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

Skip to comments.

5 years on, gay marriage debate fades in Massachusetts
AP ^ | 5.09.09 | David Crary

Posted on 05/09/2009 1:04:15 PM PDT by libh8er

WHITINSVILLE, Mass., – Twenty years after he met the love of his life, nearly five years after their wedding helped make history, it took a nasty bout of pneumonia for Gary Chalmers to fully appreciate the blessings of marriage.

"I was out of work for eight weeks, spent a week in the hospital," Chalmers said. "That was the first time I really felt thankful for the sense of the security we had, with Rich there, talking with the physicians, helping make decisions. ... It really made a difference."

At stake was the most basic recognition of marital bonds — something most spouses take for granted. But until May 17, 2004, when Chalmers and Richard Linnell were among a surge of same-sex couples marrying in Massachusetts, it was legally unavailable to American gays and lesbians.

Since that day, four other states — Connecticut in 2008, and Iowa, Vermont and Maine this year — have legalized same-sex marriage, and more may follow soon. A measure just approved by New Hampshire's legislature awaits the governor's decision on whether to sign. But Massachusetts was the first, providing a five-year record with which to gauge the consequences.

At the time of those first weddings, the debate was red-hot — protests were frequent, expectations ran high that legislators would allow a referendum on whether to overturn the court ruling ordering same-sex marriage. Now, although Roman Catholic leaders and some conservative activists remain vocally opposed, there is overwhelming political support for same-sex marriage and no prospect for a referendum.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: antibiblicalmarriage; disorderedsexuality; gaystapo; homobama; homonaziagenda; homosexualagenda; homosexualist; homosexualistagenda; perverts; religiouspersecution; rino; romney; romneymarriage; samesexmarriage; sodomy; ssadisorder; unbiblicalmarriage

1 posted on 05/09/2009 1:04:16 PM PDT by libh8er
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: libh8er
Steaming pile Asspress alert. “We won. We won. Nyah nyah.” See you in Hell, Asspress.
2 posted on 05/09/2009 1:06:42 PM PDT by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: libh8er
BS, all of it. The only thing that has been achieved in MA is the banning of free speech, freedom of association, well the entire first amendment. All in the name of their coveted “diversity”. MA wants diversity in morals, ethics, character, judgment, behavior, everything.
4 posted on 05/09/2009 1:09:44 PM PDT by gidget7 (Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libh8er
there is overwhelming political support for same-sex marriage and no prospect for a referendum.

If there is such an "overwhelming political support" for an issue, why would not politicians allow referendum?

5 posted on 05/09/2009 1:16:23 PM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libh8er

An Advanced Medical Directive would have been all that was needed.


6 posted on 05/09/2009 1:21:07 PM PDT by SubMareener (Become a monthly donor! Free FreeRepublic.com from Quarterly FReepathons!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy

For only 2% of the population??/ That’s BS. Must be at least 20% in the closet.


7 posted on 05/09/2009 1:22:27 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Luke21
Steaming pile Asspress alert. “We won. We won. Nyah nyah.” See you in Hell, Asspress.

You stole my rant. Amen.

8 posted on 05/09/2009 1:25:38 PM PDT by FormerACLUmember (Chains you can believe in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: libh8er

Romney’s gay marriage imposition has removed the vote.


9 posted on 05/09/2009 1:25:47 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libh8er

I’m all about freedom and liberty...but dang this makes me feel all yucky..I think I need to go take a shower now.

I have no problem with what two consenting adults do behind closed doors, but I do have a problem when they try to “mainstream” the behavior and make it appear normal.

They can have their “civil unions” but damnit MARRIAGE is supposed to be a contract between a man and a woman, who pledge their lives together with the sole purpose of eventually producing children, in order to further the human race.

It’s physically impossible for gays to do this, therefor it is NOT natural or normal. Two men scroggin’ will NEVER have the potential to produce another life. The only way they can ever have kids is if they compete with truly INFERTILE hetero couples(who are infertile through no fault of their own) to adopt a child or if they dupe some lesbians into having a kid for them. I understand they may need certain legal protections that a civil union may afford them, but dang they don’t need to elevate that deviant behavior to MARRIAGE status.

Iccckkk


10 posted on 05/09/2009 1:28:14 PM PDT by FLDemocracker (Those who beat their guns into plows, will plow for those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libh8er

“it was legally unavailable to American gays and lesbians. “

Unless they filed the paperwork with the hospital. That would require a plan, responsibility, and would never make a headline.

