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

Skip to comments.

Bush's gay-marriage tack risks clash with his base (and a poll)
usa today ^ | 12/17/03

Posted on 12/17/2003 8:08:22 PM PST by knak

Edited on 04/13/2004 1:41:36 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

WASHINGTON President Bush is trying to walk a fine line on the question of gay marriage, which is supplanting abortion as the most volatile social issue in next year's presidential election.

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll conducted Monday and Tuesday underscored the perils of Bush's approach. It showed the intensity of feeling among those who oppose same-sex unions.


(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: antifamily; culturewar; family; familynotvillage; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexualvice; marriage; prisoners; protectmarriage; protectthefamily; romans1; sin; vicenotvirture; westerncivilization
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-172 next last
Poll question at the site:

QUICK QUESTION
Should the Constitution be amended to prevent gays from marrying?

so far -
54.47% No
45.53% Yes
Total Votes:123

1 posted on 12/17/2003 8:08:23 PM PST by knak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: knak
That reticence is shared by Vice President Cheney, who has a lesbian daughter.

------------------------

The administration is compromized, in more places and ways than this.

2 posted on 12/17/2003 8:28:34 PM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knak
Should the Constitution be amended to prevent gays from marrying?

-----------------------

A constitution ammendment is not needed, and would be next to impossible. Consulting a dictionary as to the conventional use of the English language will do.

3 posted on 12/17/2003 8:31:25 PM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knak
talk about spin. Does the president even sign the amendment?
4 posted on 12/17/2003 8:40:42 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knak; All
65.94%
Yes
34.06%
No
Total Votes:458


freep the poll alert
5 posted on 12/17/2003 8:42:25 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
With the capture of Hussein and the resultant rise in popularity, we will now see the real Bush since he now doesn't have to please conservatives as much. Just shows that Bush is an unprincipled liberal who only says what he thinks will get him elected.

Since Bush sees no conservative opposition, he can now pander to fringe groups like sodomites and illegal aliens. Funny how Bush seems to do more to please them than conservatives who put him in office.

Personally, I'll support any conservative candidate - even a 3rd party one - before Bush will get my vote.

6 posted on 12/17/2003 8:47:58 PM PST by baxter999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baxter999
part of we as conservatives need to do is publicise the fact that cohabitation agreemenst satisfy the need of homosexual practitioners to codify their sexual relationship on paper WITHOUT changing any laws. Homosexual marriage is strictly an effort to institutionalize a private bedroom behavior for gratification alone.

Homosexuals are not discriminated or denied anything. They do presently have the ability to sign a form cohabitation agreement same as anyone else.
7 posted on 12/17/2003 8:51:12 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RLK
Q - If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does the dog have?

A - Four. Just because you call a tail a leg doesn't mean it is one.

:-)
8 posted on 12/17/2003 8:51:23 PM PST by SalukiLawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: knak
Typical USELESS Today and other left-wing media tactic: Create a non-story and phony poll to divide conservatives against Bush.
9 posted on 12/17/2003 8:54:49 PM PST by ServesURight (FReecerely Yours,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SalukiLawyer
The point is well taken.
10 posted on 12/17/2003 8:56:11 PM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I'm not sure which way to vote on this. As I recall, there are only 2 ways to get an amendment. One is from 3/4 of the state legislatures. Not a chance of this happening. The other is constitutional convention. Such a convention would be packed with New England and California representatives and would never pass such an amendment.

Even worse, a convention can choose to alter or rewrite the whole constitution if it wishes - even getting rid of pesky things like the 2nd amendment and others.

Afraid I'll have to vote no on this one but I share the sentiments of those proposing this amendment.

Unfortunately, the US is getting exactly what it deserves as it rejects God and Christianity for secular humanism.

11 posted on 12/17/2003 8:56:37 PM PST by baxter999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: baxter999
considering the rapidity that doma's were enacted to ammend state constitutions, I would not agree that that is impossible. There are already 3/4 that have prevented homosexual marriage.

The goal is to lock out FFC out of the homosexual marriage debate. Thus a wacky court in Mass can't for texas to accept their homosexual union or marriage.

(unless of course that is a contractual cohabitation agreement. That is just a mere private contract not institution.)
12 posted on 12/17/2003 9:06:20 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
These sodomite arrangements are wrong on so many levels that it boggles the mind. Not too many years ago the CDC had posted on its web-site the statistic that the average sodomite had 1,000 sex partners in a life time. Now how much taxpayer money will it take to litigate all the palimonies, divorces, break-ups and alimony claims if such a life-style is legally recognized?

