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

Skip to comments.

Massachusetts Gay marriage decision met with optism, dismay
AP Wire (breaking on direct feed) | November 18, 2003 | MARTIN FINUCANE

Posted on 11/18/2003 12:48:44 PM PST by NYer

BOSTON (AP) _ For some, it was an occasion to pop champagne corks and start planning spring weddings. For others, it was cause for dismay over what they saw as the further erosion of traditional family values.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution drew both praise and criticism Tuesday from around Massachusetts and the nation. And both supporters and opponents of gay marriage warned that the battle may not be over.

The high court's 4-3 ruling opened the door for gay marriages in the state. But for some supporters, there was lingering concern that the Legislature would somehow derail that victory. And the idea of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage being placed on the ballot in 2006 had powerful supporters.

``I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,'' Republican Gov. Mitt Romney said. ``Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman ... and our constitution and laws should reflect that.''

House Speaker Thomas Finneran, D-Boston, has also endorsed such an amendment. Senate President Robert Travaglini, D-Boston, wouldn't say Tuesday what his position would be on a possible referendum vote in 2006 _ the earliest such a change could be enacted. Meanwhile, at a Boston news conference, same-sex couples who had sued the state seeking access to marriage licenses were jubilant, hugging and smiling. Some said news of the decision prompted on-the-spot proposals to longtime partners. ``It's a historic day because finally all families in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will have the opportunity to be equal families under the law,'' said Mary Bonauto, the lead attorney in the case.

At a bookstore in Northampton, a western Massachusetts city with a sizable gay community, people broke out the champagne after the court's decision was released. One of them, Lily Perkins, said gay couples were fighting for something heterosexual couples take for granted. ``We are a family,'' she said. ``This is a positive move to equality.'' Perkins and her partner, Tracy Ross, have been together for six years, own a home in Northampton and have adopted a 5-year-old son. ``We aren't asking for special rights,'' Ross said. ``We areasking for parity.'' Supporters of gay marriage were also expected to rally Tuesday evening in Northampton and Boston.

Archbishop Sean O'Malley issued a statement saying the court's decision flew in the face of history and common sense. ``It is alarming that the Supreme Judicial Court in this ruling has cast aside ... the very definition of marriage held by peoples for thousands of years,'' O'Malley said in a statement. ``My hope is that legislators will have the courage and common sense to redress the situation for the good of society.''

Ray Flynn, the former Boston mayor and U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, criticized the ruling, and said he felt the debate would now shift to the presidential campaign. ``This has been a ticking time bomb in America for the last several months that has exploded in Massachusetts,'' he said. ``Not only is this decision a Massachusetts decision, but this will affect the New Hampshire primary and the election itself.''

The state's congressional delegation had a mixed reaction to the SJC ruling. Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, who is openly gay, said the decision ``will enhance the lives of probably thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Massachusetts citizens, and will have no negative effects on anyone else.'' Rep. Marty Meehan agreed. ``There will be some from the right who will try to paint a picture that this will somehow be an infringement on heterosexual couples, I don't view it that way,'' said Meehan, also a Democrat.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said the decision was a ``welcome new milestone on the road to full civil rights for all our citizens. ``It's wrong for any state to discriminate against gays and lesbians by denying them the many benefits and protections that the laws of the state provide for married couples,'' Kennedy said.

As word of the decision spread across the nation Tuesday, national advocacy groups from both ends of the political spectrum who have been eyeing the Massachusetts decision as a key event in the national debate over gay marriage, chimed in. The Human Rights Campaign, a national lesbian and gay political organization, said, ``In the best tradition of our nation, that court ruled that the hard-working tax-paying gay and lesbian citizens deserve the same rights and protections under law as other citizens of the state. ... This is good for gay couples and it's good for America.''

Gary Bauer, president of American Values, a conservative public policy group, said the decision was ``deeply disturbing.'' ``But marriage between a man and a woman predates the state of Massachusetts and I believe it will survive these four judges' foolishness,'' he said. Bauer agreed with Flynn that the decision would have repercussions nationwide and could become ``a defining cultural issue'' in the presidential campaign.

