Skip to comments.
David Frum's Diary, FEB. 27, 2004: Eight Questions For Andrew Sullivan
National Review ^
| 2/27/04
| David Frum
Posted on 02/27/2004 12:42:01 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Frum is, of course, correct. No matter the entreaties of the neo-federalists, marriage is a national issue. It can be no other way.
SCOTUS will cite "equal protection" and they will be right to do it.
If the line is not drawn here and now, there will be no line and the deconstruction of marriage and the family will gather speed.
21
posted on
02/27/2004 4:38:24 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Frum is an excellent writer. I just finished his book,'The Right Man'. Now I want to read his new one.
22
posted on
02/27/2004 4:41:23 PM PST
by
mathluv
(Protect my grandchildren's future. Vote for Bush/Cheney '04.)
To: conserv13
Whether or not gays can get married should not be an issue for the federal government, it should be left to the states. The 'full faith and credit' clause does not have to apply.Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
23
posted on
02/27/2004 4:45:47 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: King Black Robe
Odd remark, considering you started it.
24
posted on
02/27/2004 4:53:10 PM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines conservatism; - not the GOP. .)
To: tpaine
Whatever. I pinged you to the article. You made a comment I couldn't figure out. The end.
25
posted on
02/27/2004 4:55:23 PM PST
by
King Black Robe
(With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
There was a time in this country when certain states did not recognize interracial marriages, even if performed in other states where they were lawful. I'll bet there are court decisions on most of these issues. (I honestly don't know how the courts decided them, but there are precedents.)
To: King Black Robe
27
posted on
02/27/2004 5:07:26 PM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines conservatism; - not the GOP. .)
To: tpaine
Not true. But I learn fast. I won't be pinging you again.
28
posted on
02/27/2004 5:11:43 PM PST
by
King Black Robe
(With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
To: tpaine
I was the last to respond on that thread btw. So if you felt abandoned, blame yourself. I thought we were finished.
Why are you so testy today? Ahhh, don't answer that. I don't care why.
29
posted on
02/27/2004 5:14:31 PM PST
by
King Black Robe
(With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
bump
30
posted on
02/27/2004 5:16:41 PM PST
by
Tribune7
(Vote Toomey April 27)
To: Lurking Libertarian
There was a time in this country when certain states did not recognize interracial marriages, even if performed in other states where they were lawful.The Full Faith and Credit Act was first enacted, I believe, in the 1930s (can some helpful fellow FReeper check me on that, please)? A good deal past the era of legalized slavery, in other words.
31
posted on
02/27/2004 5:59:13 PM PST
by
KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
(I feel more and more like a revolted Charlton Heston, witnessing ape society for the very first time)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 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