Also every "family" arrangement is an obvious argument that such behavior is anything but pre-determined. Else, how exactly did these children appear? Therefore any such arrangement is anti-family. So Bush is being anti-family when he accepts any such legal arrangement.

No need for me to go on, but it's one more disappointment in a long series of Bush disappointments.

Then of course, there is the argument that if everyone and even the government recognizes sodomy as protected and legitimate social behavior, how will the unfortunate people caught in this life-style ever learn that there is an alternative?

13 posted on 12/17/2003 9:09:21 PM PST by baxter999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: baxter999
. . . for mean-spirited, vacuous commentary, I give you an 'A'

. . . for well-reasoned, well-documented argument, I give you an 'F'
14 posted on 12/17/2003 9:13:10 PM PST by DrDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: baxter999
the key is "in private", "in private" adults can do whatever they want with other adults. Marriage is a public institution not a public endorsement of sexual behavior.
15 posted on 12/17/2003 9:16:31 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb
Whew. There for a minute, I was worried it might be one of us.........LOL.

Now I see it's an Unappeasable.
16 posted on 12/17/2003 9:19:46 PM PST by Howlin (Bush has stolen two things which Democrats believe they own by right: the presidency & the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
"Gay" marriage poll, and more on Bush's statements on the matter.
17 posted on 12/17/2003 9:26:25 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb
And I give you an "A" for promoting the homosexual agenda and an "F" for rational thought.

And extra credit for using the phrase "mean-spirited" when you really mean "believe in moral absolutes".
18 posted on 12/17/2003 9:29:29 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I think the use of a term like "sodomite" is fine for a religious discussion, but its use in a political discussion destroys any notion of reasonable discourse, and is the type of labeling usually used by liberals to prevent disagreeing voices from being heard.
Think about how liberals use terms like homophobe, bigot, insensitive, neo-con and others.
By using the term "sodomite" you have done the same thing.

Personally, I consider myself a true constitutional conservative. The way I see it, if heterosexual marriage can provide for legal benefit such as shared household health coverage or death benefits and the legal sharing of resources without probate and wills, then the constitution must extend these same rights to others.

It's not about whether we like it or not, it's about rule of law, codified in the constitution of the United States. Think about this- if you can limit the rights or privileges of groups you disagree with simply because you are in the majority, then 20 years from now when the world is godless and lost, will you idly accept it when religious or heterosexual monogamous people's access to services is restricted?

Of course you wouldn't. The true definition of a constitutional republic, as compared to a true democracy, is that in the constitutional republic the majority MAY NOT use its influence to restrict or disallow privileges to the other groups.

If Madison saw fit to make our country a model after God's own creation, with freedom rather than restriction, with justice and rights for ALL (and not just those who are popular) then who the hell do you think you are to throw it away and go with mob rule?

God gives you choices, and allows man to choose to follow him. In doing so, he gives man the ability to NOT follow him.

If we ignore this, we are no different from the Ayatollahs of Iran.

19 posted on 12/17/2003 9:30:09 PM PST by AdequateMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
"Little" one:

I happen to be a CONSERVATIVE Catholic who is STRONGLY PRO-LIFE and unequivocally ABSOLUTIST in my moral philosophy.

I also happen to work CLOSELY with Catholics who both advise the President and know his heart! BOTTOMLINE: The President shares my moral/conservative Catholic worldview relative to abortion, homosexual marriage, cloning, euthanasia, and so on!

Now, what were you saying about "rational thought"?
20 posted on 12/17/2003 9:42:30 PM PST by DrDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
"Now I see it's an Unappeasable."


. . . 'nuf said!!
21 posted on 12/17/2003 9:44:00 PM PST by DrDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AdequateMan
If we ignore this, we are no different from the Ayatollahs of Iran.

Concerning issues of sex, some people on this forum aren't any different from the Ayatollahs

They'd love to have the government prosecute people for premarital sex, adultery, gay sex, having dirty pictures, doing it in unusual positions , etc

22 posted on 12/17/2003 9:46:28 PM PST by WackyKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb
better quit while you are behind "dr", littlejeremiah has you pegged IMHO.

I am glad that you think the President has a good heart on this issue. I think so too. But a good heart vis-vi beliefs without a good heart vis-a-vi the courage to risk some political capital advancing those good beliefs is no help at all. Its moral cowardice.

We will see what he will do.
23 posted on 12/17/2003 9:50:05 PM PST by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
What exactly did W say to make you people flip out like this. :/
24 posted on 12/17/2003 9:56:06 PM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AdequateMan
Your arguments, although they sound logical and reasonable, are not. Here are the reasons why:

I think the use of a term like "sodomite" is fine for a religious discussion, but its use in a political discussion destroys any notion of reasonable discourse, and is the type of labeling usually used by liberals to prevent disagreeing voices from being heard.

Think about how liberals use terms like homophobe, bigot, insensitive, neo-con and others.

Although I agree that "sodomite" is not a useful term for political discussion, it is not for the reasons you cited. It is a loaded term, which riles the pro-sodomites into conniption fits of hatred. Why, you might ask? Because it is merely truthful and descriptive. A sodomite is one who practices sodomy. Cut and dried. The words "homophobe, bigot" etc are a different class of words. Homophobe is an invented word, to shut up the opposition. Bigot is a real word, but used in an dishonest way, for the sole purpose of painting anyone who disagrees with the "gay" agenda as a KKK type.

By using the term "sodomite" you have done the same thing.

You are placing yourself on the pro-homosexual agenda side with this statement, although you may not mean to be. See my explanations above.

Personally, I consider myself a true constitutional conservative.

If you are a true constitutional conservative, then the founders of this country must have all been lunatics, since up until the advent of the homosexual activist movement, anyone espousing the thought of same sex marriage would have been scorned and perhaps been placed in a mental institution.

The way I see it, if heterosexual marriage can provide for legal benefit such as shared household health coverage or death benefits and the legal sharing of resources without probate and wills, then the constitution must extend these same rights to others.

So according to your logic, all these benefits should also be available to anygroup of people who want them. Why limit it to two men or two women? Why can't they be related by blood? Why can't it be available to three or five or ten people?

. Think about this- if you can limit the rights or privileges of groups you disagree with simply because you are in the majority,

How in he!! are anyone's rights being limited? If you agree with the "gay" activists that their rights are being denied, then you must think that mere behavior constitutes a group that then can moan about their rights being denied. Today it's homosexuals, tomorrow it will be polygamists, then pedophiles. It's in the workds already.

then 20 years from now when the world is godless and lost, will you idly accept it when religious or heterosexual monogamous people's access to services is restricted?

Services? What do you mean? Religious services? If the government starts interfering with religous services then it's immediately the second Civil War.

is that in the constitutional republic the majority MAY NOT use its influence to restrict or disallow privileges to the other groups.

Yes, but that word "groups" has never before been twisted to mean an amorphous group based solely on their perverse sexual desires and acts.

If Madison saw fit to make our country a model after God's own creation, with freedom rather than restriction,

You are being extremely disingenuous (or ill-educated) to bring in Madison - if he were here to speak for himself, I very much doubt he would step up in favor of two men marrying each other because they are addicted to anal sex.

then who the hell do you think you are to throw it away and go with mob rule?

So maintaining some basic standards of traditional morality and support of the natural family is now "mob rule"??? You're getting carried away here.

If we ignore this, we are no different from the Ayatollahs of Iran.

Ah, now we're Ayatollahs, because we want to continue in accepting "marriage" to mean "marriage" and not change it to mean "two men having anal sex but very likely not even being monogamous" or "two women doing strange things with implements and one of them being artifically inseminated".

(Sorry for the length, anyone who reads this, but his points cried out for a rebuttal.)

25 posted on 12/17/2003 9:57:16 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb
Your reply to baxter999 appeared to me as though you were supported the "gay" agenda, since he appeared to be in opposition to sodomy disguised as marriage. I take back what I said if you are opposed to "gay" marriage and the rest of the list. I jumped the gun with my criticism, apparently, for which I apologize.
26 posted on 12/17/2003 10:00:58 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Constantine XIII
There are zealots here who claim to be fighting the homosexual agenda. In doing so there is no right or benefit they would "allow" individual homosexuals. They paint them all with ths same brush. They have posted psuedoscience and will try to overwhelme you with "facts" if you disagree.

Their ping list is long, but they all sound like the same person. Many who disagree with them just ignore them, but some of us like to point out their fanaticism from time to time so that casual readers will know that freepers are not all extremists.

27 posted on 12/17/2003 10:03:20 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: breakem; Constantine XIII; scripter; EdReform
Just to let you know (Constantine), breakem for some reason can't tolerate those of us on FR (which includes the owner of this forum, BTW) who are opposed to the promotion of the homosexual agenda. There is a wealth of information about the dangers of same sex acts, the miseries attendent to it, the dangers to children raised by two people of the same sex acting as parents, the psychopathology of same sex attraction, and so on.

