Mary Cheney Considered Quitting 2004 Campaign Over Gay Marriage Issue

As it is, they have no grounds, or justification whatsoever to do what they did.

Sure “they” do, and so do we (those who want to prohibit homosexual monogamy)... put the bong down and PAY ATTENTION...

Article. IV.
Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;...

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.

Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.

Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.

All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.

441 posted on 05/10/2006 7:14:57 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)

I always start by going to God Himself, Jesus, to learn about Him. Then when I read something else, I have the real thing for a reference from which to judge. You have no reference, so anything goes and it has no counterpart in reality.

That's why I keep sending you to the scriptures. God's word. You might try reading it once . You may learn something.

But then again maybe you wouldn't. There is none so blind as he which refuses to see.

442 posted on 05/10/2006 7:24:44 PM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))

To: durasell; DBeers; John O

“Foul whisperings are abroad: unnatural deeds
Do breed unnatural troubles: infected minds
To their deaf pillows will discharge their secrets:
More needs she the divine than the physician.”

443 posted on 05/10/2006 7:25:28 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender;

Thus preserving the logic, the biological imperative, that underlies marriage. If men can marry men, and women can marry women, the logic underlying marriage is destroyed and any coupling for any reason, and in any numbers, may justly demand recognition as "marriage."

Judges who find a right to homosexual marriage floating about in the legal ether always take pains to limit is to couples, a hypocritical affirmation of the underlying logic of traditional marriage.

444 posted on 05/10/2006 7:28:02 PM PDT by JCEccles (Kitzmiller Syndrome: anger and paranoia that someone is harboring critical thoughts about Darwinism.)

" That's why I keep sending you to the scriptures. God's word."

You posted the wrong ones. You posted Moses, as I pointed out.

445 posted on 05/10/2006 7:44:21 PM PDT by spunkets

To: spunkets; John O

I always start by going to God Himself, Jesus, to learn about Him. Then when I read something else, I have the real thing for a reference from which to judge.

Genesis (1:27, 2:18).

“If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.” (Luke 16:31)

446 posted on 05/10/2006 7:45:57 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)

Thus preserving the logic, the biological imperative, that underlies marriage.

Genesis...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Judges who find a right to homosexual marriage floating about in the legal ether always take pains to limit it to couples, a hypocritical affirmation of the underlying logic of traditional marriage.

Correctemundo... The war against Genesis...

447 posted on 05/10/2006 7:56:06 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

"Reynolds v. United States in 1878"

Reynolds is bogus. The court used Judeo-Christian religion for comparison. The religion in question was the Mormon religion. The court did everything it could to ignore the fact that the religion was Mormonism.

"No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision."

The reynolds decision is as bogus as Roe. It means nothing. The 1st Amend does and I'll stand by that rather than the belching of a black robed scoundrel.

" Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief."

Marriage is a right, the rest is garbage.

" All adults have privilege"

LOL! Hahahaha....

"Nothing that requires a license is a right."

I've been fed up for a long time with this privilege crap. People, politicians and courts that spew this garbage are full of it. This is a free country and we have rights, not privileges.

448 posted on 05/10/2006 8:14:08 PM PDT by spunkets

Pretty colors Dashwood. Are coming out of the closet soon?

Red, white and blue... You think those colors are “gay” ??? Cultural Marxists hate them, don't they?

449 posted on 05/10/2006 8:16:50 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)

This is a free country and we have rights,...

Where is the word “marriage” in the Constitution?

450 posted on 05/10/2006 8:19:56 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)

The reynolds decision is as bogus as Roe.

Tell that to the judge next time you bomb an abortion factory...

451 posted on 05/10/2006 8:24:24 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Interesting debate.

Is your goal here to convert or conquer? Separate goals separate strategies...

I would suggest conversion seems highly unlikely...

452 posted on 05/10/2006 8:26:25 PM PDT by DBeers (†)

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Perhaps you can explain the relevance of Luke 16:31 as you used it?

453 posted on 05/10/2006 8:27:45 PM PDT by spunkets

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

"Where is the word “marriage” in the Constitution?"

It's not in there.

454 posted on 05/10/2006 8:30:48 PM PDT by spunkets

Btw, you are the first person I have ever come across to claim to be without sin.

You are not the first person I have ever come across that had extreme sarcasm go flying over their head with a whooosh.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I'll bet you can't stand those darn theocrats that founded our Republic either, can you?

455 posted on 05/10/2006 8:40:29 PM PDT by Antoninus (I will not vote for a liberal, regardless of party.)

Perhaps you can explain the relevance of Luke 16:31 as you used it?

Your post #445...

To: John O

" That's why I keep sending you to the scriptures. God's word."

You posted the wrong ones. You posted Moses, as I pointed out.

445 posted on 05/10/2006 7:44:21 PM PDT by spunkets

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

“If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.” (Luke 16:31)

446 posted on 05/10/2006 7:45:57 PM PDT by Yeshua (LET'S ROLL!)

456 posted on 05/10/2006 8:43:15 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)

Tricky HTML...

If “marriage” isn't in the Constitution, YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO IT!

457 posted on 05/10/2006 8:46:31 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)

Is your goal here to convert or conquer?

Maccabeus answered that question the same way I would...

458 posted on 05/10/2006 8:49:51 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

...more scottish play

459 posted on 05/10/2006 9:27:41 PM PDT by durasell (!)

You posted Moses, as I pointed out.

That's why I keep sending you to the scriptures. It's all God's word. You might try reading it once . You may learn something.

But then again maybe you wouldn't. There is none so blind as he which refuses to see.

460 posted on 05/11/2006 5:21:55 AM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794