Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Boy. Ain't that the truth?!!
Once they eliminate all marriage in California, then all the children born there will be bastards.
Question, if I am married and then I become forced to be in a relationship, does that mean I am no longer legally married? So no divorce? No payment to the EX, because we are not married and we were not divorced.
Regardless if they succeed or fail, this is going to be funny. I’ll laugh if they fail, and I’ll laugh if they succeed.
The article said — “SACRAMENTO, March 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - California same-sex “marriage” supporters are collecting signatures to support a ballot initiative that would remove civil marriage from California law entirely, as well as the provision codifying marriage as between a man and a woman.”
—
Ummm..., next, they are going to legally and officially label Homo Sapiens as the Genus “Gorilla”. That should solve a lot of stuff regarding sex...
So how is that not taking rights away?
Brown is a complete idiot.
There is a seriously bright side to this (one that the queers won't recognize). Allow me to elucidate:
Right now, marriages performed in churches or marriages performed by clergy outside of a church setting are recognized by the state and a clergyman can sign the marriage license (at least in most places that I am aware of). That makes the clergyman an agent of the state.
That one fact provides a little crack in the door that the queers could use to take the Church (or some protestant denomination) to court to claim discrimination if the clergy refused to "marry" a homosexual couple. You might say "what about the first amendment?" The way the courts are starting to act, the bill of rights is only applicable if they feel like it.
If there is no legal concept of marriage any more, then the religious sacrament should have no significance in a court of law either way and therefore, you're not infringing upon a queer's rights if you refuse to provide a religious service for them (in accordance with applicable denominational rules).
As Catholics, there won't really be any difference to us one way or the other (in fact, it might be a little less confusing than now, in regards to irregular but valid marriages). The interesting part will be a question about Protestants, since they consider a marriage in front of a JP to be legitimate (as far as I know...correct me if I'm wrong). Will they accept a signed domestic contract in front of a notary public to be the same as marriage?
The bad news is that the queers are doing this to support their agenda. IMHO, there is a seriously silver lining to this dark cloud.
When’s the next edition of the Newspeak dictionary coming out? I like to keep up with the words we’re not allowed to say anymore, like “husband”, “wife”, “marriage”....
Judging by the raw statistics, I’d say that formal lifetime marriage is a dying deal anyway. More than half end in divorce, and a good percentage of the remaining one are less than blissful, according to my personal observations.
It almost takes being a stuntman to want to get married...
Yeah, like all the real married people will go along with this.
"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
Will these damn queers ever stop?
Since marriage is a sacrament of the Church in reality its not the states role to define it anyway.
That has to the the understatement of the century.
These Califags are out of control.