Posted on 09/09/2012 1:18:40 PM PDT by MacNaughton
Vermont's attorney general says the state is the latest (after NY and CT) to ask an appeals court to rule that the federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Because same-sex "marriage" is not true marriage.
Doesn’t matter, nothing to do with marriage, or gays, or any of that. Contracts between two individuals in one state are recognized by all other states. I can’t abandon a business contract by crossing state lines. Maybe there are some exceptions, not a lawyer, but it seems to blatantly violate Full Faith and Credit.
A “marriage” contract between two people of the same sex is inherently fraudulent and therefore invalid.
I agree. But that argument is a 100% nonstarter in the Supreme Court. I would even go further, the government has no power to grant marriage contracts since it is a three way pact between a man, a woman, and God. At most the government should recognize the marriage and deal with result of divorce, but it should not have the power to license or redefine.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
And how would people vote if they were allowed to?
One correction:
Gay “marriage” has NEVER been made legal in Massachusetts!
Confirmed Today: Gay Marriage STILL Not Legal in Mass.!
For years now — since 2005 — the homosexual lobby has filed and refiled its bill to legalize “gay marriage” in Massachusetts. They know that the law as it now stands refers to “man/woman”, “husband/wife” relationships as marriage. Today, the Judiciary Committee once again sent the bill to “study” — meaning, they killed it. But the very existence of this bill over the years confirms that we are correct that “gay marriage” has never been made legal in Massachusetts.
SHELVED TODAY:
House Bill 1708
AN ACT TO PROTECT MASSACHUSETTS FAMILIES THROUGH EQUAL ACCESS TO CIVIL
MARRIAGE
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority
of the same, as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 207 is hereby amended by adding the
following new section:—
Section 37A. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may
marry any other eligible person regardless of gender.
Why would the Judiciary Committee continue to bury this bill? We believe they don’t want to draw attention to the fact that all the “gay marriages” since 2004 are fraudulent.
http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2010/03/confirmed-today-gay-marriage-still-not.html
Even barnyard animals know the difference between male and female. Why do some humans have such a hard time identifying male and female humans? I’ve heard they have a sexual identity problem. Do they need someone to draw them pictures? They want a special law about sex and they can’t even identify the boys from the girls!!! Why is anyone listening to these intellectually-challenged humans?
The Full Faith and Credit Clause is perverted and only partially quoted by Leftist Communists in their attempt to invalidate ALL state laws and homogenize every state to be identical (with respect to liberal laws, anyway.)
They always forget the second part: "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
DOMA is wholly and completely constitutional, that is, if you're using the U.S. Constitution.
Why does your tagline take one to a reply to Clintonfatigued?
Thank you for that clarification. I have been following your “good” fight in MA from down here in AL. The reading gets very technical at times for a lay person.
should ban all over this country homosexual marriage, because if one agrees and defines marriage for homosexuals then we shoudl allow al sorts of sham marriage.
The fact is that not one state which has this sham marraige has let their voters vote on this issue but we have a cowardly GOP who will not mention this, not call out the media bias, won;t name names in the media and all this lets be nice to the left and the homostapo is only helping them to firther their agenda.
Oh and ref your last line.
No it is not hard to argue, its the cowards we might have on here, talk radio and in the GOP who shut up about the homosexual agenda , who hear their family members, their neigbors at work etc talk about this issue and those cowards shut the hell up and that is what the left wants.
You're absolutely correct. Their efforts can only succeed if they redefine the terms of debate and convince the voting public to accept their definitions.
exactly, if homosexuals and those who suppoort their agenda think this is norma,l ten it makes them worse than animals animals know the difference what male is female, what reproduces .
These people have a mentalillness just like those who support them.
It takes a man and a woman to reproduce, it’s one man between one woman which makes a marriage and it takes a father and a mother to start a family and it sure as hell is better for a child to have one mother and one father in their household.
Homosexuals playing family is hurting thse children due to selfish so called grown ups
That's very encouraging indeed. Our parish priests are very forthright about the evils inherent in the homosexual agenda, and we hear about it all the time. Our previous church (a suburban "megachurch" with roots in the independent Baptist tradition) was just as opposed to the homosexual agenda, but not as bold about proclaiming it from the pulpit (but I haven't been there in nearly 7 years - perhaps things have changed).
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.