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

Skip to comments.

Poll shows growing opposition to gay marriage in MA
Capital News 9 ^ | 22 February 2004 | Capital News 9 web staff, Associated Press

Posted on 02/22/2004 1:11:22 PM PST by MegaSilver

A majority of Massachusetts residents oppose legalizing gay marriage.

That's according to a new poll in The Boston Sunday Globe that shows a significant change since the state's highest court ruled three months ago that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry.

The poll indicated opposition to gay marriage has jumped 10 percentage points since a poll taken just days after the Supreme Judicial Court's Nov. 18 ruling legalizing gay marriages.

In the new poll, 35 percent supported legalizing gay marriage and 53 percent were opposed. In the earlier poll, 48 percent supported legalizing gay marriages, while 43 percent were opposed.

The telephone survey of 400 adults conducted earlier this week has a margin of error of five percentage points.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: backlash; catholiclist; christianlist; civilunion; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; marriage; masslist; poll; polls; prisoners; samesexmarriage

1 posted on 02/22/2004 1:11:24 PM PST by MegaSilver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MegaSilver
I guess the gays shot the wad so to speak. Now to remove the activist judges from the court.
2 posted on 02/22/2004 1:15:05 PM PST by CzarNicky (The problem with bad ideas is that they seemed like good ideas at the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CzarNicky
How? The Massachusetts "electorate" is not allowed to vote.
3 posted on 02/22/2004 1:25:04 PM PST by Diogenesis (If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CzarNicky; MegaSilver
Gay marriage is a weapon of Mass destruction!
Gay marriage is a weapon of Mass. destruction!
Gay marriage is a weapon of Mass. destruction!
Gay marriage is a weapon of Mass. destruction!
Gay marriage is a weapon of Mass. destruction!
Gay marriage is a weapon of Mass. destruction!

4 posted on 02/22/2004 1:27:43 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
"How? The Massachusetts "electorate" is not allowed to vote."

there are other ways to skin a cat.
5 posted on 02/22/2004 1:31:18 PM PST by CzarNicky (The problem with bad ideas is that they seemed like good ideas at the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CzarNicky
there are other ways to skin a cat.

Are any of them legal?

6 posted on 02/22/2004 1:37:55 PM PST by MegaSilver (Coulter/Harris 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
I have questions. How long do you think we can assume there will be two people in a marriage? Or that a marriage partner must be human? Or animate? Or alive?
7 posted on 02/22/2004 1:38:11 PM PST by esquirette (Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: esquirette
I have questions. How long do you think we can assume there will be two people in a marriage? Or that a marriage partner must be human? Or animate? Or alive?

If current trends continue... gays get to "marry"; and marriage becomes less desirable because of the way husbands and fathers are treated in divorce... eventually it will be mainly gays that "marry" (whatever it comes to mean then), and everyone else will co-habit. Marriage will lose its meaning and common law marriage will become more commonplace.

8 posted on 02/22/2004 1:47:32 PM PST by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: esquirette
That may explain why Gov. Romney (MA) is mute vs. Gov. Arnold (CA).
Romney supports polygamy or must be tolerant of such so has done NOTHING.
If hypothesis is true, then watch for Utah to support this, too.
9 posted on 02/22/2004 1:49:33 PM PST by Diogenesis (If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MegaSilver
Gee! They're starting to wake up--even in Taxachusetts.
10 posted on 02/22/2004 1:51:08 PM PST by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: esquirette
We can't!
11 posted on 02/22/2004 1:53:11 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
It's not a WMD, it a violation of freedom of religion.

If there is a ping list for gay marriage articles, then

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082858/posts

should be pinged to the list
12 posted on 02/22/2004 1:53:56 PM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CzarNicky
Let me explain something to you non-Massachusians...

MOST OF US are not lefty nutcases.
We are just at the mercy of Bostonian cronyism.

13 posted on 02/22/2004 1:59:03 PM PST by StatesEnemy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MegaSilver
last I heard impeachment was still legal. In the end I don't particularly care what the means are.
14 posted on 02/22/2004 2:05:05 PM PST by CzarNicky (The problem with bad ideas is that they seemed like good ideas at the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
How? The Massachusetts "electorate" is not allowed to vote.

