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

Skip to comments.

Statement by the President on Marriage (MUST READ -- Dean/Kerry/Clark Statements Follow)
The White House ^ | Nov 18, 2003 | President Bush

Posted on 11/18/2003 3:02:45 PM PST by PhiKapMom

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-310 next last
To: AuH2ORepublican
Thanks to the Kennedy Supreme Court, gay marriage shall be a revelant issue for the 2004 elections. It could help GOP Senate candidates in the South. If the RATS wish to demagogue about textile job losses in the Carolinas, the Republicans could then counteract by forcing the RATS to make a stand on gay marriage.
101 posted on 11/18/2003 4:15:19 PM PST by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: maica
"Private sector" means exactly what it says. The government does not have to license marriages in order for — as you put it — property ownership and its orderly transfer to occur. As many others on this thread have already pointed out, the purpose of marriage was and is to protect children, mostly, but also women. Until the very recent availability of DNA analysis, marriage and at least the prospect of monogomy was the only way a man could have some guarantee that he was, in fact, the father of the children to whom his wife gave birth. Inheritance laws and customs developed on that basis.

I don't know when government got into the business of licensing marriages, but I'd wager it was in relatively recent times — perhaps the mid-to-late part of the 19th century. Before then, most marriages in most societies were based in religious and cultural traditions, i.e., the private sector.

102 posted on 11/18/2003 4:16:27 PM PST by Wolfstar (An angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
How many HETEROSEXUAL people today really think that Marriage is a sacred institution?

Newt Gingrich?

Let's stop throwing stones.
103 posted on 11/18/2003 4:16:27 PM PST by armadale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jde1953
I think the word 'sanctity' is used to elevate concept of the 'union' of one man and one woman to a new entity. You might say that marriages are 'blessed' by the community in which the two entrants live. This has been the custom in every successful society.

104 posted on 11/18/2003 4:16:28 PM PST by maica (Leadership matters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
STATEMENT BY CHAD FAIRBANKS, SOME GUY.

"Democrats are great big doody-heads."

105 posted on 11/18/2003 4:17:49 PM PST by Chad Fairbanks (All I want is a warm bed, a kind word and unlimited power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: armadale
Realizing that people of all stripes fail to live up to our ideals is not a reason to throw out those ideals.
106 posted on 11/18/2003 4:19:03 PM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: jde1953
So why have I heard so many people, during the debates over same-sex marriage, claim that marriage is a religious institution?

Because for much of human history, in most societies, marriages were made via religious ceremonies, not civil servants!

107 posted on 11/18/2003 4:20:42 PM PST by Wolfstar (An angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
I have some mixed emotions here.

As anyone that has read my posts here can see, I am about as right-wing as can be. I am not a "fiscal Conservative/social liberal" type at all. Conservative. Period.

But ... my aunt, who recently passed away, had lived with her partner for 40 years. I consider them both to be my aunts. They have never made any comments regarding their sexuality or any comments related to the homosexual agenda. They were obviously just 2 people that had a committed relationship that lasted longer than the vast majority of marriages. And I love them both equally. As repulsed as I am by homosexuality in general, I never once felt that when thinking about my aunts. Their relationship was as natural and mutually rewarding as any I have ever seen.

Because there are no provisions for accomodating same-sex union (in a legal sense) in NC, the estate of my aunt, which should rightfully transfer to my 'other aunt' in accordance with their lifelong committment, now gets to be eaten up by the state with the leftovers given to my 'other aunt' afterwards, and naturally, I am never happy about the state collecting some huge percentage of the product of someone's lifetime of work.

So ... I'm conflicted.

