Posted on 07/27/2013 3:00:56 PM PDT by WilliamIII
There are few policy differences between Wyoming Republican Senate candidate Liz Cheney and the incumbent she's trying to oust in 2014, Sen. Mike Enzi. Except for one issue: Gay marriage.
Unlike Enzi, the 46-year-old daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney supports the right for states to legalize gay marriage. At least that's what she said in 2009, in an interview with MSNBC, of all places. At that was a time when the notion of same-sex marriage had considerably less support.
(Excerpt) Read more at politix.topix.com ...
“There is no such things as gay marriage. There are perverts who like to pretend they are married but marriage is between a man and a woman.”
All true, but to the state in the modern era marriage is simply whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority thinks it is at any one time. And that’s it. It was always a danger, Pope Leo XIII warned about it 130 years ago.
Freegards
Not true. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and in sane minds it will remain so.
The date was 1780, the Continental Congress ""The first national pension legislation for widows was a Continental Congress resolution of August 24, 1780"".
The 1780 Act was enlarged in 1794, 1798, 1802, and so on.
You post that constantly, and it is irrelevant, he didn't anything for America and marriage, in fact he was decades behind the republican party already having been founded partly to protect marriage, and having already passed legislation in 1862 to do just that.
And she probably puked backstage afterward after having done so.
Is the GOP in the market for pro-homo marriage, pro-homo military, pro-choice, pro-illegal immigration, pro-NSA chickenhawk-statist Senators?
I don't think so.
I agree with you. The state doesn’t define marriage for me, but many have been conditioned to believe marriage comes from and is defined by the state.
But the state disagrees with us. And it is willing to punish those who disagree.
I wonder what the state will be considering marriage 100 years from now, probably something as impossible as ‘gay marriage’ seemed to be 30 years ago.
Freegards
The state doesn’t define something, but when the state does something like that they give it official sanction of the society for many.
Her sister is a lesbian. That explains it.
The Republicans should have found a third way (civil unions, or better, taking government out of marriage).
Passing the Fair Tax would eliminate 90% of the legal challenges which will force gay marriage on America.
All of her ultra-conservative yapping on TV is as phony as a
all of the rest of the Republicans, save for but a very few! Vote wisely, Wyoming! Don’t be fooled.
I remember when the VP was forced to declare his stand on gays because of his daughter’s lifestyle. That’s when I lost all respect for him, too.
“The state doesn’t define something...”
The state defines marriage as far as it is concerned.
“...but when the state does something like that they give it official sanction of the society for many.”
Absolutely, the state loves that many have been conditioned to think that what it deems marriage is automatically a marriage. The homosexualists love that the state can punish those who disagree with however it is happening to define marriage at the time. Many faiths have never bought into that, usually in the context of divorce and remarriage, but now including such things as ‘gay marriage’ and who knows what else in the coming years.
Freegards
Marriage may be legally abolished by then(if the Lord does not return prior).
I doubt if the state ever gives it up at this point, it provides too much influence over the culture. In my opinion, if modern trends continue, a bad influence. If I recall, even the soviets didn’t abolish their own state recognition of marriage, they just outlawed religious recognition (in their own minds) for a period of time. It’s been a while but I don’t think that lasted.
Then again, if you would have told someone about state recognized ‘gay marriage’ 30 years ago they would have thought you were absolutely whacked out. And that was never around in any sort of serious way before as far as I can tell. So as far as I know anything is possible at this point.
Freegards
If you think of important issues in this country, where does this one land?
Read post 33, there is always a common definition of marriage, it isn’t something that just showed up when America was created.
I think the way it generally works on a forum on a topic, that you post what you think, or some kind of useful input.
Like her old man, she has to make that dyke sister happy.
Anyone that will throw God under the bus for one of their children, instead of trying to show that person the way of the Lord, never had much of a faith to start with.
What is your useful input. I made a point.
No you didn’t make a point, you didn’t express an opinion either way or say anything, you merely asked the first poster where he placed the gay marriage issue on his list of importance.
As far as my input, read the thread and my posts.
pretty high up
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.