Perry Norton, father of one of the plaintiffs in the case, Heidi Norton, said the decision was ``one step forward.'' ``We're very pleased. ... I'm glad for the litigants and for the hundreds and thousands of same-sex couples in Massachusetts,'' he said. ``Yet I see a steady uphill struggle to achieve full rights in this state and in the entire country.''


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: court; gaymarriage; goodridge; homosexual; homosexualagenda; massachusetts; mediabias; obrien; samesexmarriage
``I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,'' Republican Gov. Mitt Romney said.
1 posted on 11/18/2003 12:48:45 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: american colleen; sinkspur; Lady In Blue; Salvation; Polycarp; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; ...

``It is alarming that the Supreme Judicial Court in this ruling has cast aside ... the very definition of marriage held by peoples for thousands of years,'' O'Malley said in a statement. ``My hope is that legislators will have the courage and common sense to redress the situation for the good of society.''

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list


2 posted on 11/18/2003 12:56:39 PM PST by NYer ("Close your ears to the whisperings of hell and bravely oppose its onslaughts." ---St Clare Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Maybe Barney Frank should marry Ted Kennedy. Actually, in the long run, idiotic decisions like this should play into our hands politically, the same way the radicals of the 60s helped create GOP converts. If it gets to be an election issue, it's all to the good. Unfortunately, in the short term, these sad sick people get to pretend they are married.
3 posted on 11/18/2003 1:00:26 PM PST by speedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Siobhan
Bump, ping
4 posted on 11/18/2003 1:00:33 PM PST by Maeve (Pray the Chaplet of Divine Mercy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: speedy
The sad truth is that the people of the United States are being led down the path to Sodom, and I do not want to go there. I hate it as much as God hates it, and I think that I would understand if God chose to get rid of me along with the rest of the perverts. God forgive us! As it was in the days of Noah, when God chose to destroy all but 8 people by a flood.
5 posted on 11/18/2003 1:07:55 PM PST by tessalu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer
This is what I see in Mass. The Mass SC saw that a ruling which simply allowed homosexual marriage would immediatly been overruled by the legislature and they would have been reviled. This solution puts all the pressure on the legislature. The Mass SC did not say yea or nay, just the legislature has to make a decision.

The deadline however seems a suckers bet. Can the mass legislature move the process up faster?
6 posted on 11/18/2003 1:09:08 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Which is a bigger threat to marriage: gay marriage or serial marriage (Liza & David, about 3/4ths of our elected representatives, etc.)?

I argue the latter.

7 posted on 11/18/2003 1:11:05 PM PST by armadale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
But for some supporters, there was lingering concern that the Legislature would somehow derail that victory.

Oh yeah, God Forbid that the CITIZENS of the Commonwealth, through their legislators, should have any say in the way decisions are made on their behalf!

8 posted on 11/18/2003 1:13:04 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: gayandproud
I think he's talking about marriage as it's been practiced by nearly every civilization throughout human history.

Do try to follow along...

10 posted on 11/18/2003 1:15:24 PM PST by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gayandproud
Can you cite any historical recognition of "gay marriage"?

I can't think of any, myself.
11 posted on 11/18/2003 1:16:45 PM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: armadale
There is no concern that homosexuals have in the way of property rights, visitation in hospitals, health care, decisions for each other, etc, that cannot be addressed by simple existing legal documents.

There is absolutely NO reason to up-end civilization to accomodate the particular sexual desires of a tiny minority of people in this country.

12 posted on 11/18/2003 1:16:56 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: armadale
(s) therefore we should support polygamy. This would allow the woman and the man to continue the ecconomic and parental relationships under the same roof and still allow the man to have an additional sex partner. Thus a solution is found. After all, its only about a private contractual agreement between parties. Marriage has nothing to do with the public. (/s)
13 posted on 11/18/2003 1:19:01 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYer
BTW: The Mass ruling does NOT allow a virginia civil union compromise. It is all or nothing according to the ruling.

14 posted on 11/18/2003 1:20:33 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
oops virginia should be vermont. Dean country.
15 posted on 11/18/2003 1:21:39 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ; scripter
God Forbid that the CITIZENS of the Commonwealth, through their legislators, should have any say in the way decisions are made on their behalf!