We don't have a direct democracy here in Mass. The rulers take polls, and if it is going their way, we get to vote. If it looks like they might not get the results they want, we don't get to vote. -Tom

15 posted on 02/22/2004 2:05:40 PM PST by Capt. Tom (Don't confuse the Bushies with the dumb republicans. - Capt. Tom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MegaSilver
Only in Massachusetts could this be considered news.
16 posted on 02/22/2004 2:07:23 PM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MegaSilver
And I'll bet if they took a REAL poll, the answer would be closer to 65% against. This is going to be interesting. Maybe there's going to be another Boston Tea Party.
17 posted on 02/22/2004 2:12:25 PM PST by McGavin999 (Evil thrives when good men do nothing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: esquirette
I have questions. How long do you think we can assume there will be two people in a marriage? Or that a marriage partner must be human? Or animate? Or alive?

Too late! A woman in France just married her fiancee who has been dead for over a year. Viva la France, eh?! And kerry is an internationalist who thinks they are so much smarter than us dumb Americans.

TC

18 posted on 02/22/2004 2:31:36 PM PST by I_be_tc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
Romney supports POLYGAMY!!! I find that hard to believe.
19 posted on 02/22/2004 2:34:33 PM PST by Chris Talk (What Earth now is, Mars once was. What Mars now is, Earth will become.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CzarNicky
We are lead to believe that the legal definition of marriage discriminates and denies equal protection of the law. But does it really “discriminate” and deny equal protection of the law?

Does it prevent a women from marrying? No! Does it prohibit a black women from marrying? Of course not. How about a black man, does it prohibit a black man from marrying? Surely not. Then what specific individual can claim the legal definition of marriage discriminates so as to not allow them to marry? Seems to me the legal definition of marriage is open to all.

The only identifiable individual who might cry discrimination is one who may be sexually challenged i.e.; a male who believes he is a female, or a female who believes she is a male, but even so, the definition of marriage is in fact equally applicable to all, even to homosexuals as a homosexual male may marry a homosexual female and live happily ever after.

The truth is, the sexually challenged who now cry want something other than marriage and the question is, should the state support whatever it is and license it?

In addition, it is also claimed there is a wanting of proof that a compelling state interest exists for the statutory definition of marriage to prevail. But no one under our system of law is required to prove a compelling state interest exists for a legislative act to be constitutional, and, our judges are not their to engage in activism and second guess the wisdom of a state legislature by requiring a compelling state interest to be shown to them to give their judicial blessing to a legislative act .

On the other hand, those who now cry that equal protection of the law is denied them by the legal definition of marriage and attack a statute as being unconstitutional, do carry the burden of proving the act is unconstitutional: seeBALDWIN v. STATE OF MISSOURI, 281 U.S. 586 (1930)

The burden is not on the state to establish the constitutionality of its laws, nor are we limited in supporting their constitutionality to the reasons assigned by the state court . I do not assume, from anything that has been said in this or the earlier cases, that constitutional power to tax the transfer of notes and bonds at their business situs, no longer exists. As this Court has often held, the burden rests upon him who assails a statute to [281 U.S. 586, 599] establish its unconstitutionality. Upon this ambiguous record it is for the appellant to show that the stock and bonds subjected to the tax had no business situs within the taxing jurisdiction. See No. 454, Corporation Commission of Oklahoma v. Lowe, 281 U.S. 431 , 50 S. Ct. 397, 74 L. Ed. -, decided May 19, 1930, No. 485, Toombs v. Citizens Bank of Waynesboro, 281 U.S. 643 , 50 S. Ct. 434, 74 L. Ed. -, decided this day. Mr. Justice HOLMES and Mr. Justice BRANDEIS join in this opinion .

JWK

ACRS

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness."___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

20 posted on 02/22/2004 2:44:05 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: esquirette
Personally I would advocate polygamy (I am being sarcastic). Probably has a stronger chance of being legalized because historically it was practiced by many cultures and still is practiced in many developing countries. Sat down and figured what my income would be if I worked and my five wives worked (and take turns watching the kids one day a week). If each beared me two kids, the tax deductions, bulk buying and etc. One could make out pretty good financially, plus when each kid becomes 16 years or older, arm each one with a rifle and I already have a rifle squad in times of trouble. I drove my feminist sister in law crazy with this proposal after her company fired a worker for opposing gay pride emails sent to him by his company at work. She claimed that there was a need to be tolerant and accept gay couples a legally married people. That tolerance died when I told her that I think marriage should include the right for men to have more than one wife.
21 posted on 02/22/2004 2:53:33 PM PST by Fee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Chris Talk
Do YOU have a reasonable hypothesis for the long silence of Romney compared to Arnold?
Maybe Romney has been in a coma?


22 posted on 02/22/2004 3:00:24 PM PST by Diogenesis (If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
Arnold has sold us out on immigration.

I would just assume that Romney's reticence on this subject was a result of having to win election from such a bunch of looney losers as are left in Mass.
23 posted on 02/22/2004 3:02:18 PM PST by Chris Talk (What Earth now is, Mars once was. What Mars now is, Earth will become.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
Agreed--it does seem that the Mass.SJC in the language of their earlier decision determined that the Mass.State laws
prohibiting bigamy, or incest,or any moral code could not
exist under their interpretation of the Mass.Constitution.
After all in every moral code the standard is set that some
things are acceptable --some things are not-those on the
losing end will always be excluded and second class citizens.What I can't figure out is why so many of the Mass.
legislature are so determined to comply with an invalid madate?
24 posted on 02/22/2004 3:09:47 PM PST by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Fee
If gay marriages do become the rule of law, I think heterosexual couples should in mass absolve themselves of state recognized marriage. Then, the now single mothers should flood the state welfare agencies for every handout they can get. This will send a clear message to all the pro-gay marriage crowd that there is a societal value to the traditional man and woman marriage. I know many will be opposed to this but when a state recognized marriage no longer holds any value, why not make a mockery of it? After all, a marriage recognized by God is all that really should matter.
Our family could clean house. My wife could collect welfare and food stamps for herself and our 2 (and one on the way)kids. not to mention she could also collect WIC. I of course, would pay her just enough child support that she would eligible for all these giveaways. Our actual living situation would not change.
25 posted on 02/22/2004 3:46:42 PM PST by Angry_White_Man_Syndrome (I'm Okies love Dubya 2's "other half")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
Here is a public statement from Mitt Romney on the issue of gay marriages. It was published in Meridian Magazine, an online, LDS magazine. It is several weeks old.

No matter how you feel about gay marriage, we should be able to agree that the citizens and their elected representatives must not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage. There are lessons from my state's experience that may help other states preserve the rightful participation of their legislatures and citizens, and avoid the confusion now facing Massachusetts.

In a decision handed down in November, a divided Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts detected a previously unrecognized right in our 200-year-old state constitution that permits same-sex couples to wed. I believe that 4-3 decision was wrongly decided and is deeply mistaken.Contrary to the court's opinion, marriage is not "an evolving paradigm." It is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates our Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government.

Marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution. It encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society: The development, productivity and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result, marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society.

Because of marriage's pivotal role, nations and states have chosen to provide unique benefits and incentives to those who choose to be married. These benefits are not given to single citizens, groups of friends, or couples of the same sex. That benefits are given to married couples and not to singles or gay couples has nothing to do with discrimination; it has everything to do with building a stable new generation and nation.

It is important that the defense of marriage not become an attack on gays, on singles or on nontraditional couples. We must recognize the right of every citizen to live in the manner of his or her own choosing. In fact, it makes sense to ensure that essential civil rights, protection from violence and appropriate societal benefits are afforded to all citizens, be they single or combined in nontraditional relationships.

So, what to do?

Act now to protect marriage in your state.

