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

Skip to comments.

Bush Says He Could Support Ban On Gay Marriage
AP ^ | 12/16/03

Posted on 12/16/2003 5:11:13 PM PST by 11th Earl of Mar

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -

President Bush said Tuesday that he could support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court last month struck down that state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying it is unconstitutional and giving state lawmakers six months to craft a way for gay couples to wed.

Bush has condemned the ruling before, citing his support for a federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union. But though he has said he would support whatever is "legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage," he and his advisers have shied away from specifically endorsing a constitutional amendment asserting that definition.

But on Tuesday, the president said he endorsed a constitutional amendment "which would honor marriage between a man and a woman." At the same time, however, he also seemed to leave the door open to different arrangements in different states.

Bush made the comments in an interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer, and the network released a transcript of the remarks.

"The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level," he told Sawyer.

"I do believe in the sanctity of marriage," he added. "It's an important differentiation, but I don't see that as conflict with being a tolerant person or an understanding person."

The president also said that he - like any politician - could lose his next run for office, next year's bid for a second term in the White House.

"Everybody's beatable in a democracy," Bush said. "And that's the great thing about a democracy. People get to make that decision. I know how I'm voting."

Bush said he has not decided who would be in his Cabinet and other top administration posts - other than retaining Vice President Dick Cheney - if he is "fortunate enough" to win.

--


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: bush; bush43; culturewar; dianesawyer; gay; gayagenda; gaymarriage; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; homosexualvice; legislatingsin; liberalbias; lust; marriage; marriageamendment; perversion; prisoners; protectmarriage; publicinstitution; romans1; sanctityofmarriage; sin; tyrannyofthefew; vicenotvirtue; westerncivilization
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

1 posted on 12/16/2003 5:11:14 PM PST by 11th Earl of Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Wow... even trying as hard as I'm sure they did they weren't able to spin his comments off into "I hate gay people..."

2 posted on 12/16/2003 5:15:23 PM PST by VulgarWit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
YES! Let the culture war begin, and may God Bless America.
3 posted on 12/16/2003 5:15:53 PM PST by Drango ("To Serve Man" ... IT'S A COOKBOOK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
This is a subject not appropriate for a constitutional amendment. More like political posturing.

What ever happened to that flag burning amendment anyhow?
4 posted on 12/16/2003 5:18:45 PM PST by RJCogburn ("Everything happens to me. Now I'm shot by a child."...Tom Chaney after being shot by Mattie Ross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
The president COULD decide to let the assault weapons ban die, he COULD decide to stop letting millions of illegals pour into our country. Could, would, should.... talk is cheap.
5 posted on 12/16/2003 5:19:11 PM PST by mrmeyer ("When brute force is on the march, compromise is the red carpet." Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drango
"The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level," he told Sawyer. How does that square with supporting an amendment to the constitution? Personally, I think the FMA is a bad idea.
6 posted on 12/16/2003 5:22:17 PM PST by Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Agreed. I believe, as any dictionary will tell you, that marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. To make it a constitutional amendment is a joke.
7 posted on 12/16/2003 5:23:27 PM PST by Akira (Blessed are the cheesemakers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
I don't mind it being a constitutional amendment.

However, I think the real problem is life-tenure and appointment of Scotus and other justices.

I'm in favor of a constitutional amendment in which we change to an elective judiciary with a 6 year renewable term. They are acting on political whim anymore, anyway. They might as well face political consequences.

The people can decide their judges as well as they can decide their other officials.
8 posted on 12/16/2003 5:25:01 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Cool. I wish it didn't have to come to this, but I see no other way of stopping the states from doing it.
9 posted on 12/16/2003 5:25:19 PM PST by knak (wasknaknowknid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Akira
I agree with you and RJ. But marriage is different.

Why should we let five Massachusetts judges make it law in their state, thus Constitutionally requiring the other 49 states to recognize it?
10 posted on 12/16/2003 5:26:11 PM PST by 11th Earl of Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
I just don't buy that. There's nothing that says a marriage constituted in Mass. has to be recognized in Texas, is there? Mass. won't recognize a CCW permit issued in Texas, no matter how much I complain. States laws are states laws, are they not?

I know that this will tie up many courts, and I've heard all of the nightmare scenarios involving divorce, complex legalities, etc. I'm no lawyer. But I just can't bring my federalist centered brain to embrace this one.
11 posted on 12/16/2003 5:32:07 PM PST by Akira (Blessed are the cheesemakers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
I'd like him to publicly state that he'd support an amendment supporting the God given individual right to keep and bear arms.

12 posted on 12/16/2003 5:32:43 PM PST by glock rocks (molon labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrmeyer
The president COULD decide to let the assault weapons ban die, he COULD decide to stop letting millions of illegals pour into our country.

Actually, right to bear arms, and protecting our borders, is more important to me than having the federal government worrying about/checking what people do in their own bedrooms.

13 posted on 12/16/2003 5:35:20 PM PST by waterstraat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks
I'd like him to publicly state that he'd support an amendment supporting the God given individual right to keep and bear arms.

He already pretty much said that he would support and sign gun control laws if they reached his desk, so there is not much hope of him ever supporting the second ammendment in my opinion.

14 posted on 12/16/2003 5:37:19 PM PST by waterstraat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

How do we have one thread after another

Bush could back a Gay Marriage Ban

Bush opens door to same sex marriages

Pointing fingers in opposite directions folks....
15 posted on 12/16/2003 5:40:17 PM PST by jmcclain19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Akira
If you and I legally become business partners in Texas, other states are constitutionally required to recognize that partership.

16 posted on 12/16/2003 5:53:53 PM PST by 11th Earl of Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Under what federal law? Does the federal law which says "business partners" must be treated equally in all states also cover this type of partner? I can't believe it does, or we would have all heard of it.

In the end, it's just not a matter that care much about personally. I just don't like the FMA idea.

I don't think states even HAVE to recognize drivers licenses from other states, do they? When California gave DLs to illegals, didn't some states (Colorado?) threaten to cease recognizing California DLs?
17 posted on 12/16/2003 5:58:40 PM PST by Akira (Blessed are the cheesemakers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mrmeyer
Darn headline writers?
18 posted on 12/16/2003 6:08:04 PM PST by america-rules (It's US or THEM so what part don't you understand ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual agenda ping - Bush says the right thing. Plans to do the right thing.

(Ping me if you want on or off the Homosexual Agenda ping list!)
19 posted on 12/16/2003 6:14:34 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Sounds good to me. I am all for it if thats what it takes to stop the gay agenda moving forward in Texas.
20 posted on 12/16/2003 6:14:41 PM PST by No Blue States
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
You would rather let a narrow majority of one state court in effect amend the constitutions of every other state? Gay marriage is based on the false notion that men and women are interchangeable beings, so that marriage can redefined by the stroke of a pen. A natural institution is thereby replaced by an artificial one.
21 posted on 12/16/2003 6:19:38 PM PST by RobbyS (XP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
The president said he endorsed a constitutional amendment "which would honor marriage between a man and a woman."

"The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level

Can someone explain to me how these two statements aren't directly contradictory?

22 posted on 12/16/2003 6:20:56 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Bush has condemned the ruling before, citing his support for a federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union.

Marriage as the union of a man and a woman? What a reactionary, bigoted concept!

23 posted on 12/16/2003 6:20:59 PM PST by Rebellans (Arlen Specter as Senate Judiciary chairman? <shudder>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Incredible. They have this article on the wires before it even hits the airwaves.

Just another attempt to drop the President a notch or two. Pathetic.

24 posted on 12/16/2003 6:29:55 PM PST by Maigrey (Second question: Where is Scott Speicher?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: waterstraat
Actually, right to bear arms, and protecting our borders, is more important to me than having the federal government worrying about/checking what people do in their own bedrooms.

This is not about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. There is nothing preventing homosexuals from doing what they want in private, and the proposed amendment would not change that.

This is about the definition of marriage, which is very much a public institution.

25 posted on 12/16/2003 6:30:05 PM PST by Rebellans (Arlen Specter as Senate Judiciary chairman? <shudder>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: All
This is the text of the proposed amendment:

FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (H.J.Res. 56)

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Alliance for Marriage

26 posted on 12/16/2003 6:44:39 PM PST by Rebellans (Arlen Specter as Senate Judiciary chairman? <shudder>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rebellans
what people do in their own bedrooms. Goes back to the contreceptive decision. Code for sex has nothing to do with reproduction, and ought not to, because human reproduction is dangerous for all mankind. Better to let the human race die out so that the planet can be saved. Words of the Devil, who hates mankind.
27 posted on 12/16/2003 6:46:08 PM PST by RobbyS (XP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
I agree with you about the contraceptive mentality. I was just pointing out to waterstraat that the proposed amendment would deal solely with the definition of marriage.
28 posted on 12/16/2003 6:56:39 PM PST by Rebellans (Arlen Specter as Senate Judiciary chairman? <shudder>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
This is another check he has written hoping it will never be cashed.
29 posted on 12/16/2003 7:01:05 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks; mrmeyer
I'd like for him to saw he'd support an admendment for passing out free ice cream on Saturday and half price booze and hookers the rest of the week. But since he hasn't done that he's a crappy president. Let's vote a Democrat in instead . . .
30 posted on 12/16/2003 7:15:43 PM PST by Tempest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I suspect that what the President is telegraphing is that he will likely support a Consitutional amendment that says that no state is required to give full faith and credit to a "gay marriage" entered into by members of the same sex in another state. This would be in lieu of his supporting a stricter amendment that flat-out bans any state from permitting gay marriage. Keep in mind, in the name of "compassionate conservatism" the Bush administration tried to split the difference in the U of M affirmative action cases, suggesting to the Court in its brief that racial preferences are unconstitutional in those particular admissions programs, but not in all cases.

Based on previous Supreme Court decisions and the (il) logic of Justices Kennedy and O'Connor (along with the four liberals) in Lawrence v. Texas, as forewarned by Justice Scalia it is extremely likely that the current Court will indeed require all states to honor a gay marriage performed in liberal state like Massachusetts. A constitutional amendment truly is necessary simply to keep the status quo of allowing states to determine their own criteria for what constitutes a "marriage".
31 posted on 12/16/2003 7:20:52 PM PST by larlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: larlaw
I suspect that what the President is telegraphing is that he will likely support a Consitutional amendment that says that no state is required to give full faith and credit to a "gay marriage" entered into by members of the same sex in another state

I suspect you're right. Bush has triangulated on many issues, including AA. I think he's delusional if he thinks this will satisfy conservatives. The FMA is ready to go; let's roll.

32 posted on 12/16/2003 7:25:29 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Wait a minute. Some states have "age of consent" laws that allow sexual intercourse with 14 year olds. In other states this could get you thrown in jail for statutory rape. It's not true that all states have to obey each other's laws sexual, especially.
33 posted on 12/16/2003 7:27:09 PM PST by boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION NOT RATIFIED BY THE STATES
During the course of our history, in addition to the 27 amendments that have been ratified by the required three-fourths of the States, six other amendments have been submitted to the States but have not been ratified by them.

Beginning with the proposed Eighteenth Amendment, Congress has customarily included a provision requiring ratification within seven years from the time of the submission to the States. The Supreme Court in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), declared that the question of the reasonableness of the time within which a sufficient number of States must act is a political question to be determined by the Congress.

And so on...(follow the link for the text of the six proposed amendments which were actually submitted to the states for ratification.)

34 posted on 12/16/2003 7:27:25 PM PST by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
he's a populist. I voted for him last time, I'll vote for him again.

I find his support of the so-called assault weapons ban offensive.

enjoy your hooker.
35 posted on 12/16/2003 7:27:56 PM PST by glock rocks (molon labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
Let's vote a Democrat in instead . . .

