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

Skip to comments.

Lindsey Graham: If Court Rules Marriage Bans Unconstitutional It Will Be Time To “Move [tr]
Buzzfeed ^ | May 4, 2015 | Andrew Kaczynski and Molly Ward

Posted on 05/05/2015 9:01:44 AM PDT by C19fan

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is expected to announce a presidential bid, says if the Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional, then it will be time for Republicans to move on. Graham told Boston Herald radio on Monday that society is changing and a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman is no longer possible. “Well, can you be for traditional marriage? Yes. Am I for traditional marriage? Yes, I believe marriage has stood the test of time between a man and a woman, ordained by God, and that’s — most societies have been organized around that concept,” Graham said.

(Excerpt) Read more at buzzfeed.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Politics/Elections; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: 2016election; andrewkaczynski; buzzfeed; cwii; election2016; gay; gaykkk; graham; homosexualagenda; kaczucker; libertarianagenda; libertarians; linda; lindseygraham; marriage; medicalmarijuana; mollyward; southcarolina; ssm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last
To: dware

I would add that they have no standing to make a decision on this as nowhere in the Constitution does it give the federal government the authority or power to define marriage. Therefore it is left to the states or the people themselves.


21 posted on 05/05/2015 9:12:31 AM PDT by rfreedom4u (Chris Stevens won't be running for president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Sodom and Gomorrha
22 posted on 05/05/2015 9:18:26 AM PDT by Cedar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

In my world, the Senator would have said “...It will be time to move on DC.”


23 posted on 05/05/2015 9:18:40 AM PDT by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

By declaring the DOMA unconstitutional didn’t the SC rule that the federal government had no business defining marriage?


24 posted on 05/05/2015 9:27:22 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (True followers of Christ emulate Christ. True followers of Mohammed emulate Mohammed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Move on the what, Linda?

The next cave to the left?


25 posted on 05/05/2015 9:38:20 AM PDT by hattend (Firearms and ammunition...the only growing industries under the Obama regime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dware

Yes it does. They will use “Just Law” to force their beliefs on all children and destroy churches and businesses of people that don’t comply.

If they force the irrational “law” into our “legal” system, it destroys Rule of Law and Right Reason which is essential in all “Just” (virtuous) Law.

Justice is the Queen of Virtue and a “Justice” System can never promote vile behaviors which strip Purpose from an institution and make it meaningless, and promote a vile irrational evil behavior to be “normal” and relegate babies to be sold and bought—and eliminate biological connections on purpose. It is pure evil and dehumanizing.

It is unjust law to promote vice always and sodomizing others is always an unnatural, vile use of the human body-—according to God’s Laws and man’s Reason.

Ejecting Reason from Just Law is unconstitutional and destroys the meaning of Law.


26 posted on 05/05/2015 9:45:52 AM PDT by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Render unto God what is God's. In this case, I refuse to render unto Caesar that which is God's. Nor will I recognize a ruling forcing God's people to live contrary to their beliefs - beliefs which, as I pointed out earlier, were ordained long before governments were instituted among men. In this case, the court has no business ruling on this, nor will a decision contrary to Christian beliefs have any impact on the way I conduct myself.

I believe the court will rule in favor of the LBGT community. I will ignore any ruling on this issue in favor of God's ruling. All Christians will be required to do the same. Any that propose the court has any jurisdiction in this matter should seek God's council.

27 posted on 05/05/2015 9:55:34 AM PDT by dware (The GOP is dead. Long live Conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

It didn’t take long for Graham to offer up his backside to the thespians.


28 posted on 05/05/2015 9:55:51 AM PDT by usurper (Liberals GET OFF MY LAWN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Giving In is the only principle Republicans have.


29 posted on 05/05/2015 10:07:21 AM PDT by arthurus (it's true!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Sounds as if he might be getting ready to come out of the closet.


30 posted on 05/05/2015 10:13:59 AM PDT by Iron Munro (Oh, yeah. A voluntary internal aWe may be paranoid but that doesn't mean they aren't really after us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Defeatist wusses. Is that what we did with Roe Vs Wade? No. What’s wrong is wrong, no matter what the courts decide. The People do not want it. We are sick of being force-fed government lies and policies, and it’s time to stop this nonsense.


31 posted on 05/05/2015 10:14:56 AM PDT by Politicalkiddo (So shines a good deed in a weary world. -Shakespeare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

It was never intended for the federal government or any other level of government to be involved in marriage. Marriage is a pact between one man and one woman and God. Period.


32 posted on 05/05/2015 10:21:29 AM PDT by lakecumberlandvet (APPEASEMENT NEVER WORKS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lakecumberlandvet

Your point is?


33 posted on 05/05/2015 10:22:02 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

The day of the decision, he marries McCain on the steps of the Supreme Court.


34 posted on 05/05/2015 10:24:17 AM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
No, Mr. Graham. It will be time to move to a different political party, split the country up, or move to a different country.
35 posted on 05/05/2015 10:25:32 AM PDT by dbehsman (Attention liberals and liberaltarians, Judgment Day is coming. You've earned it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

She’s my little Lindsey Lupe Lu


36 posted on 05/05/2015 10:29:32 AM PDT by dennisw (The first principle is to find out who you are then you can achieve anything -- Buddhist monk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
He is no better than the libertarians who argue that the government should have no role in marriage anyway.

The government should keep its nose out of Church matters - including marriage.

Regards,

37 posted on 05/05/2015 11:10:51 AM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

Comments like yours indicate you know nothing of government nor church issues.

But as I looked at your FReep page - I see why you think that.

To think that marriage is only a church or religious issue is - well - stupid.


38 posted on 05/05/2015 12:10:48 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (With Great Freedom comes Great Responsibility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
The mobs demanding same-sex marriage represents those who prefer sin and worldly passions over following the laws of God.
39 posted on 05/05/2015 12:42:05 PM PDT by Don_Ret_USAF ("No Government can survive Without The Trust Of The People.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
...stupid....

Gosh, that charge is thrown around here a lot. More often as a lazy way to avoid developing one's argument to the contrary.

IMHO, I would never use it.

40 posted on 05/05/2015 12:45:27 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 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.

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