Thirty-seven states-38 with recent actions by Ohio-have a Defense of Marriage Act. Twelve states, including Massachusetts, do not. I urge my fellow governors and all state legislators to review and, if necessary, strengthen the laws concerning marriage. Look to carefully delineate in the acts themselves the underlying, compelling state purposes. Explore, as well, amendments to the state constitution. In Massachusetts, gay rights advocates in years past successfully thwarted attempts to call a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This cannot happen again. It is imperative that we proceed with the legitimate process of amending our state constitution.

Beware of activist judges.

The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislature's job to pass laws. As governor, it is my job to carry out the laws. The Supreme Judicial Court decides cases where there is a dispute as to the meaning of the laws or the constitution. This is not simply a separation of the branches of government, it is also a balance of powers: One branch is not to do the work of the other. It is not the job of judges to make laws, the job of legislators to command the National Guard, or my job to resolve litigation between citizens. If the powers were not separated this way, an official could make the laws, enforce them, and stop court challenges to them. No one branch or person should have that kind of power. It is inconsistent with a constitutional democracy that guarantees to the people the ultimate power to control their government.

With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. Here is what Lincoln said: "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That's wrong.

Act at the federal level.

In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. While the law protects states from being forced to recognize gay marriage, activist state courts could reach a different conclusion, just as ours did. It would be disruptive and confusing to have a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states. Amending the Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent such confusion and preserve the institution of marriage. Sometimes we forget that the ultimate power in our democracy is not in the Supreme Court but rather in the voice of the people. And the people have the exclusive right to protect their nation and constitution from judicial overreaching.

People of differing views must remember that real lives and real people are deeply affected by this issue: traditional couples, gay couples and children. We should conduct our discourse with decency and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is not a matter of semantics; it will have lasting impact on society however it is ultimately resolved. This issue was seized by a one-vote majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. We must now act to preserve the voice of the people and the representatives they elect.

Mr. Romney is governor of Massachusetts

So much for your silence theory. Perhaps your polygamy theory is equally flawed.

26 posted on 02/22/2004 4:07:00 PM PST by Reaganesque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque
Regarding the public statement from Mitt Romney on the issue of gay marriages.

“With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. Here is what Lincoln said: "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That's wrong.”

As I stated in my post No.20

In addition, it is also claimed there is a wanting of proof that a compelling state interest exists for the statutory definition of marriage to prevail. But no one under our system of law is required to prove a compelling state interest exists for a legislative act to be constitutional, and, our judges are not their to engage in activism and second guess the wisdom of a state legislature by requiring a compelling state interest to be shown to them to give their judicial blessing to a legislative act .

JWK

ACRS

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness."___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

27 posted on 02/22/2004 5:29:15 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: Diogenesis
Governor has not done nothing. He has called for a constitutional amendment, but the legislature so far won't act -- let's see what they do on March 11.
30 posted on 02/22/2004 5:50:33 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
Governor=Governor Romney
31 posted on 02/22/2004 5:53:37 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...

Polls: Most in Mass. Oppose Gay Marriage

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: February 22, 2004

Filed at 9:15 a.m. ET

BOSTON (AP) -- A majority of Massachusetts residents oppose legalizing gay marriage, a significant change since the state's highest court ruled three months ago that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, according to a Boston Globe poll.

The poll indicated opposition to gay marriage has jumped 10 percentage points since a poll taken just days after the Supreme Judicial Court's Nov. 18 ruling legalizing gay marriages.

Advertisement

In the new poll, 35 percent supported legalizing gay marriage and 53 percent were opposed; in the earlier poll, 48 percent supported legalizing gay marriages, while 43 percent were opposed.

The survey of 400 adults, conducted Wednesday and Thursday, has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The poll, published in Sunday editions of the Globe, also found a significant majority of those surveyed want voters -- not the courts or the Legislature -- to define marriage in Massachusetts through a statewide ballot question to amend the constitution. Also, 60 percent of those polled supported Vermont-style civil unions for same-sex couples, a 7-point decrease from an earlier poll.

The increase in opposition follows lobbying by the Catholic Church and other gay marriage opponents, who have lobbied for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Among Catholics, the percentage of those who oppose gay marriage increased from 47 percent to 66 percent.

