Posted on 10/19/2006 6:53:02 AM PDT by slowhand520
The Maverick!
I'm all for it but who would you trade for? Lieberman? It's the same thing. We would complain about him after a day
Dunno.
Maybe they can just give us money for him or something. Then we could use the money to elect a real conservative somewhere.
Are he and Lindsey Graham already registered somewhere? I'm thinking they would like a nice pink tea cozy.
This is being taken out of context. After the commercial break he came back and clarified, saying that he meant gays ought to be able to have ceremonies, but not be "legally" married. He was then booed by the many in the audience.
Let's not get too carried away.
McCain is a jackass; sorry if that is offensive, but that is the most polite term that comes to mind.
Marriage has become about more than children, however. A lot of this is financially motivated. Gay marriage is calculated to allow partners to acccess each other's health insurance, ensure each other's right to make patient care decisions for their partner, and other similar factors. From a strictly legal standpoint, there is no reason why these benefits should be conveyed to heterosexual couples and not homosexual.
Frankly, that's why I've concluded that the legal status of marriage and its religious significance as a sacrament must be divorced. Gay marriage - or civil unions - are inevitable. That doesn't preclude our churches from recognizing only sacramentally valid marriages. Guess we Protestants will have to take a page from the Catholics on that issue.
"Tin foil hat theory: Maybe he has a deal with her."
He thinks he has a deal with her is more likely.
Isn't that special!
It seems McCain's political strategy has always been to be the Democrats' favorite Republican.
**********
I think we all did.
There is no valid reason why the state cannot have a separate word for the set-aside, potentially procreative institution, and for it to be supported by incentives and assistance. In fact, it makes SENSE in terms of writing law and in communicating for it to have a separate word for that institution.
Any of the other benefits of individuals in partnerships can be handled under contract law or under a separate term such as "beneficiary partnership."
The procreative potential of the heterosexual relationship and the state's official recognition that that couple as the BEST source of caring for those children makes marriage almost a "duh" kind of thing.
McAinal has had a soft spot for the predator Gays, and they love him in return.
Yet we have so called conservatives on Free Republic, who hate GW and love McAinal.
Probably, many of the same were demanding Denny's head within hours after the Foley bs hit, and they want us to stay at home this election to punish republicans.
Oh but he's the only chance we have against Hillary! /sarc
So did, surprisingly, the New York Court of Appeals.
I can guarantee you, however, that New York law will change in the next decade. The Legislature is already making overtures to that effect, and soon-to-be Gov. Spitzer has already signaled that he would sign this legislation. Massachusetts will not be the only State restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. How I feel about this current state of affairs is irrelevant. The momentum is for homosexual marraige.
Any of the other benefits of individuals in partnerships can be handled under contract law or under a separate term such as "beneficiary partnership."
I don't disagree, but if this route is taken, it has to be effectively no different than marriage. At that point, the distinction between civil unions and homosexual marriage is a semantic distinction without a difference, and we're back at the point I started from - the need for us to divorce the sacrament of marriage from the legal concept of marriage.
I am personally opposed to homosexuality in any form. That being said, homosexuality does exist and I do not believe that homosexual partners should be legally excluded from certain financial and civil benefits that married couples enjoy. However, I think that the individual states have taken and are taking steps to ensure these things.
I share your perspective.
Those instant messages he was receiving from Foley finally got to him. He'a ready to make the switch!.
"This is being taken out of context. After the commercial break he came back and clarified, saying that he meant gays ought to be able to have ceremonies, but not be "legally" married. "
That doesn't seem to make sense. They can have a meaningless ceremony now and pretend they are married. What is the purpose of the ceremony?
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.