Have you noticed that the Gay Advocacy Groups have intentionally bypassed state legislators and gone directly to the courts. Most of these judges are appointed - not elected!

HOMOSEXUAL MANIFESTO

16 posted on 11/18/2003 1:22:11 PM PST by NYer ("Close your ears to the whisperings of hell and bravely oppose its onslaughts." ---St Clare Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
The Mass SC did not say yea or nay, just the legislature has to make a decision.

Wish that was so but the ruling ordered the legislature to change the current statue to strike out 'between man and a woman' saying the only constitutional phrase is between 2 people.

Need a constitutional amedndment and that won't get to the voter for 3 years.

Can't wait to see the Boston Globe marriages page in 6 months.

17 posted on 11/18/2003 1:25:18 PM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer
``It's a historic day because finally all families in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will have the opportunity to be equal families under the law,'' said Mary Bonauto, the lead attorney in the case.

One can draw one of several conclusions from this remark. But only two of those conclusions have any reasonable degree of probability:

1. That Miss Bonauto is a sociopath, mocking the normal use of English, to rub salt in the wounds of decent, family oriented Massachusians. (I have never been quite sure how to spell the word.)

2. Miss Bonauto is suffering from a serious mental derangement, and is unable to comprehend to what the English word "family" refers.

The sad truth is that some of us can still remember a time, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was a respected body. They may have been more Liberal than some other Courts, but they were still respected. It is difficult to believe that they still will be. This is right out of Gulliver's Travels--and Dean Swift has been dead for centuries.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

18 posted on 11/18/2003 1:25:37 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gayandproud
By 3,000 years of recorded history , I am referring to the natural truths about marriage! Since homosexuals cannot "naturally" reproduce, marriage for them is nothing more than a legal contract. As such, there is NO need to alter the definition of marriage to accomodate their wants. A lawyer can arrange that through a living will.

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

19 posted on 11/18/2003 1:27:49 PM PST by NYer ("Close your ears to the whisperings of hell and bravely oppose its onslaughts." ---St Clare Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
Do they HAVE to change that law or do they have to "address the issue"? Can the mass constitution be amended before then?

The 180 days seems arbitrary, I wonder if the state can appeal on that issue alone since the Constitution is going to be ammended in 2006. (seperation of powers, the courts can't order the legislature to write laws, only rule on the ones there. Well that is the theory)
20 posted on 11/18/2003 1:28:56 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NYer
For that matter, any HETEROsexual live in couple can (and should) do the same thing with regards to a 1. cohabitation agreeement 2. Living will (all should have anyways) and 3. Healthcare surrogate. (who makes my medical decisions when I am unconscious temporarily or permanently). They can also consider a durable power of attorney IF you want to really take it that far. All in all these documents are straight forward forms which are a lot less than a marriage ceremony. The cohabitation agreement would be enforceable in any state court under contract law.
21 posted on 11/18/2003 1:33:04 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I wonder if the state can appeal on that issue alone

The problem is that they can only appeal back to the SJC, the feds have no jurisdicion based on the 10th amendment.

22 posted on 11/18/2003 1:33:23 PM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: scripter
`
23 posted on 11/18/2003 1:50:25 PM PST by Coleus (Only half the patients who go into an abortion clinic come out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
I doubt the homosexuals would be very ameanable to allowing the voters to decide the issue.

The Mass court relied on homosexual adoption. That is proof that the slippery slope is real.
24 posted on 11/18/2003 1:55:55 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NYer
And the idea of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage being placed on the ballot in 2006 had powerful supporters.

Sure. Let the voters decide. Sounds good to me.

25 posted on 11/18/2003 2:02:27 PM PST by concerned about politics ( So it is. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
ruling ordered the legislature

That's backwards. The Legislature makes the laws, the courts make sure they're upheld.
Since when do the courts have the right to dictate the law to the law makers?
That would be like SCOTUS running our House and Senate!

26 posted on 11/18/2003 2:09:05 PM PST by concerned about politics ( So it is. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: Semper Paratus
The problem is that they can only appeal back to the SJC, the feds have no jurisdicion based on the 10th amendment.

They over ruled the Taxas Sodomy law. The legislator was run over by pro-sodomite dictators.
Why not have a national ammendment and have the American voters put an end to all this nonsence once and for all? Bring it up for a national vote ASAP. This concerns the whole country. Let the voters decide.

28 posted on 11/18/2003 2:13:38 PM PST by concerned about politics ( So it is. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GOPgirl2000
Why do the homosexuals want marriage enyway? Its well documented that homosexuals have dozens and even hundreds of sex partners every year (thus all the diseases they have) which isn't ecxactly good for a marriage. Just imagine: "Honey, I'm home, I had sex wtih six men today."

Study Finds Homosexual Unions Brief, (muliable partners the norm)

29 posted on 11/18/2003 2:17:22 PM PST by concerned about politics ( So it is. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NYer
**``It is alarming that the Supreme Judicial Court in this ruling has cast aside ... the very definition of marriage held by peoples for thousands of years,'' O'Malley said in a statement. ``My hope is that legislators will have the courage and common sense to redress the situation for the good of society.'' **

Archbishop Sean O'Malley bump

30 posted on 11/18/2003 2:22:42 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

All of this must come to pass.

31 posted on 11/18/2003 2:27:54 PM PST by Yosemitest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Most of these judges are appointed - not elected!

Does anyone know by which Governors they were appointed? I can't remember, during the 15 yrs. I've been here who has appointed who. I never paid attention because I knew it was something over which I had no control.

32 posted on 11/18/2003 2:29:54 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
That would be like SCOTUS running our House and Senate!

Yep, and they've been doing it for the last 35 years! That's why it's so important to break the Democrat logjam in the Senate and get some conservatives on the Federal courts!!

33 posted on 11/18/2003 2:33:03 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
If the Feds heeded the 10th Amnmendment about 90% of the Federal Govt would be UnConstitutional (well, it is, but we aren't supposed to notice)
34 posted on 11/18/2003 2:49:24 PM PST by Catholicguy (MT1618 Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
The Constitution is violated every single day by virtually every single Fed Pol ('cept Ron Paul on his best days). Adding an Ammendment to the Constitution is worthless and a distraction.

Admit defeat. Accept the fact you live in a Post-Christian Society and changing Documents is futile.

Hearts and souls must be changed.

35 posted on 11/18/2003 2:53:35 PM PST by Catholicguy (MT1618 Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
Ah, we have had conservatives chosen as Supremes. They are the ones who preserve Roe.
36 posted on 11/18/2003 2:55:27 PM PST by Catholicguy (MT1618 Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
All of this must come to pass.

Yep. Right now, the sheep are being seperated from the goats, the wheat from the tares. It has to be done.
The left leaning hearts of the world are moving farther to the left. The right leaning hearts are moving farther to the right. The fire is being stoked. It won't be long before the tares get what they have been litigating for, and they're not going to like it.

37 posted on 11/18/2003 3:13:05 PM PST by concerned about politics ( So it is. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Admit defeat. Accept the fact you live in a Post-Christian Society and changing Documents is futile.

That sounds like the same message given by Satan to Jesus in the wildreness, doesn't it? Give up.
(Jesus said no, BTW)

38 posted on 11/18/2003 3:15:44 PM PST by concerned about politics ( So it is. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Remember Judicial Colledges teach judges that the judiciary is NOT democratic. They are not there to do public bidding. That is the legislature's job. It is why the homosexuals dive for the courts. (pun intended) Black robe fever.
39 posted on 11/18/2003 3:20:02 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Remember Judicial Colledges teach judges that the judiciary is NOT democratic.

Huh? You seem to be knowledgeable about what is taught in 'Judical Colleges.' I'm not familiar with those schools. Are the real colleges or are they like the Electoral College?

40 posted on 11/18/2003 3:42:29 PM PST by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Undoubtedly this issue will end up in the United States Supreme Court. I shudder to think how it might rule.
41 posted on 11/18/2003 3:58:10 PM PST by k omalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
They are seminars which are where new judges are trained after being appointed/elected. They are also where judges are warned about developments in the law and "pitfalls" where a ruling can cause an inadvertant "unraveling" of a string of case law.

There is no brick and morter buildings (usually) it is more of a think tank for judges. The teaching materials are actually something the judges guard.
42 posted on 11/18/2003 4:03:24 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Thanks for the info. I'll keep my ears open to try to hear more about these judicial training seminars.
43 posted on 11/18/2003 4:10:25 PM PST by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: k omalley
Which is why the Federal Marriage Amendment takes it away from the supreme court. That is a very good thing to do.
44 posted on 11/18/2003 4:16:12 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GOPgirl2000
Why do the homosexuals want marriage enyway?

Everything that they want is available to them NOW, legally, through a lawyer. On one new program tonight, one 'gay' couple mentioned that it cost them $700 to 'legally' change their names. (And it will probably cost them $1,000 to unchange them when they grow tired of each other.)

You raise an excellent question! Why? We can only conjecture as to their motives but we already know the reality. By redefining marriage, they will legitimize what God has denigrated. The homosexual lifestyle is 'unnatural', pure and simple. They can 'pretend' that what they have is a marriage, and do it through the legal system but a 'homosexual marriage' can NEVER be a real marriage. Homosexuals rely on others in order to reproduce - be it through a turkey baster or a legal adoption. God, in His infinite wisdom, gave us marriage. And it takes a man and a woman to form a true marriage.

45 posted on 11/18/2003 4:36:27 PM PST by NYer ("Close your ears to the whisperings of hell and bravely oppose its onslaughts." ---St Clare Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ; scripter
* I've been here who has appointed who. I never paid attention because I knew it was something over which I had no control.*

PRECISELY!!!!

This is the new weapon being used to advance the homosexual agenda - bypass the elected officials and go directly to the 'appointed' judges. They understand that voters (like you, me and most of the other posters) would NEVER elect a representative who would promote their agenda. The solution? Bypass the electoral process and move directly into the courts where judges are 'appointed' and their rulings are based on 'existing' laws. This is truly incidious!!!

46 posted on 11/18/2003 4:42:12 PM PST by NYer ("Close your ears to the whisperings of hell and bravely oppose its onslaughts." ---St Clare Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: NYer
All the agreements are available in "forms" for less than $200. No lawyer required. Another homo-myth-propaganda point lie.

The name change cost cited probably includes the court filing fee. Name change is available to anyone. The name change is an idividual case per person. It does establish a marriage.
47 posted on 11/18/2003 4:43:43 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: NYer
which is why homosexual groups fight tooth and nail to stop referendums which repeal or prevent homosexual special rights.
48 posted on 11/18/2003 4:46:20 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
*All the agreements are available in "forms" for less than $200. No lawyer required. Another homo-myth-propaganda point lie.*

THANK YOU! for the clarification on the legal aspect of their agenda. So, that brings us back to the purpose behind demanding 'equal marriage rights' under the existing Constitution. Is this an attempt to assuage their crippled conscience, by legalizing that which they inherently understand to be disordered?

From a religious perspective, they have made a dent into the Episcopal/Anglican framework by having one of their own elevated to bishop. The members of the ECUSA are still reeling from this decision. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church has come out emphatically against gay unions, and even more so against gay marriage. This pivotal assertion of marriage as an 'institution by God' for a 'man and a woman', has been met with the expected vitriol.

You and I have both noted that the gay activists have taken a concerted step towards bypassing the 'legal system' by utilizing 'appointed' judges to make decisions based on existing laws. This is a most clever approach. How do the citizenry fight back?

49 posted on 11/18/2003 5:08:16 PM PST by NYer ("Close your ears to the whisperings of hell and bravely oppose its onslaughts." ---St Clare Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: NYer
We can only conjecture as to their motives but we already know the reality.

Actually we don't need to conjecture - they have a stated and admitted objective to change society into one of their liking - with no rules about morality, an anything goes sexual orgy type atmosphere, so whatever outrageous or unnatural think they can think up will be acceptable. If you haven't read any of scripter's links, you should check out his home page and do some serious study. There was a book written in the 80's - "After the Ball" by a couple of homosexual activists, and their stated plans for changing society are eye-opening. The gay activists have achieved most of their goals by now.

50 posted on 11/18/2003 6:22:55 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

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