``There has clearly been a backlash against the court ruling,'' said Gerry Chervinsky, the president of KRC Communications Research of Newton, which conducted the poll.

The survey also indicated deep divisions over what course the Legislature should take. None of the three proposed amendments considered by lawmakers was supported by a majority of those surveyed:

-- An amendment that would restrict marriage to heterosexuals was opposed 47 percent to 45 percent in favor. That amendment stated that ``nothing in this article requires or prohibits civil unions,'' but did not establish or define them, or explicitly give the Legislature the ability to create them.

-- An amendment that would restrict marriages to heterosexuals, but also mandate the creation of a civil union system for same-sex couples, was opposed 49 percent to 36 percent in favor.

-- An amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman and establishing civil unions, but leaving it to the legislature to define what benefits civil unions provide, was opposed 55 percent to 30 percent in favor.

The poll also indicated differences of opinion among residents based on age, party affiliation, gender and religious affiliation.

Male respondents opposed legalizing gay marriage more than women did. Republicans strongly opposed it, while Democrats were statistically split. A majority of respondents over the age of 40 opposed gay marriage, while about 45 percent of those under 40 favored it. Catholics firmly opposed legalizing gay marriage, while 47 percent of Protestants opposed it and 38 percent supported it.

The poll was taken a week after a two-day constitutional convention that failed to resolve whether to put a constitutional definition of marriage on the ballot. The convention is scheduled to reconvene March 11.

The SJC ruling cleared the way for gay marriages beginning in mid-May.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Gay-Marriage-Massachusetts.html


32 posted on 02/22/2004 5:58:55 PM PST by Coleus (Help Tyler Schicke http://tylerfund.org/ Burkitt's leukemia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah; Desdemona
#32
33 posted on 02/22/2004 6:09:35 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping -

Let me know if you want on or off this ping list.

If the leftists think that most Americans are going to jump on the "gay" marriage band wagon, they've got another think coming.
34 posted on 02/22/2004 7:44:11 PM PST by little jeremiah (everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Thanks for the ping!
35 posted on 02/22/2004 8:38:32 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MegaSilver
Considering that Massachusetts is the most Catholic state in the Union, those numbers aren't too impressive.

Conservatives are losing the culture war. Today, there are half a dozen or more homosexual-themed cable TV shows on four different cable networks because homosexual studio executives and scriptwriters are more determined than ever to brainwash the public. Public schools throughout the country are indoctrinating children as young as five so that they will grow up to support homosexual causes. And the liberal media gives 100% favorable press coverage to homosexuals on a daily basis. The homosexual agenda has gone completely unchallenged for years.

Homosexuals are becoming increasingly bold because they know the tide has turned for them. Today, I saw two lesbians fondling each other in a crowded bookstore, in full view of the other patrons. I was repulsed by how they were clearly making an effort to draw attention to themselves, inspite of - or even because of - how others felt about their behavior.

Time is NOT on our side. We are quite literally holding our finger to a dyke. Republicans need to pull their heads out their butts; otherwise, they will be letting a golden opportunity pass them by. Imagine how difficult it would be to pass such an amendment in San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi's House of Representatives.

36 posted on 02/22/2004 9:49:27 PM PST by Holden Magroin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
The increase in opposition follows lobbying by the Catholic Church and other gay marriage opponents, who have lobbied for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Among Catholics, the percentage of those who oppose gay marriage increased from 47 percent to 66 percent.

The Catholic League sent a mailer to every home in Massachusetts, featuring comments from all four Massachusetts bishops. There is a lesson here about catechesis.

37 posted on 02/23/2004 4:51:39 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MegaSilver
Bump


What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda


Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

38 posted on 02/23/2004 5:50:30 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Holden Magroin
"We are quite literally holding our finger to a dyke. "

HA!!
39 posted on 02/23/2004 7:08:54 AM PST by To Hell With Poverty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Looks like attending mass and sending one's kids to Catholic schools may have paid off.
40 posted on 02/23/2004 7:16:06 AM PST by Coleus (Help Tyler Schicke http://tylerfund.org/ Burkitt's leukemia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

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