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

Skip to comments.

Mass. Supreme Court Rules - Gay Couples have the Right to Marry
FoxNews | 11-18-03 | FoxNews

Posted on 11/18/2003 7:02:44 AM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

Mass. Supreme Court rules that illegal for state to deny marriage license to gay couples.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: activistjudges; aids; antifamily; gay; godsjudgement; goodridge; hiv; homos; homosexualagenda; homosexuals; judicalactivism; justdamn; legislatingsin; oligarchy; pederasty; perversion; perverts; prisoners; protectmarriage; queers; reprobates; romans1; samesexmarriage; sodomites; sodomy; tyrannyofthefew
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-565 next last
To: AppyPappy
Why just couples?

Exactly. What about polygamists, pedophiles, et.al.?

101 posted on 11/18/2003 7:31:40 AM PST by randog (Everything works great 'til the current flows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
I agree!
102 posted on 11/18/2003 7:31:51 AM PST by knak (wasknaknowknid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Now the Roman Catholic clergy will finally ask the Pope to allow clergy to marry. It would simplify things.
103 posted on 11/18/2003 7:31:57 AM PST by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: randog
The opinion is posted here:

http://www.massreports.com/slipops/

104 posted on 11/18/2003 7:32:29 AM PST by Don'tMessWithTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Vermont has, I think, legal "civil unions" which provide basically the same legal advantages and rights that regular marriage has. In Hawaii, the courts ruled in favor of same sex marriage, but a large citizen effort created a referendum to make a constitutional amendment stating that marriage was limited to one man and one woman.
105 posted on 11/18/2003 7:32:49 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Actually, I don't know WHERE I got that number!!! Probably from my gay sister. Could you give me the right one for future reference?
106 posted on 11/18/2003 7:33:22 AM PST by netmilsmom (Lost my 4th E-Bay auction, Kid's sick, Dad in CA & out of coffee - Just shoot me now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

Comment #107 Removed by Moderator

To: William McKinley

It doesn't make sense then to outlaw a marriage between a man and a dog or a man and a sheep.
108 posted on 11/18/2003 7:35:01 AM PST by richtig_faust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vollmond
Follow the money. The big one is social security suvivor benefits.
109 posted on 11/18/2003 7:35:03 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
And I think there will be..

It will be a monumental effort. If you remember the ERA didn't make it, and that had TREMENDOUS support throughout the country. Actually if NOT for Phillis Schafley's efforts it would have succeeded. It is very difficult to get 2/3's +1 in both the House and Senate but it is almost impossible to get 3/4 ths of the State Legistlatures to ratify.

110 posted on 11/18/2003 7:35:35 AM PST by PISANO (God Bless our Troops........They will not TIRE-They will not falter-They will NOT FAIL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

Gina Smith, left, and her partner, Heidi Norton, of Northampton, Mass., smile during a news conference in this March 4, 2003 file photo, following oral arguments at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on a challenge to the state's prohibition on gay marriage, in Boston. Smith and Norton are among the seven same-sex couples challenging the prohibition after seeking marriage licences from their town and city clerks and being turned down. The state's highest court is scheduled to hand down thier ruling Tuesday morning, Nov. 18, 2003 (AP Photo/Julia Malakie)
111 posted on 11/18/2003 7:36:39 AM PST by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
The acts are vulgar; the words are just mirroring the acts themselves. (Although I got the creeps too).
But reminds me of pro-abortionists who complain about graphic pictures of aborted babies... Sometimes graphic words are needed to wake people up to the nature of depravity.
112 posted on 11/18/2003 7:36:55 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Actually it will be the divorce lawyers.
113 posted on 11/18/2003 7:37:12 AM PST by stevio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
The gay lobby in this country wanted everyone to believe that 10 percent of the population was either gay or lesbian.

Try about 4 to 5 percent...
114 posted on 11/18/2003 7:37:12 AM PST by kdmhcdcfld (Any rebroadcast of this tagline without the express written consent of FreeRepublic is prohibited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MissMillie
>>Adult humans have always been allowed to enter into binding contracts. I'm not sure that dogs and sheep have ever been recognized as being able to enter into a contract.


No, but animals are recognized as valuable as humans in some states. They can be given legal guardians. Why can't they be given the "status" of human in a legal situation? Remember, these are people who think that a baby animal is more valuable than a human life. (think PETA)
Normal is only bizarre to those who do not do it.

115 posted on 11/18/2003 7:37:44 AM PST by netmilsmom (Lost my 4th E-Bay auction, Kid's sick, Dad in CA & out of coffee - Just shoot me now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: oopimrehs
I'm with you. The objection I have is that this will give lawyers an entire new source of cases by which they can continue to screw people out of their money. Marriage long ago ceased to be the holy state we would like it to be and which is the state of many of our marriages. Marriages break up, people make a shambles of the institution. I don't see the objection to people who love each other having a go at it. Let them see how they like the expectations of faithfulness, etc.
116 posted on 11/18/2003 7:37:52 AM PST by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: PISANO
It is very difficult to get 2/3's +1 in both the House and Senate but it is almost impossible to get 3/4 ths of the State Legistlatures to ratify.

On this issue it will be. I think it will be the biggest slam dunk Constitutional Amendment ever passed. The defense of marriage will have far more support than ERA ever had.

117 posted on 11/18/2003 7:38:12 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: MissMillie
Adult humans have always been allowed to enter into binding contracts. I'm not sure that dogs and sheep have ever been recognized as being able to enter into a contract.

What makes you think they will stop at adults???

118 posted on 11/18/2003 7:39:35 AM PST by GeronL (Visit www.geocities.com/geronl.....and.....www.returnoftheprimitive.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
The ruling gives the Mass legislature 180 days to fix the problem which it created by denying sodomarriage.

180 days ... around May 18, 2004.

Democrats' 2004 nominating convention in Boston, July 26 - 29.
119 posted on 11/18/2003 7:40:29 AM PST by Mike Fieschko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
People know what the acts are, some of which are practised by heterosexuals. The use of vulgar language on this board is beneath us. I do think some people get a cheap thrill out of use of such language, it is childish and adolescent in my mind. You can use it as much as you like but I will continue to see it as reflecting badly on the user.
120 posted on 11/18/2003 7:40:41 AM PST by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
It's closer to 2% to 4%. The 10% number was debunked as pro-gay propaganda. That's the way I remember it anyway.
121 posted on 11/18/2003 7:40:46 AM PST by Sir Gawain (The Koran...when you're out of toilet paper, Allah is there for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: kdmhcdcfld
>>The gay lobby in this country wanted everyone to believe that 10 percent of the population was either gay or lesbian.

Try about 4 to 5 percent... <<

I stand corrected and greatly relieved!
122 posted on 11/18/2003 7:41:29 AM PST by netmilsmom (Lost my 4th E-Bay auction, Kid's sick, Dad in CA & out of coffee - Just shoot me now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Salem; Geist Krieger
"Mass. Supreme Court Rules - Gay Couples have the Right to Marry"

Hmmm... wonder who in the world could ever be the inspiration for THIS perversion (besides the people of Mass. for putting them in power and allowing it to happen).

Yes - I think mairrage between two men is perfectly natural. In fact I . .

Barney Frank on Abortion
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Voted NO on banning human cloning, including medical research. (Jul 2001)
  • Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
  • Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
  • Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
  • Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Barney Frank on Budget & Economy
Click here for .
    No stance on record.
Barney Frank on Civil Rights
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Voted NO on Constitutional amendment prohibiting Flag Desecration. (Jul 2001)
  • Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
  • Voted NO on Amendment to prohibit burning the US flag. (Jun 1999)
  • Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
  • Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender. (Mar 2001)
Barney Frank on Corporations
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Voted NO on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)
Barney Frank on Crime
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
  • Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
  • Voted YES on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
  • Voted NO on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
  • Voted YES on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)
  • Moratorium on death penalty; more DNA testing. (Mar 2001)
  • More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)
  • Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)
Barney Frank on Drugs
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
  • Voted NO on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
  • Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
Barney Frank on Education
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
  • Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
  • Voted NO on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
  • Voted NO on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer. (Mar 1994)
  • Reduce class size to 18 children in grades 1 to 3. (Mar 2001)
Barney Frank on Energy & Oil
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Voted YES on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
  • Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
  • Voted YES on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
  • Regulate wholesale electricity & gas prices. (Mar 2001)
  • Preserve Alaska's ANWR instead of drilling it. (Feb 2001)
Barney Frank on Environment
Click here for .
    No stance on record.
Barney Frank on Families & Children
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Voted NO on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)
Barney Frank on Foreign Policy
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
  • Voted NO on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
  • Voted YES on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
  • Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
  • Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
  • Multi-year commitment to Africa for food & medicine. (Apr 2001)
  • Urge China to respect religious freedom. (Mar 2001)
Barney Frank on Free Trade
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Voted NO on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
  • Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
  • No MFN for China; condition trade on human rights. (Nov 1999)
Barney Frank on Government Reform
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Voted NO on banning soft money donations to national political parties. (Jul 2001)
  • Voted YES on banning soft money. (Sep 1999)
Barney Frank on Gun Control
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Barney Frank on Health Care
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Voted NO on allowing suing HMOs, but under federal rules & limited award. (Aug 2001)
  • Voted NO on Prescription Drug Coverage under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
  • Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
  • Voted NO on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
  • MEDS Plan: Cover senior Rx under Medicare. (Jan 2001)
  • Make health care a right, not a privilege. (Nov 1999)
Barney Frank on Homeland Security
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
  • Voted NO on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
  • Take US nuclear missiles off high alert. (Aug 2001)
  • End the use of anti-personnel mines. (Mar 2001)
Barney Frank on Immigration
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
  • Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
Barney Frank on Infrastructure
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Promote internet via Congressional Internet Caucus. (Jan 2001)
  • Criminal penalties for e-mail spamming. (Feb 2001)
Barney Frank on Jobs
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)
  • Voted NO on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001)
Barney Frank on Principles & Values
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Religious affiliation: Jewish. (Nov 2000)
  • Member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. (Oct 2001)
  • Profiled in "Jews in American Politics". (Jan 2001)
Barney Frank on Social Security
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Voted NO on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
  • Voted NO on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
  • Voted YES on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
Barney Frank on Tax Reform
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Voted NO on $99.5B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
  • Voted NO on Tax Cut Package of $958B over 10 years. (May 2001)
  • Voted NO on eliminating the Estate Tax. (Apr 2001)
  • Voted NO on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000)
  • Voted NO on repealing the estate tax ("death tax"). (Jun 2000)
  • Voted NO on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)
  • American People's Dividend: Give $300 to every person. (Feb 2001)
Barney Frank on War & Peace
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Avoid using anti-terrorism power for political purposes. (Nov 2001)
  • Voted NO on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)
  • Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
Barney Frank on Welfare & Poverty
Click here for OR click here for .
  • Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)
  • Voted NO on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)
  • Reduce the concentration of wealth & wage inequality. (Nov 1999)

123 posted on 11/18/2003 7:41:49 AM PST by Happy2BMe (2004 - Who WILL the TERRORISTS vote for? - - Not George W. Bush, THAT'S for sure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
Let me add. Just as vulgar as the act itself. Agreed???????????????????????
124 posted on 11/18/2003 7:42:02 AM PST by chachacha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: PBRSTREETGANG
hunting or eloping? LOL

Maybe in the mountains of Arkansas a new kind of Hillbilly is being born!

125 posted on 11/18/2003 7:42:23 AM PST by GeronL (Visit www.geocities.com/geronl.....and.....www.returnoftheprimitive.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
If they throw rice after a marriage ceremony symbolizing fertility, what would they throw after a gay marriage?

Gerbil turds

126 posted on 11/18/2003 7:42:37 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Which is why you need one (if you need one at all) that clearly outlines the power of the states. Else you're going to end up with Constitutional Amendment CXXXIV, the right of the national government to make sure we're all wearing our seat belts..
127 posted on 11/18/2003 7:43:00 AM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: AmericanMade1776
Check your six O'clock until Jan 1
128 posted on 11/18/2003 7:44:09 AM PST by Not now, Not ever! (/o/o//oo (Oh Nooooooooo... It looks like somebody ran over it!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
ping on post #123
129 posted on 11/18/2003 7:44:23 AM PST by Happy2BMe (2004 - Who WILL the TERRORISTS vote for? - - Not George W. Bush, THAT'S for sure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Nice pic of Rep Gerrald Nadler...
130 posted on 11/18/2003 7:44:32 AM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: chachacha
I thought we were done with this. I said my comment, you said yours. I don't think we need to get into the rest of it. Frankly other adults sex lives don't give me much interest unless of course they scream in the nite and disturb my sleep. To get preoccupied with whether what people do who are grown ups seems to me to be some perversion in and of itself. But that is just my opinion.
131 posted on 11/18/2003 7:44:45 AM PST by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Well I hate to disagree with you BillyBob but stare decisis plays no role in American courts when the lefts agenda is at stake. I offer you Bowers as non precedent for Lawrence v Texas as proof of that assertion.

It is time for Congress to act because Kennedy's "transcendent liberty" penumbral thesis garnered from European precedent and mores is now the law of the land.

132 posted on 11/18/2003 7:44:46 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
From what I understand, IF this holds and gay couples are sanctioned in Massachusettes, and IF the gay couple is from, say, Florida....

...Florida has to recognize the marriage....UNLESS...

...Florida is one of the 37 states that has already passed the Defense of Marriage Act...and therefore, would NOT recognize, nor under law have to recognize, these marriages.

Does anyone know which are the 37 states that has passed this law?