No way should 'Marriage' be between same sex partners ... that is not what marriage is intended to be, and it is not what it has been for several thousand years. But then what is the difference between 'same-sex' unions, and marriage if the legal aspects are exactly the same, as I believe they should be? Semantics? A distinction without a difference?
108 posted on 11/18/2003 4:21:17 PM PST by spodefly (This is my tagline. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: armadale
A D.U. ALERT!!
armadale
Since Nov 11, 2003
109 posted on 11/18/2003 4:22:28 PM PST by COURAGE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: spodefly
Because there are no provisions for accomodating same-sex union (in a legal sense) in NC, the estate of my aunt, which should rightfully transfer to my 'other aunt' in accordance with their lifelong committment, now gets to be eaten up by the state with the leftovers given to my 'other aunt' afterwards, and naturally, I am never happy about the state collecting some huge percentage of the product of someone's lifetime of work.

I don't want to seem like I am denigrating you, your Aunt or her friend but there is no law in any state of the union preventing the drawing of wills and contracts. Why didn't your Aunt draw a will?

110 posted on 11/18/2003 4:23:40 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: spodefly
If it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, sounds like a duck.....IT'S A DUCK!!!
111 posted on 11/18/2003 4:24:15 PM PST by COURAGE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: jde1953
Which is why homosexual civil unions should be just as invalid.

Marriage is not about you sexual behavior in the bedroom. (see no fault divorce) It is about how you raise children produced NATURALLY. Any one exception is not relevant. Homosexuals are fond of pointing to infertile couples or couples that do not want children.

A cohabitation agreement entered into by any homosexual couple is enforcable as a contract in any state.

Giving civil unions the exact same gov. status as a marriage is just a sucker game on conservatives. The leftists and homosexuals are just playing word games. Marriage regardless of what it is called must remain distict from homosexual "unions". I say every freeper is entitled to use the title "Doctor" in front of their names. It is a matter of fairness since people of free republic have a higher sense of awareness.
112 posted on 11/18/2003 4:24:38 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Spunky
I thank God that we have him as our President.

I can't help but think of how Clinton would have commented on this issue. I came up with a phrase for Clinton and Bush, to contrast their leadership style:

Bill Clinton -- playing to the lowest common denominator.
George W. Bush -- taking a stand for the greatest common good.

The distinction is subtle, but important, and likely lost on liberals.

113 posted on 11/18/2003 4:24:40 PM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell (Do Muslim androids dream of electric goats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: spodefly
With all gentle and due respect to your aunts and yourself, it would seem to me that each aunt should have made a will or living trust, or other legal instrument leaving her estate to whomever she chose. If your deceased aunt did leave a will or other such legal instrument, what bars it from being duly carried out?
114 posted on 11/18/2003 4:25:20 PM PST by Wolfstar (An angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
also Bush hates Native Americans. That's why he made sure the Chiefs lost to Cincinnati before he left for the UK.

It's the idiot Bush's fault!
115 posted on 11/18/2003 4:25:22 PM PST by Republicus2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
which also means that every state that still has common law marriage will have to eliminate it to avoid accidental/fraudulent marriages by roommates. (ie would a poor college room mate claim to have "same sex common law married" a rich room mate to gain access to money which would set them up for life? People will do a lot for money.)
116 posted on 11/18/2003 4:27:20 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
In most of history, the religious and the civil ceremonies of all types were consider the same. Know your history!
117 posted on 11/18/2003 4:27:23 PM PST by COURAGE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
There was a divorce granted to a couple that had one of the Vermont Civil Unions by a Texas Judge in March of 03. The Texas AG Gregg Abbott asked Judge Mulvaney to set aside his ruling because Texas law does not provide for civil union dissolution and divorces cannot be granted to same sex couples. “Because these two men were never married under either Vermont or Texas law, they cannot legally petition for divorce under the Texas Family Code,” he said. “The court’s final decree of divorce is void as a matter of law.”

Mulvaney’s original decision was based primarily on the U.S. Constitution’s full faith and credit clause, which requires states to honor marriages performed in any other state, among other legal certifications.

A bit more about the Vermont Civil Union.....


118 posted on 11/18/2003 4:28:32 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: COURAGE
If it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, sounds like a duck.....IT'S A DUCK!!!

