Skip to comments.Statement by the President on Marriage (MUST READ -- Dean/Kerry/Clark Statements Follow)
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.
While there may be passages in Plato which imply acceptance of pederasty, in his last work, The Laws, he speaks as if he considers homosexuality to be contrary to nature. For example:
However, God willing, perhaps we'll succeed in imposing one or other of two standards of sexual conduct. (1) Ideally, no one will dare to have relations with any respectable citizen woman except his own wedded wife, or sow illegitimate and bastard seed in courtesans, or sterile seed in males in defiance of nature. (2) Alternatively, while suppressing sodomy entirely, we might insist that if a man does have intercourse with any woman (hired or procured in some other way) except the wife he wed in holy marriage with the blessing of the gods, he must do so without any other man or woman getting to know about it. (Translated by Trevor J. Saunders)
It's that old Full Faith And Credit Clause, again! Pretty simple, eh?
But if this is so unassailable, how come my licence to carry a pistol in NC doesn't mean squat in NY or Massachusetts? In fact, I can get thrown in jail there for a felony by doing just that!
I'm not persuaded. Your aunt either should have gotten a better lawyer or, more likely, should have started years earlier than she did, as effective estate planning (e.g. lowest possible tax hit) usually requires taking appropriate steps years in advance. And it is very possible to have a small tax hit even when one's heir is not part of the family.
So you want to put the last nail in the coffin by redefining it out of existence?
LOL ! I hadn't thought about it, but that wouldn't be surprising. ha! ha!
Maybe the State will make a pre-emptive move ... put up their own signs ...
Welcome to Fagachussetts ! < /bad humor > ...
quickly exits thread ...
Texas is Republican --- Fagachusettes is run by democrat, proving that you
get what you elect --- IOW --- the voters are reaping what they have sown.
The historical Christian interpretation is that all sexual sins are prohibited by the commandment against adultery.
In that context, heterosexual unfaithfulness is the natural predecessor to homosexual unfaithfulness. So our country needs to repent of the former while not ignoring the additonal threat posed by the latter.
It is necessary to impeach and remove judges to defend the sanctity of marriage. They will never stop unless they are stopped.
Shouldn't something like this be decided by the voters and their elected representatives-- and not some unaccountable black-robed elite?
Lay aside my own personal religious feelings-- and the inexplicable knot in my stomach. Lay aside my objections to the hubris of moderns rejecting what millennia of human evolution and relationships have taught us.
Let's talk about the civics of this case... We have a bunch of unaccountable elites in this nation ramming through legislation from the bench--- and whatever the overwhelming majority of the voters want be dammed. How is it that our jurists waited over two centuries before "discovering" that gay marriage is a constitutional right?
Why can't I marry my brother? Shoot-- if you buy the arguments that people are making-- what difference does it make if we won't be producing children? We love each other and have a lifelong commitment to each other. And who are YOU to tell us that it is wrong by imposing your morality on us? Why does the institution of marriage really exist?
Ladies and Gentleman, this is just one more stop down the slippery slope. If you refrain from making moral judgements, then anything can and will go. Why not legalize bestiality? Why not legalize consensual incest? Please give me a compelling argument against these measures shorn of moral judgements.
Frankly, the Massachusetts legislature should imeach the whole bally lot of these high handed usurpers. However, since the People's Republic of Massachusetts is under the iron hand of the Perjury Party--which dares not offend its core special interest groups-- forget it.
End of rant.
|10pm On Fire! with Tom Adkins|
|Guest: Bernard Goldberg, Author|
|BERNARD GOLDBERG was a CBS News correspondent for twenty-eight years and is the winner of seven Emmy Awards, six at CBS and one for his work at HBO's critically acclaimed Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel. At CBS News, Goldberg covered stories all over America and much of the world for the CBS Evening News and 48 Hours. He also brought his unique perspective to the news in a special CBS Evening News segment, "Bernard Goldberg's America."|
I appreciate your sentiments but I'm old enough to realize though that ones actions do usually speak louder than your words alone. I'll be awaiting to see if Bush does more than just offer right sounding words. His actions will tell me more about how concerned and committed he really is.
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.