Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: little jeremiah

Leave it to the states.

2 posted on 09/15/2011 2:06:24 PM PDT by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Retired Greyhound


Why not?

Because then other states will be forced to recognize such “marriages”.

4 posted on 09/15/2011 2:08:28 PM PDT by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Retired Greyhound

Also, here are the real reasons homosexual activists have pushed for same sex marriage. They want to re-make - aka as “destroy” - society. It has nothing to do with love, or monogamy. It has to do with pushing sexual anarchy and destroying the natural family and real marriage.

From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]

An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):

“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”

“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”

He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”

Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:

“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:

“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”

[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]

5 posted on 09/15/2011 2:10:09 PM PDT by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Retired Greyhound
"Leave it to the states."

Leave it to G-d!

8 posted on 09/15/2011 2:11:28 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Gore Lauds Romney on Climate Position; 0bamaCare was based on RomneyCare.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Retired Greyhound

yea that’s going great, we have two men who move to LA from NY and then want a divorce and there are many many issues like this around the country.

Anyone thinking the GOP should not raise this is not taking notice.
The NY seat was also about homosexual marriage amongst other issues.
Every state which is asked the question votes to have normal marriage.

We should mention it instead of being cowards

29 posted on 09/15/2011 2:41:33 PM PDT by manc (Hannity admitted he is socially liberal, another phony conservative,1man +1 woman=marriage)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Retired Greyhound

No-—Can’t have States take away Natural Rights of children to be raised by their biological parents. Those rights are inalienable....granted by God and can’t be voted away or given away. Look up the word in our Founding documents.

The Standard of Right and Wrong-—is the Objective Truth which comes from the Creator-—the Christian paradigm—and that is the philosophy of our Supreme Law of the Land.....It is not Barney Frank’s standard of “Right and Wrong” or the Standards of Marx or Atheism.

The Law of the Land is from God’s laws. We can never change those standards of right and wrong without eliminating the Fundamental principles of Natural Law Theory and giving up our Natural Right (Hint: it doesn’t include putting penises in places which cause disease and dysfunctional lifestyles).

33 posted on 09/15/2011 3:23:48 PM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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