Or Al Franken.

119 posted on 11/18/2003 4:29:52 PM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell (Do Muslim androids dream of electric goats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
She had a will, and I am sure her estate was pretty carefully crafted to minimize any grabs by the state. But, because the laws are designed to handle transfers from married couples and not non-married persons, there is a huge hit (so far as I understand it.)

It's not just the estate and the handling of the inheritence though ... their committment was real. It was not allowed by law to be seen that way. That's the part that I have problems with.
120 posted on 11/18/2003 4:30:21 PM PST by spodefly (This is my tagline. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Bingo! Together with the Family Leave Act - hetereo roomates can now claim gay and stay home with each other for vacation ad infinitum ... hooray Capitalism is dead! and of course it's that idiot Geo. Bush's fault
121 posted on 11/18/2003 4:30:40 PM PST by Republicus2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
kerry...you double talking idiot..either you are an idiot or you think the electorate is...you oppose gay marriage but support it at the same time???

no wonder your rich wife spits on you and spanks you and just generally detests you like the majority of America does...you sissy sub-boy communist, french looking presidential candidate (AND vietnam veteran)

avsomebody please slap his momma for having him!!!!!!! hell, slap his daddy too...he caused "
it" to happen
122 posted on 11/18/2003 4:30:57 PM PST by cajun-jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
I see your second point. Too much has happened to the conservative movement wrt overruling conservative issues via the liberal agenda and judical appointments.

But, if the precedent of judges being able to dictate from the bench what legistlatures cannot or will not is allowed to stand forever, then you are right.

This has been status quo for at least 30+ some years. Unless we, as conservative can wake up our base, this will pass. I have a sinking feeling this will happen. There is just not enough prime time media or prime time newspapers to help us. The real problem lies with the backbone of the republican party, they need a backbone now more than ever. We, as republicans, need to fight fire with fire, not with a cup of water.

I can see it now, a court ruling that the first amendment's edict that Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion does not mean that churches can 'discriminate' against gay church members. Can't you?

Yes. and unless the republican party grows some balls, this will pass and be upheld. This is a sad day for the United States.

123 posted on 11/18/2003 4:31:13 PM PST by Indy Pendance (Don't sweat the petty . . . pet the sweaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Before this is over, Gray Davis may be the lucky rat to be out of the firestorm that is coming. A lot of rats in office are looking a Gray Davis and wondering when the voter lightening will strike them.

Up here in the land of cheese and beer, where Governor Jim (Craps) Doyle just vetoed, among other things, a defense-of-marriage bill at the same time he unilaterally offered health benefits to shack-up partners of unionized state employees, the storm begins January 6, 2004 when recall petitions are taken out on him (I wish we could do that sooner, but the Wisconsin constitution protects him for the first year in office).

124 posted on 11/18/2003 4:33:50 PM PST by steveegg (Wisconsin CCW? Since Craps Doyle vetoed, OVERRIDE and RECALL - countdown is now 42 days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: COURAGE
I assume your response was to my question regarding the distinction (if there really is any) between marriage and 'same-sex' unions. If that is the case, it seems like a duck to me.
125 posted on 11/18/2003 4:34:51 PM PST by spodefly (This is my tagline. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
In my view, the best way to deal with this is to return marriage and related matters entirely to the private sector.

How do you do this when three obscure State Supremes can rewrite the definition of marriage and require the legislature to implement their revision within 160 days?

126 posted on 11/18/2003 4:35:49 PM PST by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Not only are the RATs 180 from President Bush and from America, but they're not even in the same solar system anymore.
127 posted on 11/18/2003 4:37:56 PM PST by steveegg (Wisconsin CCW? Since Craps Doyle vetoed, OVERRIDE and RECALL - countdown is now 42 days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
I say, let them have it, the "divorce" courts will be buried with "same" sex divorces and they will all be hysterical rantings of, generally speaking, unbalanced people. The courtrooms will be like a three-ring circus.
128 posted on 11/18/2003 4:39:34 PM PST by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx; Grampa Dave; MeeknMing
Bush needs to hand Dumbocrats a gift-wrapped package of dynamite wedge issues and Dummycrats anti-religionism -- showcased by big buck anti-Bush campaign donors George Soros and Norman Lear (the latter runs the religio-phobic People for The American Way) - is a good place to start.