Breakem - you get mad and criticize scripter and others, but never have I seen you present any information supporting your support of the homosexual agenda. You call us fanatics and haters and so on, but you don't provide any factual rebuttals.

I and scripter and others here do not hate homosexuals. The opposite. I wish them to become happy people and I hope they stop trying to destroy the natural institution of the family, which will hasten the destruction of our civilization. As said very clearly today by Mike Savage. He pointed out that right after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, one of the first things the communists did was try to dismantle the institution of family - they wanted the children to be raised by the state. Same thing with Hitler - he wanted to destroy the authority of the parents, through Hitler Youth, pure Aryan breeding farms where the future Nazi homosexual militaristic elite would be conceived.

Michaelangelo Signorile - a noted spokesman for the "gay" intelligentsia, and a contributor to the NY Times, has written that the homosexuals really could care less about matrimony. He admits that their real desire to have same sex marriage is to destroy the meaning of marriage and family, to usher in a pan-sexual free for all, and in order to do this, children need to be influenced by homosexuals from an early age. Therefore natural mother/father family life has to be destroyed. This is his admitted reason, not my imagining.
28 posted on 12/17/2003 10:16:05 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
You're ridiculous. Let's take your last paragraph. I know two women who married each other in their church. They have a 3 year old girl who seems well mannered and well adjusted. Is it their motivation to destroy marriage or do they just love each other and the girl? The point is, you don't know them and you quote some guy who claims to know what motivates homosexuals to get married. Do you know how ignorant and extreme you are.

The point is I don't oppose everything some homosexuals want. If they want to serve in the army, no problem. If they want to come to the local grammer school and pick kids out of the herd to be their sex slaves. Of course not!

I've said this before and I'll repeat it with the hope you will finally understand. The country is based upon individual rights and responsibilities. The "agenda" is not the agenda for all homosexuals. Many items were proposed by what many homosexuals consider to be extremists. You can't lump all people into one category and then rail against them all. It's unamerican, disingenuos and immoral, as far as I'm concerned.

Many of us on this site who understand your problem have stopped bothering to post against your onslaught of false science and fanaticism. I chose to log in every now and then and point out what you are doing.

29 posted on 12/17/2003 10:26:48 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: breakem
Many who disagree with them just ignore them, but some of us like to point out their fanaticism from time to time so that casual readers will know that freepers are not all extremists.

No...just homo apologists...right breakem?

30 posted on 12/17/2003 10:29:06 PM PST by I got the rope (FANATICAL FREEPER JIHAD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
PS stand up for your own beliefs and stop calling for help everytime you get opposed.
31 posted on 12/17/2003 10:29:37 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
I and scripter and others here do not hate homosexuals. The opposite. I wish them to become happy people and I hope they stop trying to destroy the natural institution of the family, which will hasten the destruction of our civilization. As said very clearly today by Mike Savage. He pointed out that right after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, one of the first things the communists did was try to dismantle the institution of family - they wanted the children to be raised by the state. Same thing with Hitler - he wanted to destroy the authority of the parents, through Hitler Youth, pure Aryan breeding farms where the future Nazi homosexual militaristic elite would be conceived.

So if we allow gay marriage, we'll all end up on breeding farms, producing homosexual Aryan babies for an army of Nazi Super-Soldiers

Wow

32 posted on 12/17/2003 10:30:52 PM PST by WackyKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: breakem; little jeremiah
It's unamerican, disingenuos and immoral, as far as I'm concerned.

ROTFLMAO!

33 posted on 12/17/2003 10:31:20 PM PST by I got the rope (FANATICAL FREEPER JIHAD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: WackyKat
Watch out, you'll be labeled an "apologist."
34 posted on 12/17/2003 10:31:49 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: breakem; WackyKat
Worse...maybe a sodomite.
35 posted on 12/17/2003 10:33:17 PM PST by I got the rope (FANATICAL FREEPER JIHAD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: breakem
Obviously some people who self-identify as "homosexuals" are just useful idiots to the activists. But I have read Michaelangelo Signorile - have you?
36 posted on 12/17/2003 10:39:37 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: breakem
Many of us on this site who understand your problem have stopped bothering to post against your onslaught of false science and fanaticism.

