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

To: hattend
A few days before Christmas, President Bush told Diane Sawyer he would support -- "if necessary" -- a constitutional amendment codifying marriage as the relationship between a man and a woman, and only a man and a woman. Came The New York Times, a few days after that, with the news of a new poll showing majority public disapproval of gay marriage.

This is the opener of Bill Murchison's column on Townhall.com today. If even the NYT admits the public doesn't support gay marriage, I think it's safe to say they don't.

9 posted on 12/30/2003 12:35:21 PM PST by Tax-chick (Some people say that Life is the thing, but I prefer reading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: Tax-chick
If even the NYT admits the public doesn't support gay marriage, I think it's safe to say they don't.

But that's the "beauty" of the MA court decision! It just don't matter what the people think. We don't get a chance to vote on it. The Court ordered the legislature to write a law legitimating gay marriage. It (apparently) doesn't matter what the legislature thinks either. And I'm sure you understand the "full faith and credit" clause.

It's coming, brother.

11 posted on 12/30/2003 12:45:14 PM PST by ClearCase_guy (France delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

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