It's the Dims dirty little secret----an obsessive hatred for religion and those who espouse it. We can, and will, convincingly label hate-filled Dummycrats as anti-religion fanatics.

Ponder this. The Christian vote is so important that even the venal, corrupt Clintons had to resort to carrying Bibles and going to Sunday services even though it must have nearly killed the evil duo.

The Dims sub-rosa anti-religionism has been brought into sharp relief by the homo marriage issue. Most Americans oppose homo marriage and it is very significant that nearly all the Dim prez candidates, to date, were forced to come out against it even though they genuflect at the altar of the homo agenda.

One way to stick it to the religio-phobic Dummycrats is to throw the homo marriage issue in their faces. Using that atrategy, Bush places Dims religious phobias under a glaring spotlight.

129 posted on 11/18/2003 4:39:45 PM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
I can't help but think of how Clinton would have commented on this issue. I came up with a phrase for Clinton and Bush, to contrast their leadership style:

Bill Clinton -- playing to the lowest common denominator. George W. Bush -- taking a stand for the greatest common good.

The distinction is subtle, but important, and likely lost on liberals.

I wouldn't call the distinction subtle, and it's not merely "likely lost" on the lieberals, but I get the point.

130 posted on 11/18/2003 4:39:54 PM PST by steveegg (Wisconsin CCW? Since Craps Doyle vetoed, OVERRIDE and RECALL - countdown is now 42 days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: COURAGE
history perhaps but in the United States today only the civil aspects carry weight. The only work around is a common law recognition is the states that still recognize common law marriage. Those are becomming fewer and fewer.
131 posted on 11/18/2003 4:45:14 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
As many others on this thread have already pointed out, the purpose of marriage was and is to protect children, mostly, but also women.

It is also the method of preserving the values of the society and passing those values on to the children. It is the only reasonable way short of the "Brave New World." Without traditional marriage our society will collapse. Another society will take its place. I doubt it will be good.

Shalom.

132 posted on 11/18/2003 4:47:25 PM PST by ArGee (Would human clones work better than computers? Both would be man-made.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
I wouldn't call the distinction subtle

It's subtle to liberals, to be kind. They think 'greatest common good' means communism.

133 posted on 11/18/2003 4:49:28 PM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell (Do Muslim androids dream of electric goats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Some will protest that this is not of sufficient import for amending the Constitution, but it is the traditional family that is the basis for our entire culture and society.

It was necessary to pass the Fourteenth Amendment to overrule the courts, and establish the meanings of the words, "person" and "citizen."

It is now, sadly, necessary to pass a new amendment to establish the meaning of the word, "marriage."

134 posted on 11/18/2003 4:49:29 PM PST by shhrubbery!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
The courts have father as a four letter word. Next motherhood will be a four letter word.

The leftist socialists are USING the homosexuals to seperate child rearing and children from the institution of marriage. Hitler used the homosexuals in the 30's and 40's. The left is using them again.
135 posted on 11/18/2003 4:51:46 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: mhking
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.

Until the next set of deviants show up wanting full legal recognition...

136 posted on 11/18/2003 4:59:27 PM PST by SunStar (Democrats piss me off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
I have mixed feelings about the ruling. There is an advantage to having at least one state that approves such unions -- all the gay people will flock there to sanctify their unions, so at least they'll be all in one place.

I think you're missing the point... Marriages in one state MUST be recognized by other states. The only way around this is either a blanket amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or for each state to define marriage as between a man and a woman. But with the latter option, the Supreme Court will just declare those laws unconstitional, hence the need to modify the constitution.