133 posted on 11/18/2003 7:45:18 AM PST by Guenevere (..., .a long time Florida resident and voter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
It's funny how so many people in the east, where so much thinking went on at the founding of this nation, have now lost their minds.
134 posted on 11/18/2003 7:45:35 AM PST by Terriergal (Psalm 11: 3 "When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
How about two women and a dog? How about three men and a sheep? It could be endless!

How about an adult and a child? I think that is the ultimate goal of the homosexual agenda.The ACLU is also part of this agenda, hence their support of NAMBLA.

I'd like to see a comparative study of the incidence of pedophilia between straight and homosexual men. Since it is predominately a "man" crime I wonder if it's also more of a crime among the homosexuals.

135 posted on 11/18/2003 7:45:36 AM PST by Graybeard58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: chachacha
Now you are just being judgemental. /sarc off/
136 posted on 11/18/2003 7:45:36 AM PST by Dr.Zoidberg (I've been making fine jewelry for years, apparently.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
That's why I ignored that remark. Some act as though oral/anal sex is something strictly for gays.
137 posted on 11/18/2003 7:45:57 AM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
It amazes me that some people simply don't understand that combining male/female is a unique arrangement unlike any other combination.

Woe to those who call good evil and evil good.
138 posted on 11/18/2003 7:46:00 AM PST by xzins (Proud to be Army!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: oopimrehs
>>Just ordinary young professionals, not your crazy Gay Pride types<<

Sounds good, but the problem is this.
When I was in my twenties, I lived with my widowed mom. I wanted to put her on my health insurance. I could not. If all the gays wanted was the ability to share insurance and the right to say what happens in a health crisis, I would say ok. They want a marriage. That offends me. The gays have the money behind them to be in my face. And my kids' face.

139 posted on 11/18/2003 7:47:21 AM PST by netmilsmom (Lost my 4th E-Bay auction, Kid's sick, Dad in CA & out of coffee - Just shoot me now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: oopimrehs
What is the rational basis for denying any two or more people the right to "marry" under your notion of marriage? Why can't two sisters, a mother and daughter, two friends or a group of friend in platonic relationships marry under this system of jurisprudence?
140 posted on 11/18/2003 7:47:32 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
#54..The states that passed the Defense of Marriage Act...but I too, don't know which states that includes.
141 posted on 11/18/2003 7:48:03 AM PST by Guenevere (..., .a long time Florida resident and voter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: randog
Good point. If a man is in a loving relationship with a Cub Scout troop, who are we to say it is illegal?
142 posted on 11/18/2003 7:48:20 AM PST by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Geronimo
The court ruled 4-3, ordering the Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days.

They have authority over the legislature? This sounds wrong. If I were the legislature I would ignore them. But it sounds like they know their limits and are exceeding their authority.
143 posted on 11/18/2003 7:49:02 AM PST by microgood (They will all die......most of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: stevio
Actually it will be the divorce lawyers.

And I assert again the lawyers assoc are in full support and lobbying this.

Prairie

144 posted on 11/18/2003 7:49:05 AM PST by prairiebreeze (My dad, a WWII veteran always said that America's best ally was...Britain. He was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: xzins
It is unique and amazing and quite wonderful. Noone said it wasn't. Others just want to imitate it, a sad thing in an of itself. But the best they can aspire to, to promise to love, honor and cherish. What would you have them do?
145 posted on 11/18/2003 7:49:48 AM PST by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Mike Fieschko
Democrats' 2004 nominating convention in Boston, July 26 - 29.

This is a big political opportunity. Bush has taken the right side in this issue. The 'rat candidates are going to have take a stand for or against this ruling, there is no weasle room now.

146 posted on 11/18/2003 7:50:08 AM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: microgood
Amen to that. The court can't force the legislature to do anything. What are they going to do, ask the executive branch to throw them all in jail?

Of course, the sheep in the legislature and executive branch are too dumb to just ignore the court.
147 posted on 11/18/2003 7:50:37 AM PST by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere
The Defense of Marriage Act in every state will be ruled unconstitutional if SCOTUS decides to expand on Lawrence.

There is only one way to stop this march and that is by Constitutional Amendment or by Congress passing a law telling the SCOTUS to stay the hell out of the marriage business which they are authorised to do under Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution.

148 posted on 11/18/2003 7:50:42 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
When do we get to abort the state of Mass....

I'm willing to go down with the ship if it will save our country. Damn.

149 posted on 11/18/2003 7:51:47 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
That is so scary.
150 posted on 11/18/2003 7:51:54 AM PST by netmilsmom (Lost my 4th E-Bay auction, Kid's sick, Dad in CA & out of coffee - Just shoot me now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-565 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