Posted on 05/15/2008 10:02:52 AM PDT by NinoFan
Disturbing and interesting info, yes. But the tiny minority to which I was referring to are the judges and activist plaintiffs imposing a redefinition of marriage on society at large without a public referendum. Gay marriage referendums have been repeatedly and convincingly defeated by large majorities of voters across America. Let's have a vote, not a poll, and see where the majority truly stands
Wow.
The PEOPLE say NO” and the courts say FU”.
The PEOPLE say “NO” and the courts say “FU”.
Remember Sodom and Gomorrah??
If there is an earthquake in SF next...
I live 28 miles east of Sacramento in Rocklin. Live on a hill top with views of the Sierras. Placer county has the most conservatives in the state. Republicans are the majority here. Life is good.
Would you have supported leaving interracial marriage to a vote? Looks as though it would have been illegal until about 1991.
No I do not want unholy unions based on what God says.
If you want to get in a discussion over what the government wants or does not want I will.
Marriage is a Holy union -a man and a woman - period. Anything other than that is unholy, regardless of what the government says or does not say.
“The PEOPLE say NO” and the courts say FU”.
Just as it was with interracial marriage.
Then you might support the idea of leaving the definition of “marriage” to churches, and keeping the government out of it entirely, I would imagine. The government could deal with the legal issues, and grant civil unions instead of marriages.
So just throw thousands of years of tradition, along with God's commandments, out the window? Somehow, I don't think this is going to sit well with the Lord God Almighty. He sent the AIDS to punish the sodomites and they did not heed His warning. They had best beware -- God will NOT be mocked.
Yep, and the worthless, pathetic RINOs cheer.
It sounds like you’re looking for a theocracy, perhaps. They’re out there, but the U.S. isn’t one of them.
It is to destroy marriage and the nuclear family. Next polygamy will be recognized. Then the judges declare that laws against incest and child marriages will be illegal.
Interestingly, these were the same arguments used against interracial marriage.
I’m not a particularly religious person, although I believe in God and that God came to earth as Jesus. I do not follow the church but I do believe in the bible. For me personally, this issue isn’t about religion. I find homosexuality repulsive on a visceral level. I find it unnatural, abnormal, and in the case of men......filthy and unhealthy. The anus is colonized by e-coli and there is no getting rid of it short of administering certain antibiotics such as those used for certain surgeries and at that, it is temporary. There is no way to permanently rid that area of e-coli and that bacteria in the urethra causes infection which is why gay men have chronic UTIs. That’s not even to go into STDs like AIDS. Lots of non religious people have a natural aversion to male homosexuality for these types of reasons.
The quote I posted is from the state court's opinion; not mine.
The court overturned a ban on homosexual marriage.
It’s not the individual part that’s the problem.
It is the problem. Equating individual sexual orientation as a race or gender issue is flawed simply because race and gender are determined by DNA. Homosexuality is an action. There is no homo gene, as much as the gay community would like to think so.
Also from the quote I posted, where is there a "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship?"
It's just a truly absurd ruling.
We are currently in the "Bread and Circuses" phase of the empire.
So what? You sound like a broken record posting the same silly comment.
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.