First they want us to recognize their marriage, then they want us to recognize their divorce... what next?!
1 posted on
10/09/2007 10:13:03 AM PDT by
j_hig
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
To: j_hig
Who gets the Birkenstocks?
2 posted on
10/09/2007 10:15:04 AM PDT by
dfwgator
(The University of Florida - Still Championship U (At least we didn't lose to Stanford))
To: j_hig
Why even bother us in the first place? They wanted absolution for their sins, now they want absolution for their absolution.......
3 posted on
10/09/2007 10:16:08 AM PDT by
Red Badger
( We don't have science, but we have consensus.......)
To: j_hig
Perhaps we have arrived at an answer:
Legalize Gay Marriage.
Pass a Constitutional Amendment Banning Divorce.
To: j_hig
Keep in mind that this is an isolated agenda and not a coordinated event..............(sarc)
7 posted on
10/09/2007 10:18:41 AM PDT by
PeterPrinciple
( Seeking the truth here folks.)
To: j_hig
8 posted on
10/09/2007 10:19:00 AM PDT by
shankbear
(Al-Qaeda grew while Monica blew)
To: j_hig
9 posted on
10/09/2007 10:19:18 AM PDT by
traditional1
( Fred Thompson-The ONLY electable Republican Candidate)
To: j_hig
This wasn’t all a just a big “test case” was it . . . .? From “marriage” to divorce . . . ? . . . To see what the courts had to say. Was it?
To: j_hig
SOunds like this was test case from the beginning.
To: j_hig
I bet they both feel just like they’ve had the rug pulled out from underneath them.
To: j_hig
‘Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers were married in 2004 after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts. Last year, the couple filed for divorce in Rhode Island. ‘
Curious the article doesn’t mention on ‘what ground’ they are asking for a divorce.
Which indicated to me this is political, folks. Designed to further legitimize gay marriage.
Maybe I’m wrong about this, but thats the gut feeling.
19 posted on
10/09/2007 10:22:08 AM PDT by
Badeye
(Free Willie!)
To: j_hig
20 posted on
10/09/2007 10:22:32 AM PDT by
LIConFem
(Thompson 2008. Lifetime ACU Rating: 86 -- Hunter 2008 (VP) Lifetime ACU Rating: 92)
To: j_hig
Just another of life’s little ironies.
23 posted on
10/09/2007 10:23:21 AM PDT by
tennteacher
(Duncan Hunter '08)
To: j_hig
Divorce should be defined as being strictly between a man and a woman! Allowing this would cheapen the meaning of divorce!
24 posted on
10/09/2007 10:23:21 AM PDT by
KoRn
(Just Say NO ....To Liberal Republicans - FRED THOMPSON FOR PRESIDENT!)
To: j_hig
“You have a valid marriage in the state of Massachusetts,” Louis Pulner, an attorney for Chambers, told the justices. “No one is asking the court to address the question of whether such marriages would be valid in Rhode Island.”
Riiiiiiigt.
26 posted on
10/09/2007 10:24:44 AM PDT by
pas
To: j_hig
28 posted on
10/09/2007 10:26:31 AM PDT by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: j_hig
Marriage is instituted by God for one man and one woman only. These two individuals aren’t married. You can get a piece of paper from the government stating you are a three headed goat, that doesn’t make it so.
30 posted on
10/09/2007 10:28:12 AM PDT by
Rodm
(Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before kings)
To: j_hig
In September 2006, a Massachusetts judge decided same-sex couples from Rhode Island could marry in Massachusetts because nothing in Rhode Island law specifically banned gay marriage. Massachusetts activists judges, coming to your state next.
To: j_hig
Ha! Ha!.....make them stay married!
To: j_hig
If RI doesn’t recognize their marriage in the first place, what are they worried about divorce for?
36 posted on
10/09/2007 10:33:13 AM PDT by
agrace
To: j_hig
Now the Tubes will have to re-write the song “What do you want from life” with the line, “...a Massachusetts wedding, a Rhode Island divorce!” near the end.
40 posted on
10/09/2007 10:38:53 AM PDT by
Disambiguator
(Political Correctness is criminal insanity writ large.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