At some point you have to ask; would that be better? Jimmy Carter was maybe the best thing to happen to conservatism in the 20th century. Before him we had two liberal Republicans, after him we had Reagan, and RINOs became a lot rarer.

Gay marriage is a no-lose issue for the GOP. A large majority of Americans are against it. We had a very similar amendment to the FMA in our state, and it passed nearly 3:1, with every major newspaper against it. If GWB can't get behind the FMA, you have to question his conservatism. You can't argue it's politically harmful; all the evidence is it's a winner. So what's the problem?

36 posted on 12/16/2003 7:33:02 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
A Supreme Court ruling mandating gay marriage is a gun held in the face of every straight Christian who rejects homosexuality. In ten years it will be impossible to keep your job if you're open in your opposition to homosexual marriage.
37 posted on 12/16/2003 7:56:11 PM PST by Ronly Bonly Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
LOL!!! Ahhh yes the whole sacraficial lamb arguement. It seems that you must have passed up on the President's interview this evening or else you wouldn't bother to bring up FMA. But hey that's not my problem.

Anyways if you really think shooting yourself in the foot and thinking that you'll grow back a newer and shinier foot in the future is the way to go. So be it. It's funny though, I alwyas thought that it was the Republican party that was supposed to be big on common sense.

Personally I think that theirs a LOT of impetuous "conservatives" out there that think that the world of politics is like Burger King and that they can have thing their way whenever they want it. Fortunately I don't subscribe to such silliness.
38 posted on 12/16/2003 8:12:36 PM PST by Tempest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The point of the judiciary is to be a check on the other branches of government.. If the supreme court was elected in the same way as the other branches, it would lose that power. The judiciary exists because there needs to be a branch that is free from the corruptive influences that political pandering and lobbying and campaigning bring. The injustice done by the Judiciary being too powerful would be dwarfed by the injustice of weakening it.
39 posted on 12/16/2003 8:19:01 PM PST by fiscally_right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rebellans
The gay definition of marriage is absurd unless the differences between men and women are merely a matter of convention. Only by leaving reproduction out of account, however, can men and women be treated as interchangeable entities. I remember the Frank Sinatra song " "Love and Marriage" go together like a horse and carriage" Boy, how things have changed in fifty years.
40 posted on 12/16/2003 8:24:31 PM PST by RobbyS (XP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: fiscally_right
The Court's power is not presently checked by the other branches. We have got to the point where a single state court can overturn hundreds of years of settled law. As for elections, judges were chosen in most states until the 20th Century, in line with the Republican theory that the laws should not be made by an unelected class.
41 posted on 12/16/2003 8:28:49 PM PST by RobbyS (XP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: fiscally_right
You said, "The judiciary exists because there needs to be a branch that is free from the corruptive influences that political pandering and lobbying "

The point is that they are not free of political pandering, and that that is their legacy for a century and a half IF NOT LONGER.

Let's admit the mistake, and set about recognizing it as the political office it is.....AND ELECT the justices.

That way we can can the bad ones and only suffer under them for no more than 6 years (depending on the term enacted.)

42 posted on 12/16/2003 8:36:12 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Bush "could" get behind an FMA. That's the bone designed to get conservative Christians out of the house next November.

"The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level," he told Sawyer.

This, on the other hand, is the real administration view which means that no FMA will be passed under Bush's watch.

Run right, govern RINO.
43 posted on 12/16/2003 8:47:24 PM PST by applemac_g4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins; RobbyS
If there were popular outrage enough against the decisions of the court, then the congress could impeach them. There certainly is not enough support to change the entire process if there isn't support to impeach the offending judges in the recent cases.
44 posted on 12/16/2003 9:29:35 PM PST by fiscally_right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: fiscally_right
There isn't the political will or desire to do anything. The result is a 9 person black-robed oligarchy running America.

Given that, one wonders the best solution never to have it happen again. That is an elected judiciary.