I know I've gotten in my share of tussles with folks who want to turn the clock back to 1965 on how our society deals with homosexuality. The point of this thread is, (or at least originally was) what political consequences will follow from the President's statements on gay marriage. He needs the far right to rattle sabers at him, this shows the folks in the middle (whose votes he really needs badly) that he's not overreacting. The thing that makes them the most fearful is the establishment of a theocracy, of the kind that those who decry homosexual "agendas" would be quite comfortable with, if adopted.

Bush knows that every vote in the middle that he can capture is a vote taken away from Howard Dean, if the religious right chooses on principle to not give him their vote, at least he knows it doesn't go to Howie. However, I'm pretty confident that despite all the moaning and griping about what Bush has not given the religious right, they will go into that voting booth remembering all that he did give them, and how very little they got during the eight year reign of Slick.

37 posted on 12/17/2003 10:40:33 PM PST by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: breakem
I just figured they might want to say something about the topic. I am doing a ping list for a while... do I have your permission?
38 posted on 12/17/2003 10:42:06 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WackyKat
I am giving examples of socialist agendas in the past who have wanted to gain control (did gain control) and one of their methods was to destroy the family, which is the foundation of civilization. The gay agenda, when studied, is socialist in goal and method.
39 posted on 12/17/2003 10:44:32 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: baxter999
Personally, I'll support any conservative candidate - even a 3rd party one - before Bush will get my vote.

And that will mean one less vote needed for Dean to move into the White House.

Brilliant strategy.

40 posted on 12/17/2003 10:45:00 PM PST by Tamzee (Pennsylvanians for Bush! Join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PA4BushCheney/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Is it my imagination or has FR been simply flooded with Bush-bashing feeding frenzies lately?



41 posted on 12/17/2003 10:47:30 PM PST by Tamzee (Pennsylvanians for Bush! Join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PA4BushCheney/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: hunter112
sorry for the side track. I was answering this other poster.
42 posted on 12/17/2003 10:52:16 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
Personally, I am not bashing Bush. I really like him, I think he is smart, sincere and a real person. I think he is on the right side on most issues, and that he means what he says (most of the time). Just because he isn't a "perfect" conservative doesn't bother me - I'll vote for him as many times as I'm allowed.
43 posted on 12/17/2003 10:52:20 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Is 36 your answer about your motivation quote and about my point about painting everyone with the same brush. Don't try to change the subject.
44 posted on 12/17/2003 10:53:37 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
since you asked, no you do not have my permission.
45 posted on 12/17/2003 10:54:05 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
People are not useful idiots because someone who has the same characteristic as them decides to be a fool. Most people are just living thier lives and want to be free from crap like you spew. It's not their fault or responsibility to deal with every extreme view that comes along, just because people like you chose to lump them in with the extremists.
46 posted on 12/17/2003 10:56:22 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
I agree with you on that stuff, but what did the President say to irritate these folks?
47 posted on 12/17/2003 10:58:51 PM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: breakem
I am not changing the subject. I am saying that the movers and shakers in the homosexual activist political movement - such as M. Signorile - have a stated purpose, to remake society. Not every single homosexual person knows all of these peoples' motives, plans, ideas and so on. They are useful idiots - like the anti war people, Women in Black, and so on. They didn't all know that the main players in the anti-war demonstrations were allied with communist, socialist and even terrorist organizations, one way or another. Thus my term.

BTW, have you read anything M. Signorile has written? If you haven't, you should. You would learn something. If you have read his stuff, then you are just pretending to think that the gay agenda is organized and spearheaded by a bunch of misunderstood affectionate couples who just want a wedding.
48 posted on 12/17/2003 11:03:25 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RLK
"The administration is compromized"

Bush said he is against gay marriage and would support an official amendment against gay marriage. He also said the states have authority to decide what they would see as legal marriage.

So what part isn't conservative?

Can't a state determine what they consider legal gay marriage? And if they do what says another state doesn't need to legally apply that marriage to their state?

Isn't Bush saying a state can legalize gay marriage but can't force other states to recognize it and the federal gov't shouldn't either?

49 posted on 12/17/2003 11:04:53 PM PST by america-rules (It's US or THEM so what part don't you understand ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
You're still missing the point. These extremists don't represent all homosexuals. You gave a quote about the motivation for gays to get married and you represent it as some conspiracy by homosexuals. I gave you an example of two folks who disprove your quote.

Now you can flag your friends, none of whom will explain it to you. Or maybe someone else will. I have no more patience tonight and you just don't get it.

50 posted on 12/17/2003 11:06:33 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-172 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