Posted on 11/03/2005 10:26:42 AM PST by texas_mrs
AUSTIN, Texas -- Opponents of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages in Texas have a message for you: The proposition could mean trouble for marriage between a man and woman. With telephone calls, e-mails and Internet postings, gay rights activists and others opposed to Proposition 2 are spreading that idea as part of their longshot battle to derail the measure in Tuesday's election. The tactic has supporters of the same-sex marriage ban crying foul. It has opponents boasting that they may have a chance at defeating the measure _ in Texas, of all places, the conservative home state of President Bush. "We are making a horse race out of it for the first time in any state," said Glen Maxey, an openly gay former legislator directing the opposition group No Nonsense in November. It argues the ban could interfere with all marriages. Eighteen states have approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. Massachusetts is the only state that has legalized it, while Vermont and Connecticut allow civil unions between same-sex couples. In Texas, the latest round of recorded phone calls by opponents of the proposed ban on same-sex marriage led Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, whose comments were used in one, to issue a public statement Wednesday denouncing the calls as deceptive and false.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Way more than a thousand.
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Texans - vote early and often! I hope it passes by a landslide. And let us know about any (more) dirty tricks.
Freepmail me and DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off this pinglist.
Hispanics and everybody else better vote "yes" FOR the Marriage Protection Amendment.
It's a "YES" vote to approve the amendment and ensure marriage in Texas remains between one man and one woman.
You know when I take a dump that stuff is nasty.But ass F---
is even nasty.
You know when I take a dump that stuff is nasty.But ass F---
is even nasty.
You know when I take a dump that stuff is nasty.But ass F---
is even nasty.
If China turns out to have 2 men for every woman is it okay if a woman marries two guys at the same time or do they just do withour because it wasn't designed that way.
You "refusal" to answer after you answered is a neat trick.
You have met few queesr, yet you engage in a genaralization about all homosexuals. A very illigocal thing to do.
I know five that I know of and none of them are pitiful. Actually they seem happy and are very successful people. Perhaps you have been exposed to a pitiful group and are stereotyping the other millions based upon your limited experience.
As for voting in Texas or anywhere else. It seems wrong to me to vote on people's rights. Rights are not granted by majority vote, they are inherent.
Lot's of luck redesigning it. Use the same magic wand on Islam if you get a chance.
If China turns out to have 2 men for every woman is it okay if a woman marries two guys at the same time or do they just do withour because it wasn't designed that way.
Red Herring. Not the topic.
You "refusal" to answer after you answered is a neat trick.
As the lady said, just say no. My answer was simply no. I don't agree that anyone other than a man and a woman should be married. That won't change.
You have met few queesr, yet you engage in a genaralization about all homosexuals. A very illigocal thing to do.
More than a few, 100's actually, in situations where I saw their true nature. They want to "marry" so their lifestyle will be seen as normal. It's another technique to mainstream them. No matter what society does queer folks will be oddities doing odd things compared to everyone else.
I know five that I know of and none of them are pitiful. Actually they seem happy and are very successful people. Perhaps you have been exposed to a pitiful group and are stereotyping the other millions based upon your limited experience.
Perhaps you need to be exposed to more than 5. I've known more than 5 lesbians and they were an unhappy lot too. Well, more pissed off than unhappy actually.
As for voting in Texas or anywhere else. It seems wrong to me to vote on people's rights. Rights are not granted by majority vote, they are inherent.
Men have an inherent right to marry each other? I see no evidence of that. And no rights are being taken from anyone. Queer men still have the right to marry a woman and lesbians can marry a man.
You have your view and I have mine. Might as well move along since those views obviously are not malleable.
When a state lets the majority vote for who can do what in terms of contracting and financial benefits, then we call that the tyranny of the majority. There may be no right to be married, but there is a right to participate in those benefits without government discrimination.
Your opinion is based upon meeting some loathsome people. Mine is not. Your problem.
Red Herring. Uh, what does that mean. Tough question, that shows my point to be invalid, so I won't answer. Nice try.
The fact that you don't agree on these marriages is exactly why it shouldn't be voted upon. It doesn't effect you and who are you to deny others the opportunity that you have to enjoy the benefits of being married to someone you love?
Don't Mess With Texas!
A couple of years ago, I went to a conference in San Antonio and I met people from all over the U.S. there. One couple who sat at our table was from Wisconsin. The woman told me that she had never visited Texas before and after leaving the airport in Dallas she kept seeing signs that said "Don't Mess With Texas" and she thought, "Boy, what a hostile state!" and was kinda on edge until she realized it was our slogan against littering.
Yes, but I've heard the Dems in Houston have signed up all the NO 'Rats to vote against this ban on homo marriage. They aren't residents of Texas, but hey, neither are all the Mexican citizens who vote in Texas border counties and San Antonio.
Could I please be put on your Texas Ping list?
I don't agree they are normal and I don't agree that their dangerous lifestyle should be promoted by society. And that means that we need not allow them to marry. Or adopt children for that matter.
I've had this discussion with others who assert the same basic views that you have. Over and over. Several of these folks after a period of time have fessed up that they were queers themselves. I heard the same arguments on KPRC yesterday from a caller. Who was as dogged with their points as you have been. Only to hear at the end of the call the caller finally bring up their "partner".
You are just not going to convince most people that queer marriage is good for society. Any more than pushing the queer agenda in schools makes sense. As I have pointed out to you before a very very small percentage of the general population is queer.
As far as my red herring comment? Comparing Chinese people to a vote in Texas. Get real.
And once again, nobody is denying any man the right to marry a woman nor denying any woman the right to marry a man.
I've heard the kind of things you keep bringing up about the queers for decades. It just does not work on me. I've heard it all before. I frankly see no reason to recognize under any law the practice of men having anal sex then ingesting fecal matter. If a couple of the leather loving type want to stick their fists up each other asses that's fine but I prefer we not condone it by allowing them to marry each other.
Some guy or gal "loving" another guy or gal does not give me any reason to allow them to marry.
Again, you and I are not going to agree. And I have discussed this with you. I've heard your views from the queer community for many years and the queer community has heard my views. Next the queer community will hear the view of the Texas voter. They won't like it, but I don't really care.
So the ONLY article to appear is a homo-centri one.
This is the SAME LIE that shepard smith reported when he LIED and said that DOMAs would harm "live together" heterosexuals.
Someone should just take a video camera to the local office depot and show a picture of the 24.95 cohabitation agreement that has always been available to homosexuals.
Such tactics by the homosexuals are sub-human.
Voted for Prop. 2 over a week ago... expect it to pass easily.
Society rewards the institution not the individuals recreational sex.
Homosexuality is ONLY about recreational sex. NOTHING else.
No individual exception changes that.
Society has an interest in promoting those institutions which promote society.
Homosexuality does NOTHING for the future, does NOTHING for promoting children to further the future of society.
There is and never has been an "orgasm test" or a "love test" for marriage. Every single pro homosexual marriage argument is based on that non-existent love/orgasm test.
Homosexals can NOW enter into cohabitation agreements. Homosexuals can NOW marry a willing opposit sex person. They are not denied any rights under the law.
As for you tyranny of the majority red herring, it is obvious you have not read the constitution. Many contractual agreements are prohibited and people are discriminated within that document.
I never knew it was an anti-littering slogan but I like it anyway.
Maybe no one wishes to feed the troll? The discussion you wish is not germane to FR:
What Free Republic is all about:
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
Of course you know this already... -continue meekly waving the rainbow flag -you will eventually get zotted...
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.