Skip to comments.
Bush for Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage-Source
Reuters ^
Posted on 02/19/2004 10:11:50 AM PST by The G Man
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-146 next last
1
posted on
02/19/2004 10:11:51 AM PST
by
The G Man
To: The G Man
THE Wedge issue. Can't see how this can hurt Bush or help any 'rat that gets in the way.
To: The G Man
Obvious hot issue and dup post.
3
posted on
02/19/2004 10:13:43 AM PST
by
RightWhale
(Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
To: The G Man
the source is Buchanan's sister? I think I'll wait for official confirmation.
4
posted on
02/19/2004 10:14:03 AM PST
by
KantianBurke
(Principles, not blind loyalty)
To: The G Man
How about a Constitutional ban on activist judges making up new "rights".
5
posted on
02/19/2004 10:14:18 AM PST
by
rhombus
To: The G Man
"unions between a man and a woman." Does it define "man" and "woman"?
6
posted on
02/19/2004 10:14:44 AM PST
by
GraniteStateConservative
("You can dip a pecan in gold, but it's still a pecan"-- Deep Thoughts by JC Watts)
To: The G Man
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't support Bush on this. The Constitution should not be amended over the definition of marriage.
7
posted on
02/19/2004 10:14:47 AM PST
by
conserv13
To: The G Man
But conservatives have made the constitutional amendment a litmus test for Bush.I know I have. I hope this news is true, but I've got to hear it straight from him to believe it.
8
posted on
02/19/2004 10:15:40 AM PST
by
King Black Robe
(With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
To: little jeremiah
9
posted on
02/19/2004 10:16:34 AM PST
by
EdReform
(Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
To: RightWhale
Shoot! I searched too!
10
posted on
02/19/2004 10:17:04 AM PST
by
The G Man
(John Kerry? America just can't afford a 9/10 President in a 9/11 world. Vote Bush-Cheny '04.)
To: Semper Paratus
It's a good issue to fight the RATS on ....the public is against gay marriages..
according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. According to the survey, 61 percent said no when asked whether gay marriages should be recognized as valid by law. Thirty-five percent said yes.
11
posted on
02/19/2004 10:19:21 AM PST
by
Dog
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
To: Dog
It's a good issue to fight the RATS on ....the public is against gay marriages...
What percent of the public wants to put that into the Constitution of the United States of America? Think about two other recent amendments: Prohibition and Income Tax.
To: GraniteStateConservative
Does it define "man" and "woman"?You know, those terms have taken on so much cultural baggage since Adam and Eve, especially the last 2 thousand years of western thought that we have lost sight of God's original intentions when he created Eve.
He didn't create Eve to be a reproductive partner, he created Eve to be a "helpmate". A helpmate can be either male or female. We need to bring social justice to bear on the defintion of men and women lest we begin to turn the clock back slavery. </ revisionist>
14
posted on
02/19/2004 10:26:10 AM PST
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: conserv13
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't support Bush on this. The Constitution should not be amended over the definition of marriage.I agress, at the federal level a marriage amendment is unwise; what is needed is the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (S. 2082), which was introduced last week and co-sponsored by Senator Zell Miller.
15
posted on
02/19/2004 10:26:52 AM PST
by
jgrubbs
To: conserv13
The Constitution should not be amended over the definition of marriage.It didn't need to be amended to make slavery illegal either.
16
posted on
02/19/2004 10:27:29 AM PST
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: The G Man
I don't really care what the President has said --what I
wait to see is a Federal Congress affirming the Marriage Amendment precisely as drafted and proposed by Rep.Musgrave
and Senator Allard and sent directly to the States for
ratification. Only after this has been recieved and ratified
by the States will the caphony from the queer nation ebb.
To: The G Man
Told ya so. Bush is too smart to avoid taking a clear stand on this issue.
18
posted on
02/19/2004 10:28:41 AM PST
by
LS
(CNN is the Amtrack of news.)
To: The G Man
Just seconds apart. A hot topic.
19
posted on
02/19/2004 10:30:41 AM PST
by
RightWhale
(Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
To: Dog
Watch for the media to indundate the airwaves with anecdotal stories of "love" and hardship for homosexual couples in response to this. Look further for an emphasis on homosexuals raising (indoctrinating) children.
Not one story will be about the mental problems of children of homosexual couples.
The left's total arguments will be founded on some form of "feeeeeelings".
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-146 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson