There is a story here that maybe will help us. Also your tag line is interesting too.
Posted on 05/14/2004 11:09:35 PM PDT by AnalogReigns
This is progress right?
You call this sick agenda progress? Sin is not progress!
I've already used the website http://www.savecalifornia.com to send messages to all California legislators and the Governor. It's time to remind them that 61.4% of Californians voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in the 2000 election. According the LA Times exit polls, Latinos voted 65% against. The local news isn't covering the fact that our democrat legislators are in the process of trying to pass a law to make same-sex marriage legal. If this happens in California, it WILL sweep the nation especially because of the Federal 9th circus court.
By the way the savecalifornia.com site does not ask what state you are from, so anyone can send a message through the site with just an email address.
Unfortunately, according to the last national polls I saw posted here on freerepublic, "culture issues" were ranked as important by only 6% of voters.
California's former governor, Gray Davis, passed a domestic partnership law prior to the recall election. He also passed a number of laws to protect gays, transgenders, and crossdressers from discrimination.
Personally, I boycott any businesses that promote gay agenda and I'm saving money for the future education of my grandchildren to help them access church-based schools.
What will I do?
As a Christian who believes the Sovereign Creator judges man and nations, I've wept tears because we're no longer the mighty nation we were and are in for a rough season.
Our national birthrate is falling far below adequate to replace our current population - we're being wiped from the face of the earth; almost half our children born to US citizens are bastards or without both parents to nurture them in goodness; shortages of every commodity is beginning to prevail and the ability for us to keep up is diminishing; blessings of jobs are leaving the US by the thousands - we're being deceived that corporate profits drive the economy while people starve; America is becoming the most despised nation on earth - incapable of "standing" for freedom and right(eousness). Deuteronomy Ch 6.
What will I do? Seek God's righteousness.
Well said.
There are much bigger fish to fry.
LOL only interested in listening to those who think your way.
Is it because you may not be sure of your opinions and need them to be reinforced.
Tony
Actually not. I used to work for the leading libertarian think tank in America. One can go round and round with those who assume government has no role in regards to morality--and that's not the purpose of this post. I want to find out what fellow CONSERVATIVES (not libertarians) plan to do about the usurpation of power by the courts in re-defining marriage, and not get into the same tired old round the tree chasing irrationality of "well, government really should have no role in marriage anyway..." arguments--which have been well answered--by myself and others MANY times in FreeRepublic.
For those who disagree with the Mass courts on "gay" "marriage," AND who understand government does, always has, and always will have a role in recognizing marriage, what will you personally do about it?
The second civil war will be fought over states rights to ignore gay marriages granted in Massachusetts et al.
It will be the blue vs. the red instead of the blue vs. the gray and with more modern weaponry.
Get ready. This is the issue we have been waiting for.
BUMP
If by "deal with it" you are intending to say that all States will be force to recognize, or even conduct same-sex marriages, then you are wrong.
"Despite the basic rule that a marriage valid where contracted is valid everywhere, the courts and validation statutes have universally recognized a number of exceptions, which may be condensed and simply stated as follows: A marriage valid where contracted will nevertheless not be recognized as valid in the forum state if such recognition would be contrary to a strong public policy of the forum state. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws 283(2) comment f (1971) (marriage valid where contracted will be recognized as valid everywhere unless it violates the strong public policy of another state which has the most significant relationship to the spouses of the marriage); e.g., Fattibene v. Fattibene, 183 Conn. 433, 441 A.2d 3 (1981) (Connecticut need not recognize marriage that violates strong public policy of state); In re Estate of Loughmiller, 229 Kan. 584, 629 P.2d 156 (1981) (listing exceptions to validation statute, including marriage that is polygamous, incestuous, or prohibited by the state for public policy reason); K. v. K., 90 Misc. 2d 183, 393 N.Y.S.2d 534 (Fam. Ct. 1977) (court called upon to decide whether law of Poland, which requires civil ceremony in addition to religious ceremony, was repugnant to law of New York); Kelderhaus v. Kelderhaus, 21 Va. App. 721, 467 S.E.2d 303 (1996) (general statement that marriage's validity is to be determined by law of state where marriage took place, unless result would be repugnant to Virginia public policy).
There are three commonly recognized categories of marriages contracted in another state that will not be recognized in the forum state. First, marriages that are contracted by domiciliaries of the forum state in another state for the express purpose of evading the law of the forum state are deemed invalid. E.g., Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216 (1934) (marriage entered into in Florida, in violation of D.C. prohibition against remarriage within certain amount of time after prior divorce, invalid in D.C.); Barbosa-Johnson v. Johnson, 174 Ariz. 567, 851 P.2d 866 (Ct. App. 1993) (appellate court holding that evidence did not sustain finding that parties had married in Puerto Rico for the purpose of evading the law of Arizona). See generally Uniform Marriage Evasion Act, 9 U.L.A. 480 (1942) (N.B.: The Uniform Marriage Evasion Act is superseded by the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, and was officially withdrawn from consideration by the drafters in 1943).
Second, states have refused to recognize marriages that are solemnized in sister states when the parties are of a level of sanguinity that is forbidden in the forum state. E.g., McMorrow v. Schweiker, 561 F. Supp. 584 (D.N.J. 1982) (rule recognizing foreign marriages does not apply to incestuous marriages); Catalano v. Catalano, 148 Conn. 288, 170 A.2d 726 (1961); In re May's Estate, 305 N.Y. 486, 114 N.E.2d 14 (1953).
Third, states have refused to recognize marriages that are solemnized in sister states when the parties are not deemed of sufficient age to marry, as determined in the forum state. E.g., Wilkins v. Zelchowski, 26 N.J. 370, 140 A.2d 65 (1958).
The first thing we need to do, is to prepare our defenses.
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues" |
What state is going to secede over this? Seriously.
There is no gay gene and science tells us the major factor in determining homosexuality is environment. The good news is that homosexuals can change. They can leave the lifestyle as thousands already have. My profile always has a link to the latest collection of articles on the subject.
Vote for politicians that don't support gay "marriage".
Continue to teach my children Christian values.
You need to actually read things before commenting on them. the SCOTUS handed down their decision on Loving v. Virgina in 1967, there is case law cited in my post dating from the 1940's up to 1996.
While some of the cases are post invalidation of miscegination laws MOST of your case law is before.
Given certain judges liberal predilections on this, I find it certain that strong challenges will be made in every state.
Popular culture from moderate to liberal, particularly in the upper income brackets, now regards as prejudiced bigotry any lack of "toleration" of homosexuals and their "rights" to be "the way God made them."
Balderdash, of course, never-the-less, its gospel to many (many) Americans. Probably not a majority...but perhaps enough, particularly in the power-elites, to soundly defeat any marriage ammendment.
The corrupt seed of University political correctness are coming to a bitter harvest.
We got a solicitation in the mail yesterday from James Dobson's organization, asking for donations to wage the legal battle against redefining marriage to include homosexuals. Perhaps that's a start?
My reaction to gay marriage? Well, it's the same as my reaction to abortion. I won't be getting one. Will you?
What is happening in the 3 other countries that have done this.
I thought I had heard in the Neatherlands it was destroying marriages and the children were being horribly raised.
If you don't know your history..... you are doomed to repeat it.
If someone else has already made these mistakes let's learn from that and not make it ourselves.
There is a story here that maybe will help us. Also your tag line is interesting too.
I'm guessing that many are not interested in the opinions of people who think your way.
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.