil
(http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
To: pec
The civil component is a legal contract into which any two individuals should be able to enter.
You are an advocate of legalizing incest and consanguinous marriage then? If not, why not?
47
posted on
06/05/2006 12:00:53 PM PDT
by
Old_Mil
(http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
To: Old_Mil
Well, that effort's not successful, but the uniforms ARE a disappointment. :-\
(The only "NHS" I know is the National Health Service).
To: kellynla
This amendment has 2 chances of passing the US Senate, slim and none.
The Republicans are using the gay marriage card in the similar fashion that the Democrats use the Social Security card. When they are in trouble in the polls, they will bring up these issues.
I will not get distracted with such cheap tricks. If the Republicans don't secure the borders and stem the tide of both legal and illegal immigration, there will be no free America to issue marriage certificates to gays, or straights for that matter.
To: conservative blonde
i am against abortion but you don't amend the constitution ever to take away rights.
50
posted on
06/05/2006 12:06:34 PM PDT
by
genxer
To: genxer
Hurray! They're still teaching civics SOMEwhere! :)
Comment #52 Removed by Moderator
To: genxer
actually i said that wrong. You should only amend the constitution to expand rights. And you don't deal with screwed up courts by amending the consittution. That's how we got in this mess in the first place.
The worst amendment of the constutituion is the one that said the senate was directly elected by the people and not by the statehouses. Why don't we repeal that one. And it would fix much of the countries ilks.
53
posted on
06/05/2006 12:12:41 PM PDT
by
genxer
Comment #54 Removed by Moderator
To: pec
and just to clarify, since snakes, donkeys, and other animals don't have the ability to enter into a legal contract...
Snakes, donkeys and mice can't enter into legal contracts? Pay a visit to wall street -- a lot of snakes, donkeys and mice...
55
posted on
06/05/2006 12:16:26 PM PDT
by
durasell
(!)
To: pec
If it's civil, it should be secular. The only component of marriage that I care about is the sacred bond between my and my wife. The civil component is a legal contract into which any two individuals should be able to enter. You advocate a minority position AND your argument like a willow attempting to stand up to the force of a hurricane must necessarily bend to the reality recognized and detailed in tradition, conventional wisdom, common law and enacted law.
If you wish to disengage from reality and renounce your marital priveleges and accomodation then do so and shut up about it -get a divorce... Do not think that others must follow the few lemmings that choose a cliff bound existence...
56
posted on
06/05/2006 12:16:46 PM PDT
by
DBeers
(†)
To: pec
Since when does the legitimacy of a marriage derive from the GOVERNMENT?Well, you make a good point.
If a State, or if the Federal government, says that two men or two women are "married", it does not change the fact that they aren't.
Just as if the government told you that your dog had five legs, because they were calling its tail a leg by regulation.
57
posted on
06/05/2006 12:17:11 PM PDT
by
Jim Noble
(And you know what I'm talkin' 'bout!)
To: pec
I should be able to enter into a contract that emulates the civil components of the marriage contract (not to be confused with the sacred, spiritual, sexual, or other components) with anyone I choose. Agreed.
Isn't this 'social engineering'? This is a politically liberal thing to do -- using the power of govt to sanction victimless behavior "for the good of society".
Social conservatives are not always political conservatives.
Socially, I believe in 'live and let live'. If someone is not directly harming others with their actions, then the federal govt has no right to regulate that behavior.
This just pushes me even farther away from the R party. They have abandoned the 'contract with america' political conservatives. Now, they make it clear they're for 'social engineering'.
Someone on another thread put it perfectly: The party I voted for in '94 has become the party I voted against.
58
posted on
06/05/2006 12:17:31 PM PDT
by
Dominic Harr
(Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
To: pec
If by marriage (we are talking about the civil component here), you are referring to the ability of two individuals to enter into a legal contract in which one party holds legal power of attorney for the other in case of incapacitation, or in which one party may legally inherit (tax-free) the belongings of the other upon his/her death, then sure -- I'm all for it.
Now you're just being disingenuous. The proper avenue for the latter policy is the elimination of the death-tax. The former, of course, is already legal. Nice try, though.
59
posted on
06/05/2006 12:18:32 PM PDT
by
Old_Mil
(http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
To: kellynla; AFA-Michigan; AggieCPA; Agitate; AliVeritas; AllTheRage; An American In Dairyland; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping!
If you oppose the homosexualization of society
-add yourself to the ping list!
To be included in or removed from the
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PING LIST,
please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2k.
Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword = homosexualagenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
-more gnashing of teeth...
60
posted on
06/05/2006 12:18:35 PM PDT
by
DBeers
(†)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 321-333 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