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

Skip to comments.

Prop. 8 Opponents Begin Effort to Strike 'Marriage' from Calif. Law
Christian Post ^ | 03/11/09 | Lawrence Jones

Posted on 03/11/2009 12:03:59 PM PDT by TruthHound

Proposition 8 opponents received permission Tuesday from the California Secretary of State's office to begin collecting petition signatures toward a repeal of the state's same-sex marriage ban.

Wed, Mar. 11, 2009 Posted: 08:19 AM EDT

Proposition 8 opponents received permission Tuesday from the California Secretary of State's office to begin collecting petition signatures toward a repeal of the state's same-sex marriage ban.

The initiative would side step the issue of same-sex marriage by making all couples eligible for marriage benefits regardless of their sexual orientation. If approved, the initiative would strike the word "marriage" from all state laws and replace it with the term "domestic partnership."

The measure would also repeal Proposition 8, California's constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

State Attorney General Jerry Brown submitted the official title and summary for the measure on Monday, about a week after the state Supreme Court heard arguments challenging the validity of Proposition 8.

The official and title summary for the measure is as follows:

Substitutes Domestic Partnership for Marriage in California Law. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Replaces the term "marriage" with the term "domestic partnership" throughout California law, but preserves the rights provided in marriage. Applies equally to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation. Repeals the provision in California’s Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

The proponents of the measure are two Southern California college students, Kaelan Housewright and Ali Shams. They must collect around 695,000 signatures, or 8 percent of the total votes cast for governor in the 2006 gubernatorial election, by August 6 in order to qualify for the 2010 ballot.

During last week's hearing on Proposition 8, the state Supreme Court justices indicated they would not invalidate the measure, which was approve statewide by 52 percent of voters in November. Two justices were deeply skeptical of arguments from gay rights' lawyers that the measure was an improper constitutional revision, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The High Court, however, indicated it would uphold the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place during the four months the unions were legal in the state.

A new poll released Tuesday shows that same-sex marriage remains a divisive issue in the state. Among respondents to the Field Poll, 48 percent say they would vote in favor of a constitutional amendment to allow same-sex marriages, with 47 percent opposing and 5 percent undecided.

Frank Schubert, the Yes on 8 campaign manager, told the San Francisco Chronicle that eliminating marriage for everyone was "fundamentally a dumb idea" and unlikely to gain broad public support.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2008election; california; gaystapo; homosexualagenda; moralabsolutes; moralrelativism; perverts; prop8; proposition8; queerlybeloved; samesexmarriage; traditionalmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last
I said from the beginning, this "gay marriage" agenda has NOTHING to do with something the homosexuals wants to gain.

It's all about something they want to DEPRIVE the rest of us of.

1 posted on 03/11/2009 12:03:59 PM PDT by TruthHound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TruthHound

Exactly!

And, how many who voted against the Gay Marriage BAN will vote in FAVOR of a total MARRIAGE BAN?

It is my guess that the gays have just “jumped the shark” here, and will create a backlash.


2 posted on 03/11/2009 12:07:29 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthHound

It’s always been a war on the family.


3 posted on 03/11/2009 12:07:36 PM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthHound
Proposition 8 opponents received permission Tuesday from the California Secretary of State's office to begin collecting petition signatures toward a repeal of the state's same-sex marriage ban

Yeah, because you can't have The Will of The People prevailing. Nope, just won't do.

4 posted on 03/11/2009 12:08:34 PM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthHound

Tiresome, silly people. Yapping Chihuahuas.


5 posted on 03/11/2009 12:10:11 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthHound

The first time I’m confronted by some cretins outside of some business trying to obtain signatures for this moronic idea, I’m going to go 10-8 on their @sses.


6 posted on 03/11/2009 12:10:50 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier presently instructing at Ft. Benning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthHound

This is the tactic they should have taken in the first place - if you don’t like a new law, get it changed.