45 posted on 12/16/2003 9:45:36 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: fiscally_right
What has taken hold is the doctrine of judicial supremacy, which is confused with the idea of the supremacy of law.
Increasingly the courts are dominated by the legal class, which means that juries are not employed or they are robbed of their power. The O.J. Trial is the only recent one I can think of where a jury exercised the power that the common law tradition confered on it to say what the opinion of the community was. The judges reflect only the opinion of the elite in our society, and our elite every day becomes every more radical in their rejection of traditional values.
46 posted on 12/16/2003 9:52:09 PM PST by RobbyS (XP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: xzins; RobbyS
The courts have always made unpopular decisions. I would argue that that is their function. I'm sure that after Brown v. Board of Education there were lots of segregationists who made the same arguments you guys are making now. The judges don't represent you because that isn't their job, their job is to interpret the constitution.. Now I'm sure you'll say that "congress shall make no law abridging the right of free speech" was completely ignored by the SCOTUS in the recent CFR case. Well, the Courts have always found reasonable exceptions regarding certain constitutional issues. The 1st amendment doesn't guarantee one the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, or to slander, or libel. The courts looked at "no law" and added "except" to the end of the amendment. Were they wrong in those cases? I don't think so..

Secondly, if you're objecting to the Texas v Lawrence sodomy case, the courts did, in my opinion, have constitutional grounds to strike down that law, based on prescedent. It has been the opinion of the courts for a long time that there is an implied right to privacy in the words of the fourth amendment, so it would definitely apply to one's consensual bedroom habits..
47 posted on 12/16/2003 10:09:56 PM PST by fiscally_right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Akira
Mass. won't recognize a CCW permit issued in Texas, no matter how much I complain. States laws are states laws, are they not?

Probably not a fair comparison. A Texas CCW permit holder may retain his status as a Texas CCW permit holder when he travels to Massachusetts, but he need not be armed. How would one go from being married to being unmarried just because one crossed a state line? A better example is a state driver's license. My WA license entitles me to drive in all fifty states, even though I don't absolutely have to drive a vehicle when I cross state lines.

Civil union is the only answer here. If it is just a creation in the states that see fit to have it, it need not be recognized in states that do not institute it. It may seem to be a difference without a distinction, but courts can divide things that fine. It's an excuse to say to gay couples, go back to the state you were "unioned" in if you want to preserve the status of such.

48 posted on 12/16/2003 10:25:58 PM PST by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Rebellans
Note that on the Alliance for Marriage web site, the sponsors of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment plainly say that the amendment would NOT prohibit states from adopting Vermont-style "civil unions" or California-style "domestic partnerships -- both fake marriage entities under which individuals involved in homosexual relationships are granted all the legal recognition, status, and benefits of marriage save one: the legal right to call their relationship by the name "marriage."

That's what President Bush was talking about in his contradictory qualifying comments: he consents to these fake marriage relationships being adopted by various states.

That's not just based on the carefully-crafted language he used tonight on TV. It's the clearly-known position of the White House that IF they ever do actually endorse a marriage amendment, rather than say they will "IF NEEDED," it will be an amendment that does NOT prohibit state-level homosexual partnerships and unions.

The fake marriage-in-all-but-name legal creations will undermine the real thing, indirectly, just as certainly as a SCOTUS ruling legalizing so-called homosexual "marriage" by the name "marriage" would directly do so.
49 posted on 12/16/2003 11:18:39 PM PST by AFA-Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Akira
Agreed. I believe, as any dictionary will tell you, that marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. To make it a constitutional amendment is a joke.

That wouldn't happen to be the same dictionary that defines "is" would it?

Since the word marriage is not defined in the Constitution or Ammendments, it is not defined. Although our values and traditions define it as one man joined to one woman we have to realize that our courts are packed with enemies of our values and traditions. Unless we define our terms explicitly in the Constitution and Ammendments the courts will define those same terms in a way that is hostile to us and to the preservation of this union of states

The only way to prevent the court from destroying marriage is to pass and ratify the FMA. We are dealing with the devil here. We can't leave them a loophole.

50 posted on 12/17/2003 4:37:30 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 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