137 posted on 11/18/2003 5:03:11 PM PST by SunStar (Democrats piss me off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Right_in_Virginia
Excellent point. I know the viewpoint I stated is rather like spitting into the teeth of a hurricane. Even though it hasn't a chance of happening, I nevertheless believe getting government out of the business of licensing marriages is the correct solution.
138 posted on 11/18/2003 5:06:50 PM PST by Wolfstar (An angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
-- a fundamental belief in the equality of human beings, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation."

I assume by sexual orientation he means gay, lesbian, transgendered, transvestite, questioning, cross generation "love", and fill in the blank...

139 posted on 11/18/2003 5:07:45 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
"There will be those who try to use the decision today to divide Americans. Instead, this decision should be viewed as an opportunity to affirm what binds us together ...

So besides being a MetroSexual, Dean is into bondage as well, huh ?? ...

Howard Dean: Metrosexual

Listen http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2002/07/20020703_a_main.asp

Google Search for Metrosexual


140 posted on 11/18/2003 5:09:19 PM PST by MeekOneGOP (I won! I won! http://rmeek141.home.comcast.net/LotteryTicketRutRoh.JPG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: COURAGE
You are right in the sense that most societies have used some form of religious ceremony to join a man and a woman in marriage, and that was sufficient in the eyes of the society's laws. I was speaking of the more recent practice of actual government intrusion into such traditions, which occurred when governments began requiring licenses to get married.
141 posted on 11/18/2003 5:11:52 PM PST by Wolfstar (An angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: SunStar
Marriages in one state MUST be recognized by other states.

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.

142 posted on 11/18/2003 5:13:16 PM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell (Do Muslim androids dream of electric goats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: SunStar
Marriages are safe in Virginia -- so far. The following Code section was passed in 1997, I believe.


§ 20-45.2. Marriage between persons of same sex.

A marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited. Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable.
143 posted on 11/18/2003 5:21:46 PM PST by FoxInSocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance
Don't you get the feeling this is just another nail in the coffin of our constitution?

Not if the Constitution is amended.

144 posted on 11/18/2003 5:21:58 PM PST by SunStar (Democrats piss me off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom; All
Gephardt Statement on Massachusetts Court Decision on Gay Marriage

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

145 posted on 11/18/2003 5:22:28 PM PST by steveegg (Wisconsin CCW? Since Craps Doyle vetoed, OVERRIDE and RECALL - countdown is now 42 days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell; PhiKapMom; Congressman Billybob
... would it be better for [homosexuals] to enter into exclusivity bonds like this, rather than continue a promiscuous lifestyle?...If I had to choose, I'd much prefer married gay people to gays that slept around. At least they're committing themselves, which is more mature and less self-serving than being sluts.

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?

146 posted on 11/18/2003 5:24:34 PM PST by Stop Legal Plunder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: onyx; *Homosexual Agenda
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.


147 posted on 11/18/2003 5:26:25 PM PST by MeekOneGOP (I won! I won! http://rmeek141.home.comcast.net/LotteryTicketRutRoh.JPG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
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 ?? ...


148 posted on 11/18/2003 5:29:20 PM PST by MeekOneGOP (I won! I won! http://rmeek141.home.comcast.net/LotteryTicketRutRoh.JPG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
It requires the Supreme Court to discover another right. Maybe the abortion debacle has taught the Court a little humility so that they will let the States work it out on their own terms. Only little more than a century ago, Utah was forced to reject the institution of polygamy, although by most accounts it was far better than the fractured family structures that have so degrade monogamy.
149 posted on 11/18/2003 5:29:45 PM PST by RobbyS (XP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Stop Legal Plunder
do you really think giving legal sanction to the additional term "spouse" will lead to fidelity?

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).

150 posted on 11/18/2003 5:32:17 PM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell (Do Muslim androids dream of electric goats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-310 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