Their initial tactics of attacking little old ladies in the streets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ8jeJwrbFQ

were not just wrong but also dumb.


7 posted on 03/11/2009 12:11:24 PM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthHound

Also, Wouldn’t cravings for 11-year-old girls be considered an “orientation?” Great! Pedophiles can come out now. Thanks, guys! /sarc


8 posted on 03/11/2009 12:13:10 PM PDT by TruthHound (A Republican who acts conservative will whip the snot out of Democrat who acts liberal EVERY TIME!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
Tiresome, silly people. Yapping Chihuahuas.

Yes, and in the end, (no pun intended) they usually get their way.

Maybe not today, but down the road.

9 posted on 03/11/2009 12:14:08 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (FUBO, he says we should listen to our enemies, but not to Rush - and zer0 has already failed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

That is a great idea! Everyone in CA can vote to be “domestic partnered”.

File that on your federal tax returns and let us know how you make out...lol


10 posted on 03/11/2009 12:14:23 PM PDT by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Tiresome, silly people. Yapping Chihuahuas.

Doing Satan’s bidding.


11 posted on 03/11/2009 12:14:55 PM PDT by MrB (The 0bamanation: Marxism, Infanticide, Appeasement, Depression, Thuggery, and Censorship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

UNdefining marriage has ALWAYS been the underlying goal.

God created the family, Satan, and his willing accomplices on the left, want to destroy it.


12 posted on 03/11/2009 12:16:00 PM PDT by MrB (The 0bamanation: Marxism, Infanticide, Appeasement, Depression, Thuggery, and Censorship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

I probably should have added “unfortunately” to the post


13 posted on 03/11/2009 12:19:22 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (FUBO, he says we should listen to our enemies, but not to Rush - and zer0 has already failed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TruthHound

“by making all couples eligible for marriage benefits”

it was always about the $$$. That’s what marriage is to them.


14 posted on 03/11/2009 12:25:51 PM PDT by ari-freedom (Hail to the Dork!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthHound

NAMBLA would agree with this!!!


15 posted on 03/11/2009 12:26:19 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier presently instructing at Ft. Benning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

10-8?


16 posted on 03/11/2009 12:46:31 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

No it’s more like a war on what is percewived to be normal. They want you to believe that gay is as normal as straight. Leaving whatever moral predispositions one has aside, why then are only about 5-6% of the population gay? (that’s including the ones still in the closet)


17 posted on 03/11/2009 12:56:34 PM PDT by brooklyn dave (The proletariat is getting pissed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MrB; Kansas58; RobbyS
A campaign to ban the legal recognition of marriage at least exposes what the gay-marriage campaigners are really all about: the de-norming of natural sex and the natural family.

And this underlines why the natural family MUST be defended in purely natural terms, without reference to supernaturally revealed/Scriptural truths, which are valuable for me (a believer) but should not be the center of any argument concerning public policy.

Social science research across the board shows that the best outcomes for children are correlated with living with their married, natural father and mother in a stable, low-conflict household.

Even children separated from their natural parents (e.g. displaced refugees, abandoned children, adopted children), derive an important sense of identity from their natural fathers (cf. the long-term "Who am I?" quest of Barack Obama, Jr.); fatherhood is neither optional nor redundant. Children likewise require their parents for 18 years and beyond.

Therefore promotion of this particular arrangement, above all others, is not a matter of bias or invidious discrimination, but is a hallmark of sound public policy.

If marriage is to be replaced by legal recognition of domestic partnership only, there is no reason why any house-sharing, whether between a mother and her adult son, two elderly sisters, a wealthy widow and her resident chef, chauffeur, and Feng Shui consultant --- or any number of housemates, should not qualify for "domestic partner" perks: but then, what's the point?

Why should people who merely live together, be licensed by the State and, in net effect, subsidized by people who don't live together? Where is the public interest?