“Gay Partner Allowed To Visit Lover Because They Filed Limited Power Of Attorney Paper”

Sub: “Makes legal medical decisions to help lifelong friend”


11 posted on 05/09/2009 1:29:55 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libh8er
"I was out of work for eight weeks, spent a week in the hospital," Chalmers said. "That was the first time I really felt thankful for the sense of the security we had, with Rich there, talking with the physicians, helping make decisions. ... It really made a difference."

"At stake was the most basic recognition of marital bonds — something most spouses take for granted. But until May 17, 2004, when Chalmers and Richard Linnell were among a surge of same-sex couples marrying in Massachusetts, it was legally unavailable to American gays and lesbians.

That is a straightforward lie (no pun intended).

An appropriately written, duly signed and notarized "Durable Power of Attorney", by ANY ONE, designating ANY ONE as a "person of interest" in their medical decisions IS legal authority enough for someone so designated to have "visiting" privileges equal to a spouse, or 1st-order family members, in any medical facility. Hospitals know this because they have challenged them and lost.

That same "Durable Power of Attorney" can designate ANY ONE as THE person to make the medical decisions for the patient should the patient become incapable of doing so on their own. Properly established these documents TRUMP even meddling "family members".

Similar remedies in wills, estates, property titles, "living wills" and "family trusts" CAN and DO secure joint or shared financial interests for ANY persons for whom such documents establish those interests.

Even "pension" and "insurance" beneficiary concerns do not REQUIRE any state or federal law, only the decision of the pension or insurance outfit to provide for them in cases of unmarried individuals. Matter of fact, without any state or federal mandate, more and more private plans have, on their own, expanded their terms for eligible beneficiary for their policies.

People demanding 'change' actually have better possibilities for results under freedom and liberty than they do under the sword of government.

12 posted on 05/09/2009 1:32:43 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libh8er
Poll after poll here in the Gay State indicate that homosexual “marriage” would lose convincingly if it were put on the ballot.That's why the perv lobby here have fought so hard to deny voters the right to have their say.I'd be willing to wager that there's not a single state in the country where homosexual “marriage” could win if it was put on the ballot.
13 posted on 05/09/2009 1:37:16 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Christian+Veteran=Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libh8er
This is precisely why they lobbied State legislators to keep citizens from voting on the matter in a State referendum. They were hoping folks would just start thinking, well it's not going to affect me or my family, so why NOT let them get married? That's what the homosexual activists HOPE is happening, but I'm not so sure.

The activists got started pushing their agenda in the schools right after the ruling, and some parents who hadn't really given the matter any thought, were suddenly confronted by it, and they weren't thrilled. I guess it remains to be seen if we'll ever get to vote on the matter.

14 posted on 05/09/2009 1:54:05 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

<“Gay Partner Allowed To Visit Lover Because They Filed Limited Power Of Attorney Paper”

Absolutely. My great-aunt and her partner were together for over 50 years until my great-aunt’s death. They had legal arrangements for everything they needed. At no point during my great-aunt’s struggle with Alzheimer’s was her partner denied anything having to do with her health care, finances, etc.

I admit, I never asked them whether they would prefer to be legally married, but they lived their lives and took care of each other using the same laws that are available to all of us.


15 posted on 05/09/2009 1:55:29 PM PDT by radiohead (Buy ammo, get your kids out of government schools, pray for the Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: libh8er

“I was out of work for eight weeks, spent a week in the hospital,” Chalmers said. “That was the first time I really felt thankful for the sense of the security we had, with Rich there, talking with the physicians, helping make decisions. ... It really made a difference.”

I actually blame the hospitals for civil unions and marriages. If they would not have draconian rules about the “only family members”. And allow for friends who some people love more than family...lol. This entire marriage/civil union thing would not even be an issue.


16 posted on 05/09/2009 1:57:15 PM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libh8er
"I was out of work for eight weeks, spent a week in the hospital," Chalmers said. "That was the first time I really felt thankful for the sense of the security we had, with Rich there, talking with the physicians, helping make decisions. ... It really made a difference."

I say bullsh*t. When I went into the hospital to have both my kids, I had to sign a Power of Attorney designating someone to make decisions for me if I couldn't. That's all it would take for gays. If a hospital refused, can you just imagine the lawsuits??
17 posted on 05/09/2009 2:03:12 PM PDT by ChocChipCookie (Earth: It's not your mother, it's just a big rock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libh8er

Funny part of all this (and a true one) is that the “gays” are now seeking to allow monogamy to go the way of the dodo bird...
Gays and leftoids have designed a carefully planned agenda and are succeeding in their quest for multiple “partnerships” or whatever the Muslims call having many spouses all at once. Drip, drip, drip, the perverts are slowly chipping away at morality and what is left of America’s values. Sad but inevitable with Obama in the Whitehouse and the communists in Congress.


18 posted on 05/09/2009 2:09:15 PM PDT by Rockiette (Democrats are not intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener
Paperwork to make any person in charge of one's medical care, finances, inheritance, etc. can be drawn up at any time by a lawyer. You don't need marriage for that.

But we knew all along that that was a bullshit argument.

19 posted on 05/09/2009 2:12:59 PM PDT by Lizavetta (Politicians: When they're not lying, they're stealing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

Had nothing to do with Romney, only a fool would think so.


20 posted on 05/09/2009 2:31:44 PM PDT by Sparky1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta

I still believe the government should be out of the marriage business. Most gays I know/work with either become quiet or explode with rage when I state that opinion. Strangely alot of conservatives also become angry.......


21 posted on 05/09/2009 2:34:24 PM PDT by yadent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: libh8er

This story is a BIG LIE. The people of Massachusetts are still angry about this. There is a huge organization, Mass Resistance, that continues to fight against the intrusion of radical homoseuxal propaganda into every facet of life, especially indoctrination in public schools.


22 posted on 05/09/2009 2:34:36 PM PDT by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yadent

“I still believe the government should be out of the marriage business. Most gays I know/work with either become quiet or explode with rage when I state that opinion.”

Perhaps because many(not necessarily all, but many) of them have come to love the idea of the state being used to persecute those who disagree with them on this issue. If they were really “live and let livers” they wouldn’t care in the slightest whether anyone else approved of their relationships or not. But many don’t like how others’ disapproval of their lifestyle and actions hurts their consciences hence they want the state to punish dissenters in an effort to make them feel better about themselves. It’s no coincidence that many homosexual persons love fascism and communism.


23 posted on 05/09/2009 2:54:55 PM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776
Gay marriage in Massachusetts had EVERYTHING to do with Mitt Romney
and his usurpation of the Mass. Constitution (carpetbagger and backstabber that he is).

"Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage"
"What he (Governor/Dictator Mitt Romney) did was exercise illegal legislative authority'

"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.

Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."

24 posted on 05/09/2009 3:19:06 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy

Exactly! I hate factual errors in news stories. The facts are that Mass. voters collected a record number of signatures to put this issue on the ballot for the voters to decide. Under Mass. law, the legislature also must vote to put a proposed initiative on the ballot. The Mass. legislature adjourned so as to kill the consideration of this measure. There is strong support to put it on the ballot and vote. But political manuvering killed the chance for the people to have their say.


25 posted on 05/09/2009 3:24:48 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rockiette

Good point. The end game for the gay activists is to have legalized group marriage, any number of partners, any sex of partners.

Their goal was to first get the concept of same-sex marriage established in the law. Then, once that concept is established, they plan to move on to legalized polygamy/polyamory. Once the sex barrier in marriage is destroyed, the next barrier to be destroyed is the concept of monogamy.

And the gays will have useful idiots in the MSM, Hollywood, and the underground polygamists. The polygamists would like legal status for their marriages too.


26 posted on 05/09/2009 3:28:38 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: libh8er

Please post these with a barf alert.


27 posted on 05/09/2009 3:43:50 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libh8er

Want to know why the “mainstream” press is dead? Unpaid infomercials like this one, courtesy of AP.


28 posted on 05/09/2009 5:03:49 PM PDT by madprof98 ("moritur et ridet" - salvianus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

As I said, only a fool would think so. You’re obviously not from Massachusetts.


29 posted on 05/09/2009 6:10:45 PM PDT by Sparky1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776

Obviously, English is not your first language or you
are part of Team Romney.

Read the urls. Romney forced the issue which was
against the Constitution (which is why the Clerks protested).

How are things in NH and La Jolla, Mitt?


