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

Skip to comments.

Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) Opposed to Marriage Protection Amendment
TVC ^ | 06.01.06 | Rev. Louis P. Sheldon

Posted on 06/03/2006 4:12:15 PM PDT by Coleus

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last

1 posted on 06/03/2006 4:12:16 PM PDT by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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


2 posted on 06/03/2006 4:12:49 PM PDT by Coleus (I Support Research using the Ethical, Effective and Moral use of stem cells: non-embryonic "adult")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

I tend to agree. I think it would be a waste to adopt an amendment that still allows civil unions. Not to mention that this is an insulting attempt to appease conservatives. Most of us are not worried about gays marrying while criminals pour over our border.


3 posted on 06/03/2006 4:16:56 PM PDT by Tim Long (I spit in the face of people who don't want to be cool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

"Devil's in the details".... I think they may be right.


4 posted on 06/03/2006 4:18:09 PM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Coleus
This is actually hilarious. The president is in political trouble and falls for this ludicrous attempt to impose federal control over an historical state responsibility. There is absolutely no threat to marriage in those states that limit it to a man and a woman; there is no threat to the Defense of Marriage Act which permits an exception to Article IV, but because some states may legalize marriage for nontraditional couples, we better stop that right now.

So now the radicals are weeping because the amendment doesn't completely outlaw homosexuality like most of them want.

Hilarious.

6 posted on 06/03/2006 4:41:18 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

"So now the radicals are weeping because the amendment doesn't completely outlaw homosexuality like most of them want. "

Radicals?

Weeping?

The norm in society for marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. If you propose changing that then you are the radical.

Marriage does a lot more than gain 1 person the health benefits of the other. It provides a basis on which the rest of our culture rests. Destroy marriage and you destroy the culture. But then I'm guessing you alrady knew that.

The one thing you radicals have in common is that its all about you. My rights, my wants, my desires....theres never any thought to what is good for our country.

Which is ironic as the liberals use "the good of the many" as a guideline to further so many other agendas.


7 posted on 06/03/2006 5:04:52 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
The norm in society for marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. If you propose changing that then you are the radical.

I don't propose changing it in my state. If it comes up I will vote to keep traditional marriage. But I don't care what Massachusetts does. And unless you live there, neither should you. To want the central government to cover our religious beliefs for us and make everyone believe is against our federalist government and is quite radical.

The one thing you radicals have in common is that its all about you. My rights, my wants, my desires....theres never any thought to what is good for our country.

Uh, I'm simply trying to let sleeping dogs lie. I don't want to get rid of our Constitutional Republic. I don't want to reduce a state's just powers to have to do something because of my personal beliefs. And you call me the radical? You tell me its all about me?

Which is ironic as the liberals use "the good of the many" as a guideline to further so many other agendas.

Which is exactly what you are trying to do with this ridiculous amendment...the good of the many.

8 posted on 06/03/2006 5:15:54 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

"But I don't care what Massachusetts does. And unless you live there, neither should you. To want the central government to cover our religious beliefs for us and make everyone believe is against our federalist government and is quite radical."

nice turn around. The federal government is extremely abusive in its use of power. It should not be involved with marriage. Unfortunately the radicals have found loopholes in the constitution and are using one of those to try and force legalized marriage nationwide.

And yes you are radical although you pretend otherwise.


9 posted on 06/03/2006 5:25:01 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

Your profile indicates that you signed up in 2001, but you must have kept quiet for a good while. Lately, you're all over every topic dear to the heart of social conservatives, and in each case, you spout the standard liberal line: anti-God, pro-death, and, above all, pro-"sexual freedom." You have their talking points and their snotty tone down perfectly. What exactly are you trying to prove?


10 posted on 06/03/2006 5:37:37 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
The federal government is extremely abusive in its use of power. It should not be involved with marriage.

I agree completely with the exception of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Unfortunately the radicals have found loopholes in the constitution and are using one of those to try and force legalized marriage nationwide.

Don't believe that. They have completely failed in every attempt. Every federal court that has looked at it concludes that states have compelling interests in maintaining traditional marriage between a man and a woman to promote procreation. The Ninth Circuit has ruled similarly. There is no chance that any circuit court will change that, and even less than no chance the USSC would concur. Lots of people want gay marriage, and if they want to do that in their state, fine.

And yes you are radical although you pretend otherwise.

Given the history of the Radical Republicans in the 1860s, I'll take that as a complement.

11 posted on 06/03/2006 5:40:21 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rawdog

BRAVO! I agree with you.. getting rid of gay marriage should be the first step, then we can go after outlawing divorce (except in cases of adultery and abuse) and criminalizing adultery. Once you divorce (for any reason), you can't get remarried. If we live like God wants us to, our country can do even greater things!

"i think the defense of marriage ammendment doesn't go far enough. i, like many, am deeply religious and believe we should protect the institute of marriage as a whole, not just against the gay agenda.

Divorce should be outlawed and anyone caught as an adulterer should face jail time, then and only then can i take the president or senate serious on this issue otherwise they are just playing politics."


12 posted on 06/03/2006 6:04:37 PM PDT by TNLawyer (Feminazis the world over can shut up now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Your profile indicates that you signed up in 2001, but you must have kept quiet for a good while.

No at all. I tend to post fairly regularly. I'm sure since you've spent so much time looking at my posting history, you have seen my interest in the immigration debate, the John Kerry lies, Terrorism, the War in Iraq, Politics in general, and a host of other issues.

I assume the three topics that have you in such a dither are the FMA, which I vehemently oppose, the Da Vinci code, which I enjoyed reading and therefore didn't realize that I could not so post, and one thread on the death of the Terri doctor, whom all the fundamentalists condemned to Hell. Were there any others that bothered you?

Lately, you're all over every topic dear to the heart of social conservatives, and in each case, you spout the standard liberal line: anti-God, pro-death, and, above all, pro-"sexual freedom."

So have the forum rules changed so that only those who are God fearing Christian "conservatives" can post? Are social conservatives infallible? If someone misstates something, but it fits in with the extremist views of some here, the misstatement cannot be addressed? Please tell me where I made any nonfactual statement. Please tell me where I made any pro-homosexual statement. Please tell me where I made any anti-God statement. Finally, please point me to any pro-death statements I made. I will correct any misstatements I have made.

You have their talking points and their snotty tone down perfectly.

Thank you, but given your post, and a few others, its clear I have no corner on the snotty market.

What exactly are you trying to prove?

That there is still a place on this forum for reasoned conservative debate...and intellectual discourse. You know. You make a statement, I challenge it with facts. I make a statement, you do the same. At the end, we agree to disagree, but have both provided food for thought for the thousands who lurk but do not post.

At the risk of offending you may I make a suggestion? If none of you ever respond to my posts, I won't get to spew all this leftist hatred you believe I have.

You take care.

13 posted on 06/03/2006 6:15:28 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
There is absolutely no threat to marriage in those states that limit it to a man and a woman;

You don't think so? There are states in which Judges are nullifying the votes to limit marriage to one man and one woman. It WILL be taken to the Supremes. Anyone wanna risk that?

14 posted on 06/03/2006 7:27:01 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
You don't think so? There are states in which Judges are nullifying the votes to limit marriage to one man and one woman. It WILL be taken to the Supremes. Anyone wanna risk that?

That is incorrect. No federal court case has invalidated a state law limiting marriage to heterosexuals. The law struck down in Nebraska which included marriage, was struck down for the remainder of the law prohibiting unspecified associations and as such violated the 1st and 14th Amendments of the Constitution. Every federal judge has recognized that a state has a compelling interests in promoting procreation, and therefore may discriminate in the area of "marriage".

15 posted on 06/04/2006 5:20:01 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
Every federal judge has recognized that a state has a compelling interests in promoting procreation, and therefore may discriminate in the area of "marriage".

So far, perhaps, but frankly I don't like the possibility of this landing in the realm of some liberal judicial loose cannon.

16 posted on 06/04/2006 8:51:37 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
So far, perhaps, but frankly I don't like the possibility of this landing in the realm of some liberal judicial loose cannon.

This concern could extend to a host of issues, not just marriage. But if marriage is ever endangered I would then assume that a constitutional amendment would be passed by Congress in less than a week, and ratified before sunset.

17 posted on 06/04/2006 9:13:56 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TNLawyer
"Divorce should be outlawed and anyone caught as an adulterer should face jail time, then and only then can i take the president or senate serious on this issue otherwise they are just playing politics."

Whoa, slow down just a bit -- divorce should be outlawed? Jail time for adultery? We're killing fanatics in Afghanistan who share similar views. What's next Burqhas? I'm sorry but this is America and we don't need religious police telling us how we should live our personal lives. If that's the way you choose to live I support you 100% but the stay the hell out of my bedroom and I promise to stay out of yours. This is still the "Land of the Free".

18 posted on 06/05/2006 7:35:03 AM PDT by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TNLawyer

"Once you divorce (for any reason), you can't get remarried. If we live like God wants us to, our country can do even greater things!"

Except for that pesky little constitutional detail about not making laws that ascribe to any one religion. Too bad about that.


19 posted on 06/05/2006 7:38:16 AM PDT by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003
An Alternative to the Federal Marriage Amendment
20 posted on 10/06/2006 7:34:16 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next 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.

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