18 posted on 03/11/2009 12:59:11 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets." - Isaac Asimov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

all the pot smoking libertarians who have the foolish notion of “get government out of the marriage business” and the slew of nonsense that goes with it.

(immigration rules, inheritance, paternity, etc...)


19 posted on 03/11/2009 1:04:09 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Why should my marriage be 'licensed' by the State at all?

Quite frankly it's none of their damned business. No State should be charging a fee or 'legally' recognizing any relationship between consenting adults.

There's no Constitutional basis for that anywhere.

Anyone who wants to marry in any Church should be free to do so without having to pay one thin dime to the State.

Get the State entirely OUT of the business of 'recognizing' any interpersonal relationship between consenting adults.

Period.

L

20 posted on 03/11/2009 1:04:44 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TruthHound
"Prop. 8 Opponents Begin Effort to Strike 'Marriage' from Calif. Law"

A.K.A. "We are mad so we are gonna take our ball and go home!"

21 posted on 03/11/2009 1:05:54 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg ("`Eddies,' said Ford, `in the space-time continuum.' `Ah,' nodded Arthur, `is he? Is he?'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
"Get the State entirely OUT of the business of 'recognizing' any interpersonal relationship between consenting adults."

I always said its none of the State's Biz. If people want a legal document denoting who gets what in case of death or breakup of the partnership, they can seek such with a lawyer.

Then if one wants to be married via their Church AND have the legalities of survivorship etc. they go to their Church for the religious aspect and the lawyers for the legal aspect.

That way it get the dang Government out of the religious side of it altogether.

22 posted on 03/11/2009 1:12:55 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg ("`Eddies,' said Ford, `in the space-time continuum.' `Ah,' nodded Arthur, `is he? Is he?'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
If people want a legal document denoting who gets what in case of death or breakup of the partnership, they can seek such with a lawyer.

Bingo.

Then if one wants to be married via their Church AND have the legalities of survivorship etc. they go to their Church for the religious aspect and the lawyers for the legal aspect.

Double Bingo.

The proper way to settle this entire thing is to remove the State as a player. That way homosexuals can go the Our Brother Of Gerbils and Rumprangers "Church" and have any sort of ceremony they like.

Normal people can go the the Church of their choice and have any sort of a ceremony they like.

The State gets NO money from either one, and has no say in who is 'married' to whom.

Of course the State would not have any power to mandate any sort of 'benefit' whatsoever, a power which it will not give up easily.

L

23 posted on 03/11/2009 1:18:38 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TruthHound

This is going no where. If they get enough signatures to put it on the ballot it will not pass.


24 posted on 03/11/2009 1:22:02 PM PDT by Uncle Hal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthHound

Wait a minute! I’m from Massachusetts! People really get to VOTE on this in other states???????


25 posted on 03/11/2009 1:39:18 PM PDT by massmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthHound
If they can't force their sodomitical depravity on the rest of us, they want to forbid us from being married! It was never about "marriage equality" as they liked to pretend. That was a lie all along.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

26 posted on 03/11/2009 2:11:51 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
If the California Supreme Court doesn't bludgeon the people into submission for them, they'll go ahead and ask the people to deny their view of marriage that offends them. The Queerly Beloved are apparently incapable of taking "NO" for an answer!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

27 posted on 03/11/2009 2:15:53 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
I am open to this argument. There is no need for civil marriage as long as the State will defend the rights of dependent children to the the support and nurturance of their natural parents (which the State is not doing now, anyhow, so it's a null point.)

There's a case to be made for the POV that the various churches can take care of the sacramental or ceremonial aspects of marriage, and private contract could take care of the rest.

Class: discuss.

28 posted on 03/11/2009 2:21:30 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (" God bless the child who's got his own." ( Arthur Herzog Jr./Billie Holiday))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

It IS in the state’s interest to promote and support the basic unit of society.

“Libertarians” may not think the gov’t has any business promoting morals or traditions, but the founders thought differently.


29 posted on 03/11/2009 2:22:49 PM PDT by MrB (The 0bamanation: Marxism, Infanticide, Appeasement, Depression, Thuggery, and Censorship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Nothing to discuss actually. In a rational world that would be the way things were.

"Civil" marriage shouldn't even exist. Period.

It's nothing more than an excuse for further State intrusion into areas it has no business being.

Most States are failing miserably at fulfilling their most basic responsibilities as it is. Allowing them any say into what is or is not a 'marriage' is simply silly.

L

30 posted on 03/11/2009 2:24:30 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MrB; ArrogantBustard
Thank you for this comment. I think the state should "recognize" marriage and the family, as being natural institutions which predate the state, and are foundational to it. "Recognize" it: defining it is apparently beyond the State's competence.

That being said, even without bringing in the issues of same-sex unions, polygamy, and the like, much of what is called "marriage" by the state is a puny and wizened thing. When you think of the constitutive characteristics of marriage (a lifelong, exclusive, fertile union) and compare it to what passes for legal marriage today (divorceable, routinely preceded by fornication and intermittently open to adultery, temporarily or permanently sterile by choice) you can see that the word "marriage" has already lost most of its meaning.

Heterosexuals redefined marriage via creating no-fault divorce, a licentious junk-sex culture, and contraception.

I repeat: it was heterosexuals who queered marriage. That the queers now want in, is no surprise at all.

31 posted on 03/11/2009 2:39:28 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (" God bless the child who's got his own." ( Arthur Herzog Jr./Billie Holiday))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

CB radio term - denotes that you are active on the radio


32 posted on 03/11/2009 3:05:28 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier presently instructing at Ft. Benning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MrB
but the founders thought differently.

The Founders? Um, no. Marriage licenses didn't become commonplace in the United States until the 1920s, and only then to prevent interracial marriages.

The Founders managed to put together a country and preserve the "basic unit of society" without marriage licenses. Amazing.

33 posted on 03/11/2009 3:27:28 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

Ah, thank you.


34 posted on 03/11/2009 3:28:46 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

LOL! I’d pay to see that.


35 posted on 03/11/2009 3:46:23 PM PDT by darkangel82 (I don't have a superiority complex, I'm just better than you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Nothing to discuss actually. In a rational world that would be the way things were.
"Civil" marriage shouldn't even exist. Period.

How long have you had this megalomaniacal blind spot separating opinion from reality?

Two thousand years of tradition and cultural norms out the window because you think it should?

The tempest is about a word.
The perverts want to deny its continued use by everyone else.
Not rational at all. Period.

36 posted on 03/11/2009 4:09:29 PM PDT by Publius6961 (Change is not a plan; Hope is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TruthHound
I'd like to see government get out of marriage (which is religious) AND "domestic partnerships" altogether.
37 posted on 03/11/2009 4:11:29 PM PDT by Darren McCarty (Obama = Jimmy Carter II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

See Tagline for my entire comment on the matter.


38 posted on 03/11/2009 4:12:26 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty
To finish my last post about government getting out of marriage and domestic partnerships.

Everything else should be taken care of by contracts. (IE - Death benefits, custody, etc)

39 posted on 03/11/2009 4:14:23 PM PDT by Darren McCarty (Obama = Jimmy Carter II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TruthHound

I agree with them. Marriage is an act of the church. Civil unions, regardless of sex, may be a government matter.

When my son told me they were going to the Court to get married, I told them I wasn’t interested. What you pledge before God matters to me. Anything else is just a tax shelter.


40 posted on 03/11/2009 4:19:09 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Obama - Making Jimmy Carter look like a giant!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
It IS in the state’s interest to promote and support the basic unit of society.

The individual.

“Libertarians” may not think the gov’t has any business promoting morals or traditions, but the founders thought differently.

I'm a republican with libertarian leanings. What traditions are you referring to? As far as morals, I agree to a very limited extent. Government needs to protect life (including unborn), property rights, and regulate use of force on others and their property (trespass). Further stuff I can support to a limited extent on local levels (zoning, etc).

Marriage IMO belongs in the church. Heck, my church does not only refuse to recognize gay marriage (rightly so), it also has a lot of strict rules if I ever marry a protestant.

41 posted on 03/11/2009 4:20:03 PM PDT by Darren McCarty (Obama = Jimmy Carter II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
How long have you had this megalomaniacal blind spot separating opinion from reality?

Bite me.

Two thousand years of tradition and cultural norms out the window because you think it should?

Are you talking about slavery?

The tempest is about a word.

The 'tempest' is about using the power of the State to intrude into an area it has no business being.

Remove the State from the equation and there's no issue.

Do try to keep up....

L

42 posted on 03/11/2009 5:42:57 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MrB
"Libertarians” may not think the gov’t has any business promoting morals or traditions, but the founders thought differently."

Ben Franklin was married by Common Law, no church was invovled nor any Government Official.

43 posted on 03/11/2009 6:21:41 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg ("`Eddies,' said Ford, `in the space-time continuum.' `Ah,' nodded Arthur, `is he? Is he?'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
"Nothing to discuss actually. In a rational world that would be the way things were. "Civil" marriage shouldn't even exist. Period."

"Two thousand years of tradition and cultural norms out the window because you think it should?"

I perceive you aren't fully aware of the definition of "civil" Marriage.

44 posted on 03/11/2009 6:25:11 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg ("`Eddies,' said Ford, `in the space-time continuum.' `Ah,' nodded Arthur, `is he? Is he?'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
"I agree with them. Marriage is an act of the church. Civil unions, regardless of sex, may be a government matter."

Why have the government get involved at all on who sleeps with who?

Just allow the legal aspect of a partnership be decided by the state, (Rights of survivorship and who gets what if the partnership is dissolved) and leave the "union" part out of it.

If you want the "union" to be recognized you got to your Church.

45 posted on 03/11/2009 6:30:13 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg ("`Eddies,' said Ford, `in the space-time continuum.' `Ah,' nodded Arthur, `is he? Is he?'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
They vilify natural arguments as well. Since the shrinks decided that homosexuality was not a mental disorder, no one has dared to look at the problems homosexuals have in leading an orderly life. psychologically or physically. Even the raw fact that homosexual males have a shorter life span is something unpublicized. Somehow just to state the facts is to be “judgmental.”
46 posted on 03/11/2009 8:24:14 PM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Apart from all that, the State has allows had an interest in marriage because it goes along with the rules of inheritance, of passing properties to the next generations in an orderly manner. Can’t reduce things to mere sentiment. Marriage is and always has been more than a sentimental relationship.


47 posted on 03/11/2009 8:27:47 PM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Apart from all that, the State has allows had an interest in marriage because it goes along with the rules of inheritance, of passing properties to the next generations in an orderly manner.

Which can be done using the services of a competent attorney. You're argument is crap.

The State has absolutely no vital interest in the issue of marriage. None.

L

48 posted on 03/11/2009 8:38:38 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave
No it’s more like a war on what is perceived to be normal. They want you to believe that gay is as normal as straight. Leaving whatever moral predispositions one has aside, why then are only about 5-6% of the population gay? (that’s including the ones still in the closet)

That's exactly it. I happen to think that homosexuality is the definition of narcissism..that is: "being in love with one's own image" which is a serious personality disorder and the gay agenda is to get it rubber-stamped as normal.

49 posted on 03/11/2009 8:58:32 PM PDT by Niteflyr ("If youÂ’re drawing flak, you know you're over the target".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

You are saying that the State has no interest in property and lines of inheritance? You are saying that a lawyer can set up instruments that are beyond the powers of the courts to adjudicate? In what universe do you live?


50 posted on 03/11/2009 9:02:00 PM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 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