Posted on 06/14/2007 12:03:09 PM PDT by PajamaTruthMafia
I hear you, but you like all the rest who do not get why it is a big deal do not understand the value of Marriage as a Christian. Please read my posts.
Marriage is symbolic.... very sacred to the Christian.
Christ and his Bride (the Church). A Marriage, union wich brings life. Very precious in symbolism and reality to the Christian Believer. You see this is what you and others do not get.
You can call it whatever you want and have the appearance of Marriage if that what you choose, but you can never have the pure, unadulterated, passion which stems from a God who loves is bride enough to give himself up for her.
What do you think the Song of Solomen is all about. Read His passion.
Doesn’t matter how important it is to Christians.
Churches long ago handed marriage over to the state. If you don’t want the state to make these choices, it must be taken back.
I’ve heard that Catholic Charities or some Catholic group in Massachusetts had been forced out of the adoption business because they were not going to adopt out children to homosexual couples.
Does anyone else remember this happening? The legal issues were there because it would be discrimination not to adopt out children to legally married ( in Mass. ) same-sex couples.
Yes, as far as church/state issues, we may well see the state interfering with how churches define marriage and family relationships within their own denominations.
A marriage that is sanctified by the church is not tarnished by contradictory rules set by the state. A church is not required to recognize marriages that violate its beliefs. The state should not have to conform to any particular religious beliefs in its definition of marriage.
The head of MassEquity, Arlene Issacson, is also the chief lobbyist for the Teachers Union.
In this case, it was done by judicial fiat, not by the elected officials of the State. This process was an attempt by the people, through the referendum process, to redress that grievance. That was thwarted today by the elected officials (who were forced by the courts to do their constitutional duty and vote which they tried to avoid doing) who failed to put the question on the ballot despite several hundred thousand signatures from citizens.
The matter before the Legislature was giving same recognition to homosexual couples ? The African American Slaves did not say we want the same rights so therefore call us Whites. No they said give us the same rights and recognize who we are.
Why they choose to take an institution , marriage (man and woman) and call themselves what they do not want to be is beyond me.
That doesn’t have anything to do with what I said, which is that the institution of marriage is too important to be trusted to the government.
If churches don’t take it back, they can’t complain about how the state chooses to run it.
The guy in the office next to mine moved from Mass because he couldn't afford to live there anymore. He's an optical engineer.
Lots of people leaving the state. But make no mistake, this is exactly what the elite of Mass want---no middle class and a few serfs hanging around to wash their clothes.
Yes, you are right, Catholic Charities quit adopting to couples in the state because they would have had to adopt them to gay couples or have their license pulled.
INFIDELS, this is what’s going on in MA RIGHT NOW......this is an OUTRAGE...........
Even though most people in MA do not support this, they have simply checked out of the political process and did not call their state reps who are not in touch with their constituents. We essentially have a 1 party tyranny with no checks and balances.
With all the furor about amnesty, this almost slipped through the cracks. I fear that in MA, we have reached a point where no Republican will get ever elected to statewide office.
Liberals are afraid of democracy, that is why they enforce their lunatic ideas through the courts which are a lot easier to co-opt.
We didn’t even get a chance to vote. The pink hand wins again.
I know Loscoco, and I am going to make a phone call now.
What infuriates me the most about this is the lack of respect for the people of this state, WE THE PEOPLE, 175,000 signed a petition to get this question on the ballot in 2008 and dimasi and the GOV - DEVAL - went behind the scenes to offer jobs to people who would change their votes.....WE THE PEOPLE have no say in this state no matter how are we try, 175,000 people have just been slapped in the face.
We have been bitch slapped by the pinkos........
“Why they choose to take an institution , marriage (man and woman) and call themselves what they do not want to be is beyond me.”
Because in the case of marriage there is no “separate but equal” option due to, among other things, the Fifth Amendment protections extending specifically to one’s spouse. To make a civil union truly equivalent to a heterosexual marriage you would have to amend the US Constitution.
The Income Tax Roll Back
English Immersion
Clean Elections
The Marriage Amendment
I suppose next they’ll just tear up our petitions in our faces.
This isn’t just about Gay Marriage. This is about Article 48.
This is about Prop 2 1/2.
So in the final analysis, the right to petition can be set aside and makes it count for naught when it comes right down to it -- actually putting a question on the ballot? Doesn't seem right. Doesn't seem logical. Doesn't seem legal or constitutional.
This is perverse!
Why should the legislature have the power over the people in this instance when the people are exercising their power? A lot of good those pretty words are, right? So the right to petition is really not a right of the people to get anything on the ballot, regardless of the numbers. I can see a minimum requirement, otherwise you'd have thousands of questions, most frivolous, on the ballot.
So how else can the people express their right to petition to have a question put on the ballot if not by referendum? The referendum should be sufficient. Who needs the legislator to put their stamp of approval on it? In this case, they put their stamp of approval on the wishes of the non-petitioners, recognizing the wants of the non-petitioner instead. Yeah, that makes sense. ;<
What a farce. I wonder if all states allow the legislatures to let a minority of non-petitioners to over-ride the right of a large number of petitioners to get their question on the ballot?
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.