Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NYer; wagglebee; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; Kolokotronis; Forest Keeper; wmfights

Walker keeps talking about no requirement that marriage partners procreate. He has engaged in a bit of sleight of hand: the issue is the ability potentially to procreate. That ability simply doesn’t exist with gays.

If it’s xx’s and xy’s, then there’s the potential to procreate. If it isn’t, then there no potential to procreate.

(And please don’t someone start talking about xxxy’s and the like. It is purely a diversion.)

He also claims that marriage in the US has always been a “civil” issue and that the religious is inconsequential, that the state simply extends an authority to “solemnize” marriages, but that the state’s in control.

That simply isn’t so in colonial and pioneer America. The issue was not some “civil” licensing agency. Generally, it was a preacher, a couple, and wedding vows. Those folks were married, and it had NOTHING to do with civil authorities.

They simply assumed record-keeping duties for tax, inheritance, and power reasons.

Vaughn’s so-called “findings of fact” need serious scrutiny. His wording is suspect in some, and his actual finding in others.

We need a thread that posts each of the facts once we get past about #15 — all of those being about parties to the case. A huge forum such as FR should be able to dissect those facts and show the bias in so many of them.


23 posted on 08/10/2010 11:12:36 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: xzins; NYer; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; Kolokotronis; Forest Keeper; wmfights

I wonder how many people realize that the laws and court rulings allowing homosexual “marriages” make polygamy a virtual certainty.


33 posted on 08/10/2010 12:45:55 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: xzins; NYer; wagglebee; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; Kolokotronis; Forest Keeper
Walker keeps talking about no requirement that marriage partners procreate.

FWIW, in addition to producing the next generation of a society marriage has provided some contractual stability for the spouse and children which also benefits society. Unfortunately, we now live in a society where feelings are more important than reason.

There is no reason for homosexuals to marry one another. Every protection they want can already be done. It's because they want people to think their lifestyle is happy, healthy and normal.

Mark Stein wrote a great book about demographics called America Alone. I highly recommend it. Demographics are destiny. Marriage is critical to a growing society because in most cases it produces children.

39 posted on 08/10/2010 1:02:49 PM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson