Last but not least, the rats being controlled by Soros will not go over very well with a lot of Americans.Has Soros met clintoon, do you know ?? ...
Posted on 11/18/2003 3:02:45 PM PST by PhiKapMom
Statement by the President On Marriage
November 18, 2003
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.
I hadn't considered that. It seems like a pretty big loophole to me, the way a single state can effectively dictate national policy by being the lowest common denominator. I'm reminded of that adage I learned in Jazz Band -- the band is only as good as its weakest member. In this case, our country's marriage laws are only as meaningful as the most liberal state.
Not if the Constitution is amended.
November 18, 2003 -
Washington, DC – "While I support civil unions for same-sex couples, I also support the right of states to make decisions regarding the protections afforded same-sex couples. I do not support gay marriage, but I hope the Massachusetts State Legislature will act in a manner that is consistent with today's Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling.
"As we move forward, it is my hope that we don't get side-tracked by the right-wing into a debate over a phony constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I strongly oppose such an effort as purely political and unnecessarily divisive at the expense of those who already suffer from discrimination."
Source - http://www.dickgephardt2004.com/plugin/template/gephardt/44/3231
Canada permits same-sex marriages. Vermont permits civil unions. The New York Times prints "celebrations" of those unions each week, while media profiles of well-adjusted "life partners" are all the rage. If, despite all these mechanisms for commitment, homosexual men continue to be famous for their promiscuity, do you really think giving legal sanction to the additional term "spouse" will lead to fidelity?
Unlike Massachusetts, Texas passed a law this year that spelled out that this state DOES NOT RECOGNIZE gay marriage. It really ticked off the 'RATS, which tells me it was a good thing.I would be livid to live in a state that would give them cover. ICK !! ...
In fact, I'm quite unhappy about the FAGACHUSSETTS ruling.
Last but not least, the rats being controlled by Soros will not go over very well with a lot of Americans.Has Soros met clintoon, do you know ?? ...
I don't know what to think. I don't understand the typical gay person's motivation. Being a magnanimous sort, I'd venture to say that they'd treat marriage with no more (and no less) seriousness than most heterosexuals. Given the infidelity and divorce rates among heterosexual married couples, that's not saying much. Marriage is dying in this country. At the very least, it doesn't mean what it used to mean (an understatement).
It wouldn't surprise me if people start vandalizing road signs, blotting out or otherwise obscuring the first letter in "Massachussetts". Not that I advocate any such thing -- it's juvenile and criminal. I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me.
Since they never talked about it how do you know they were Lesbians? Whatever happened to two spinsters who just never married because men didn't find them to their suiting or for some other reason they never married but not because of them being homosexual.
If your Aunt had made up a will she could have left whatever she had to whom ever she wanted.
Homosexuals already have all the same rights that heterolsexuals have. The only right they do not have is to change the diffination of marriage. They are not fighting for the right to have the ability to have spousel insurance or medical previlages etc, etc, they can have all that.
They just want to change the whole meaning of marriage as between a man and a women.
a) the government should not issue marriage licenses--that is unwarranted meddling in religion.
That is a logical conclusion. It's fair for the state to require registration after the fact, for legal record-keeping, tax purposes, etc., but it's wrong for the government to pretend to be God and grant or withhold permission by "licensing" marriages. No license is required to start a newspaper or print a book; surely marriage is at least as fundamental a human right.
b) any "marriage" performed at the county courthouse without benefit of clergy is null and void.
Only if the religion claims exclusive right to preside over the ceremony. That's certainly not the case of Christianity (the Bible records several marriages performed without clergy: e.g. Issac's marriage to Rebecca (Gen. 24:67), some Christians' mistaken views to the contrary notwithstanding.
c) there should be no such thing as legal marriage between two atheists.
Again, only if the religion claims such; which Christianity does not. The only restrictions of this sort that the Bible places on marriage is that Christians may not marry outside the faith.
d) there should be no such thing as legal marriage, period, since it is a matter of religion rather than secular law.
Again, only if the particular religion says the state has no right to recognize marriage legally, and there's nothing like that in the Bible. The state may, and should, add its recognition of marriage to the biblical one, but it may not legitimately supplant it, e.g., by requiring licenses.
More recent? And when might that have been?
"Hypocricy is the tribute vice pays to virtue."
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.