30 posted on 05/09/2009 7:30:58 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

It’s not that I’m part of “Team Romney” it is that I can spot a smear merchant a mile away. Since I live here, and am one of a few registered Republicans in the Commonwealth I don’t need to click on your URLs, I lived through it and was called a homophobe for several years, even had my car tagged. And I know Romney opposed it.

The entire Congressional Delegation is Democrat, the SJC enacted same sex marriage and WAS NOT about to reverse itself, the Republicans back then were outgunned 34 to 6 in the Mass Senate, 139 to 21 in the House. It is even worse now.

The independently elected Attorney General (hence not under any Governor’s control), a Democrat, was in FAVOR of same sex marriage. He wasn’t going to fight it.

Even an IDIOT can see Romney, Reagan, Jesus Christ himself, would had no power under the US Constitution nor under the more liberal Mass State Constitution to stop same sex marriage in Massachusetts.

Deal with it, and stop the smearing.


31 posted on 05/09/2009 8:18:06 PM PDT by Sparky1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776; Leisler; greyfoxx39; Tennessee Nana; EternalVigilance; Reagan Man; Elsie; ...
Listen, FRiend. You are a part of Team Romney.

It is not a "smear" to post the FACT that Romney usurp the Mass. Constitution, and that NOTHING would HAVE happened except for Romney (your friend, apparently).

Read this, and admit it. Or we will deal with the fact that you are a functional RomneyBOT.

"Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage"
"What he (Governor/Dictator Mitt Romney) did was exercise illegal legislative authority'

"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.

Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."

32 posted on 05/10/2009 3:45:03 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
"Titus said it would have been good to see what would have happened if Romney had defied the court's opinion. "

There is a strong passivity about Mitt, vis a vis rugged politics. He bailed out on investigating his Utah friends in Olympic corruption. He showed no interest in the Bid Dig corruption until someone got killed. He wouldn't reach out to local Republicans or conservative Democrats and get them Judgeships, he presided over the last rights of the state GOP and seems to be sucking the last bit out of the national GOP, and as you point out in the FAGOO marriage circus, he in John Kerry fashion was for it before he was against it. He is a desperate, sad man, typical of too many of those obsessed with office winning.

33 posted on 05/10/2009 4:47:40 AM PDT by Leisler ("It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged."~G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JackRyanCIA

This already is drinking demon blood.


34 posted on 05/10/2009 6:15:10 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: libh8er
5 years on, gay marriage debate fades in Massachusetts
 
 
HALLELUJAH!!!  Our prayers are being answered!!


 
 
 

 
 
Do not be deceived!
 
Do not be deceived!
 
Do not be deceived!
 
Do not be deceived!
 
 
Do not be deceived!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 Corinthians 6:9   
 
  Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
 
 
 

 
 
 
 There are 'churches' (spit) that say, "It's ok...."    They are LYING!!!!

35 posted on 05/10/2009 12:50:15 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta
It may indeed be a bullshit argument, but this is a very newsworthy article. It features two homosexual men who married 5 years ago, and are still together. Amazing!
36 posted on 05/10/2009 9:23:20 PM PDT by BlackVeil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

yes, let the court order the troops to enforce the law. Where was Mitt’s effort to impeach one judge? I think he thought it was a laughable idea. Mitt: Leadership for the Future! right.


37 posted on 05/28/2009 9:42:49 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT

He had the authority, and he didn’t, not once, nominate his own person for judgeship. I mean, what’s up with that?

He couldn’t care less. It was a bother. From the beginning being Governor was just a doormat to step on into the White House.

He’s really really lying to us now, saying he’s a conservative. He isn’t. What he is, is unprincipled ambition, and no thanks, Washington is full up of unprincipled ambition.


38 posted on 05/29/2009 3:34:54 AM PDT by Leisler ("It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged."~G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: libh8er

AP propaganda in order to push the “indoctrination” aspects.

This AP story is a search engine fodder in order to give students something to find when those students write on assignments.

The debate is not dead, the PUBLIC at large rejects homosexual based marriage, the paid for politicians simply rigged the game to deny representation.


39 posted on 05/29/2009 3:42:19 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

thre rules are not draconian. They keep out the opportunists and thieves. If anybody wants to have their friend (or whatever) have access to their medical records/hospital stay a simple one page permission can do it.

The “security” claim is 100% BS from this AP propaganda story. This is not reporting this is big lie Goebles in action.


40 posted on 05/29/2009 3:48:36 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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