Following will be the statements of the RATs which so far are 180 from President Bush's! Anyone that needs an additional reason to support President Bush over any DemocRAT -- here it is!
posted on 11/18/2003 3:02:46 PM PST
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
To: MeeknMing; My2Cents; onyx; JohnHuang2; Dog Gone; Dog; isthisnickcool; OKSooner; VOA; mhking; ...
And now for the DemocRATS! Let's start with Dean -- do you want this man for President? Spread the word on what he is saying!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 18, 2003
Contact: Press Office, 802-651-3200
Statement of Governor Dean on Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruling>
MANCHESTER--Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D., issued the following statement today in response to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling:
"As Governor of Vermont, I was proud to sign the nation's first law establishing civil unions for same-sex couples. Today, the Massachusetts Court appears to have taken a similar approach to the Vermont Supreme Court and its decision that led to our civil unions law. One way or another, the state should afford same-sex couples equal treatment under law in areas such as health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance rights.
"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 -- a fundamental belief in the equality of human beings, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation."
-- 30 --
posted on 11/18/2003 3:06:32 PM PST
(AOII Mom -- Don't forget to Visit/donate at http://www.georgewbush.com)
Constitutional amendment is needed.
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.
posted on 11/18/2003 3:08:02 PM PST
by B Knotts
From The Boston Globe:
"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."
posted on 11/18/2003 3:09:37 PM PST
Good for you, Mr. President. A quick reply from the heart that didn't wait for poll numbers.
This alone could get you four more years.
posted on 11/18/2003 3:10:17 PM PST
(For some people, bread and circus are not enough. Hence, FreeRepublic.com)
Also from The Boston Globe:
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.
posted on 11/18/2003 3:11:27 PM PST
He said this today after the ruling? Let's hope.
posted on 11/18/2003 3:12:56 PM PST
Thanks for posting Bush's statement. We should all call to thank him and urge him to stand firm.
Our president is willing to take on this issue in a legal and constitutional manner. The rats can't handle that.
Anyone who posts that there is no difference between the two parties should have their posting privileges banned for posting without a mind.
posted on 11/18/2003 3:13:20 PM PST
by Grampa Dave
(George Soros, the Evil Daddy Warbucks, has owned the DemonicRats for decades!)
I just went on-air with Jerry Agar (50,000 watts - WPTF, Raleigh) to discuss the ramifications of this decision. Bottom line, I said it will probably be reversed by passage of the proposed US Constition amendment to define marriage as a union of "one man and one woman." Further, I said that President Bush will support this amendment, and all the Democrat candidates will be forced to oppose it, with the result of putting the Democrat nominee -- whoever it is -- further behind the political eight-ball.
Looks like it is playing out that way, though notice the weasel-statement by Kerry who says he "opposes" homosexual marriage but "supports equal rights" for homosexual couples. If he keeps waffling like that, folks will start confusing him with Wesley Clark. LOL.
Latest column, "Double Crossing at the Rio Grande," discussion thread. IF YOU WANT A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.
posted on 11/18/2003 3:15:45 PM PST
by Congressman Billybob
(www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
PREISDENT BUSH - mega-dittoes!!!!
posted on 11/18/2003 3:18:29 PM PST
...so far are 180 from President Bush's!
They are 180 from the majority of Americans.
posted on 11/18/2003 3:20:05 PM PST
by Indy Pendance
(Don't sweat the petty . . . pet the sweaty)
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. Also, on the very tenuous assumption that legitimizing homosexuality is a good thing, would it be better for them to enter into exclusivity bonds like this, rather than continue a promiscuous lifestyle? At least as far as spreading AIDS is concerned? 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.
The real question precludes those arguments, of course: Is homosexuality an inevitable part of our culture? I think a lot of conservatives would say "Probably". Not to say that it's genetic -- merely that it is a large enough subculture that it isn't going away.
Don't mean to start any arguments on that, just making sure people know my own misgivings on the issue.
Anyone that needs an additional reason to support President Bush over any DemocRAT -- here it is!
posted on 11/18/2003 3:21:12 PM PST
(Psalm 121;1 I Lift mine eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help.)
|The King James Version (Authorized)
|Leviticus 20 Read This Chapter
- If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
The King James Version (Authorized)
|Romans 1: 16 - 32 - Study This Chapter
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; F6 for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so F7 that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain F8 God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
If you truly believe that marriage is a sacred institution, and are using "sacred" in the sense of religious (rather than just "worthy of respect") then it follows that:
a) the government should not issue marriage licenses--that is unwarranted meddling in religion.
b) any "marriage" performed at the county courthouse without benefit of clergy is null and void.
c) there should be no such thing as legal marriage between two atheists.
d) there should be no such thing as legal marriage, period, since it is a matter of religion rather than secular law.
You may respond, "Yes, but marriage has such a clear positive effect for society that it is reasonable to give it legal acknowledgment and benefits." If that is the case, then, certainly, the same can be said for church attendance. Should you get legal benefits for that as well?
posted on 11/18/2003 3:35:58 PM PST
The Rats are really serving themselves up on a platter on this one. Lieberman is right about one thing - it is a divisive issue. It divides the country. Unfortunately for the rats it divides the country 60/40 for us - even higher if the wording is purely "gay marriage" and not civil unions or recognition. If Republicans had balls, brains, or a half measur eof either they would get behind the constitutional amendment and make it the defining issue of the next election. The last of the Southern Democrats would be finished, we would make inroads among African Americans, and Hispanics (who have large constituencies who aren't keen on gay marriage.), and a few of 2000 light blue states would turn red. It could result in conservative victories at all levels of government.
posted on 11/18/2003 3:41:58 PM PST
BAH! Why can't these politicians actually have the guts to insist upon the separation of powers that is constitutionally guaranteed?
The court has no business using civil rights idealogy to overturn a matter of choice.. The legislature and executive branches are the only ones who can settle such a matter.
A shame he didn't take the opportunity to denouce judicial activism and fiats from the bench.
posted on 11/18/2003 3:42:17 PM PST
(Judges are supposed to interpret law, not make it.)
That's nice. Now he should stop taking donations from the Log Cabin Republicans.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson