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

Skip to comments.

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
Newsweek ^ | January 09, 2010 | Ted Olsen

Posted on 08/19/2010 6:18:04 AM PDT by throwback

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-447 next last
To: sickoflibs

I desire to marry my pet porcupine, but even my closest friends warn me it is a prickly situation....


51 posted on 08/19/2010 7:10:02 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (.Go troops! " Vote out RINOS. They screw you EVERY time" Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Olson’s a lawyer and has litigated many cases so he must know that the opposition is hardly ‘knee-jerk’ (his words). But use of that term is common when people are attempting to dismiss the mountains of evidence that damn their own case.


52 posted on 08/19/2010 7:10:24 AM PDT by relictele (Me lumen vos umbra regit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty

In the eyes of the law god has nothing to do with marriage.

by you out of government red hering:

brothers and sisters can marry
blood relatives can marry

children are all defacto wards are the state.

thanks for buy the ABA homo-con.


53 posted on 08/19/2010 7:11:24 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: relictele

Sowell calls such tactics “arguing without arguments”.

It’s much easier to dismiss your opponent or his argument
than to actually address it and refute it.


54 posted on 08/19/2010 7:12:59 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: relictele

The government should get out of the marriage business, its true. Marriage should be returned to the religious rite or sacrament it was meant to be (apart from a financial transaction which it became). Domestic Partnership Contracts between two consenting adults should be available from the state to any one or all domestic union contracts discontinued and alternative waivers and releases built to accomodate health decisions and inheritence.

As for the turncoat line, that was pretty lame. Ted Olson made a good and solid argument which you reduced to more knee jerk dismissal. I liked Olson when he represented President Bush in 2000. I like him more for standing up for his convictions, representing people who need fair and honest representation and for speaking the truth as he sees it. In the end, Olson will be remembered as perhaps one of the strongest attorneys this nation has ever produced. He ought to get a statue one day for the work he has done (or at least a law school somewhere, named after him).


55 posted on 08/19/2010 7:13:16 AM PDT by johnnycap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3

“what God has joined, let no man separate thingy applies... “

Always.


56 posted on 08/19/2010 7:13:54 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (.Go troops! " Vote out RINOS. They screw you EVERY time" Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Adams

Yep let’s march out the red herrings of polygamy and pedophilia. Wouldn’t be an intelligent discussion without doing that now would it?


57 posted on 08/19/2010 7:14:32 AM PDT by johnnycap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Adams

Yep let’s march out the red herrings of polygamy and pedophilia. Wouldn’t be an intelligent discussion without doing that now would it?


58 posted on 08/19/2010 7:14:41 AM PDT by johnnycap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Adams

Yep let’s march out the red herrings of polygamy and pedophilia. Wouldn’t be an intelligent discussion without doing that now would it?


59 posted on 08/19/2010 7:14:42 AM PDT by johnnycap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

“Government out of marriage is the goal of the left and a specific goal of the homosexuals”

The homosexualists certainly love that gov’t is involved, otherwise there would be no weapon or punishment to use against regular folks who know that “gay marriage” is an impossibility. The homosexualists love that the state has conditioned many folks to think that marriage is defined and derived from the gubberment.

Freegards


60 posted on 08/19/2010 7:16:15 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: detective

“No successful civilization in the history of the world has endorsed homosexuality.” -2010

“No successful civilization in the history of the world has endorsed the concept of a round earth.” -1491


61 posted on 08/19/2010 7:16:54 AM PDT by johnnycap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: johnnycap
Domestic Partnership Contracts between two consenting adults should be available from the state to any one or all domestic union contracts discontinued and alternative waivers and releases built to accomodate health decisions and inheritence.

Ever hear the story The Camel's Nose? There are already Power of Attorney, Wills etc to handle this. Giving them the perks of marriage without the name is caving in to the idea of "rights" for a perverted behavior

62 posted on 08/19/2010 7:16:59 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: johnnycap

They are also perversions that will demand rights after having been emboldened by a win of other rights for aberrant behavior.


63 posted on 08/19/2010 7:19:00 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

“Government is in the recording inheritance and property rights business.

No government in marriage then you can never inherit anything since lineage can never be legally established via legitimacy.”

That’s nonsensical. Probate and contracts courts could handle all of that just fine and probably with no staff changes at all.


64 posted on 08/19/2010 7:19:23 AM PDT by johnnycap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

Marriage was established by common law going back millenia. This is why normal marriage has broad protection.

civil unions are a legislative construct and thus can be ignored in other states or your state.

The legal effort is to go into the “right” area to mooch onto the common law proction of the law.

If you only use religion as your argument, you will lose before a liberal judge who regularly attends ABA meetings.


65 posted on 08/19/2010 7:19:49 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: johnnycap

Rome was a Republic that fell because aberrant behavior became the norm. It thrust the world into the Dark Ages for 1000 years. Wanna do it again?


66 posted on 08/19/2010 7:20:23 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: johnnycap

tenants by the entireties
widow/widowers share
and on and on


67 posted on 08/19/2010 7:21:05 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: johnnycap
As for the turncoat line, that was pretty lame. Ted Olson made a good and solid argument which you reduced to more knee jerk dismissal.

Not quite. Olson was dismissing the traditional marriage argument and its proponents as knee-jerk. I was simply pointing out that Olson seems to have abandoned the conservative side on this particular case which makes him, in my opinion, a turncoat. The content or length of his argument is irrelevant to that description.

68 posted on 08/19/2010 7:21:28 AM PDT by relictele (Me lumen vos umbra regit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

If marriage is so damned sacred then how come more than half of them are trashed and burned by the very people who held them up as such a big deal on the day they got those six toasters and wore those beautiful clothes?

What a bunch of hog wash.


69 posted on 08/19/2010 7:22:36 AM PDT by johnnycap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

“I desire to marry my pet porcupine, but even my closest friends warn me it is a prickly situation....”

Very funny. However, the porcupine is not capable of true reason and therefore cannot make an informed decision. This is plainly clear because if the porcupine could, he (or she) would certainly not marry someone so obviously sophomoric.


70 posted on 08/19/2010 7:25:30 AM PDT by johnnycap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: johnnycap
If marriage is so damned sacred then how come more than half of them are trashed and burned by the very people who held them up as such a big deal on the day they got those six toasters and wore those beautiful clothes?

That is due to a lack of morality. Allowing more immorality will make things better? No.

71 posted on 08/19/2010 7:25:36 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: MrB

I guess Ted doesn’t understand that gay people CAN get married to any person of the opposite sex that they wish, just like everybody else. It is the definition of marriage.

For comparison let’s say we are talking about buying property and a group comes along who looks at women as “property” in their particular belief system or culture and we say NO you may not buy women. The right to purchase property and enter into legal contract to do so does not mean you can buy and sell humans. It just is not defined that way. That person is not being denied the right to buy property or being discriminated against. They are simply being denied the right to put their own definition on our cultural values and history.

PLUS even if we grant all the points he makes, it is still abhorent to have courts simply wave a magic wand and change the consensus of a society against the prevailing standards.


72 posted on 08/19/2010 7:26:22 AM PDT by Anima Mundi (If you try to fail and you succeed, what have you just done?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Adams

Olson should also write: The Conservative Case for bestiality, The Conservative Case for Socialism, The Conservative Case for Gun Control, The Conservative Case for the destruction of the home, The Conservative Case for increased taxation, The Conservative Case for massive governmental regulation................


73 posted on 08/19/2010 7:26:43 AM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Adams

Olson should also write: The Conservative Case for bestiality, The Conservative Case for Socialism, The Conservative Case for Gun Control, The Conservative Case for the destruction of the home, The Conservative Case for increased taxation, The Conservative Case for massive governmental regulation................


74 posted on 08/19/2010 7:26:53 AM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

I know the gubberment is never going to get its beak out of marriage, to that institution’s detriment. It has been awful for marriage, at least in modern times.

Marriage isn’t defined by the state in my faith. It’s just a shame that the gubberment has the power to punish if you don’t agree with their bizarre definitions of marriage.

Freegards


75 posted on 08/19/2010 7:27:44 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: johnnycap; Jim Robinson
A message from the owner of FR.

Jim Robinson Post 93

FR is a conservative site. We do not appreciate our members fighting against us on our conservative values and issues. If you wish to support homosexual marriage or homosexuals in the military or hate crimes against us for speaking out against government promotion of homosexuality that’s your business, but you’d better do it somewhere else and not on FR. If you value your posting privileges, that is. FR is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-military, pro-traditional American conservatism and it is a privilege to post here. Those who support the godless liberal/Marxist destruction of our free society and our country are free to exercise their free speech rights elsewhere. I won’t stand in your way.

76 posted on 08/19/2010 7:28:18 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Anima Mundi

That is one of the biggest deceptive tactics that the left uses -

they use the same terms but put different definitions on them.


77 posted on 08/19/2010 7:28:41 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: DManA
I don't get it? Is Ted Olson another James Carville.....married to a conservative woman but not in the slightest bit conservative himself?
78 posted on 08/19/2010 7:30:10 AM PDT by CAluvdubya ("Sarah Palin fights, we cannot spare her."--GonzoGOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: detective

I don’t think a Biblical argument is neccessarily a good argument when it comes to constitutional rights. A better argument is the one Michael Medved uses which is the fact that homosexuals aren’t barred from getting married whatsoever. They may marry one person of the opposite sex who is of age, just like anyone else can. The real question is where we draw the line of regulating marriage. Homosexuals seek to draw it in a different place, problem is if we do that, where does it stop. Even their own “marriages” will become meaningless at some point.


79 posted on 08/19/2010 7:30:14 AM PDT by ShandaLear (The price of Obamacare? 30 pieces of silver.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

“Ever hear the story The Camel’s Nose? There are already Power of Attorney, Wills etc to handle this. Giving them the perks of marriage without the name is caving in to the idea of “rights” for a perverted behavior.”

Then take it away from everybody (period). Use probate for your inheritence and wills and contracts. Have your little religious ceremony in your little Baptist Chapel or have your big religious ceremony in your big Catholic Cathedral but strike marriage from the governmental roster. Let it be like Confirmations or Bar Mitzvahs. But don’t use it to create your perception of a “more legitimate social class” because really what you are doing is the moral equivalent of latter day slave holders.

And to think that suposedly good christian men and women were making the same lame arguments for keeping fellow human beings in chains, just 150 years ago in your neighborhood.


80 posted on 08/19/2010 7:30:47 AM PDT by johnnycap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

“They are also perversions that will demand rights after having been emboldened by a win of other rights for aberrant behavior.”

-Just like upity blacks if we give them their freedom...next they’ll want to learn to read, then vote, then own businesses...where will it end? (sarc)


81 posted on 08/19/2010 7:32:12 AM PDT by johnnycap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

“Rome was a Republic that fell because aberrant behavior became the norm. It thrust the world into the Dark Ages for 1000 years. Wanna do it again?”

Hmmm. You summed that up nicely...you forgot that good christians with many of your views actually became the civil order during that 1000 years where we lived in the dark...sounds like we might have a fair shot of reapeating those 1000 years with whomever gets the upper hand in this argument.


82 posted on 08/19/2010 7:34:38 AM PDT by johnnycap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: paulycy
Well, you have a problem as the United States Government and state governments have been involved in Marriage for several decades.

And rightfully, so, as they recognized that marriage, as ordained by God, is fundamental for the perpetuation for a civilized society.

83 posted on 08/19/2010 7:34:57 AM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: throwback
"because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize."

What an absurd statement. Moral relativism like this is why the GOP is dying.

If you don't stand up for something you'll fall for anything; Exhibit A.

84 posted on 08/19/2010 7:35:39 AM PDT by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnnycap

We don’t want a repeat of the Dark Ages just so deviants can feel good about themselves and force others to accept them. Thanks.


85 posted on 08/19/2010 7:36:25 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: johnnycap
-Just like upity blacks if we give them their freedom...next they’ll want to learn to read, then vote, then own businesses...where will it end? (sarc)

That argument doesn't work. We are talking about a BEHAVIOR.

86 posted on 08/19/2010 7:37:32 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: johnnycap
And to think that suposedly good christian men and women were making the same lame arguments for keeping fellow human beings in chains, just 150 years ago in your neighborhood.

This is right out of the "Gay Rights" handbook. Quit pushing the gay crap. It WILL get you banned.

They were NOT born homosexual. It is a behavior.

87 posted on 08/19/2010 7:40:21 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker; sickoflibs; NFHale; hiredhand; Liz
yep, the knee jerk accusations are usually made because humans dont want to acknowledge the SIN involved in their actions...I dont demand that anyone toe the line for my theology [unlike muzzies] but the institution of marriage predates our society, as does 'divorce'...

any tinkering with it by man is simply for greed, or to attempt to avoid repentence for their own past & current sexual indiscretions...

today i know that I broke the rules given to me in Spirit, and accept that, because Im an imperfect human, and allow God to repair that damage according to HIS WILL and Plans for the ages...

the folly of man knows no bounds...

88 posted on 08/19/2010 7:41:41 AM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: relictele

I believe Olson is a conservative in his tight interpretation of the original intent of the constitutional and declarational goal of this nation, that all men (and by extension, women)are created equal. I believe Olson makes a solid reasoning for how denial of government sanctioned opportunities and advantages (and disadvantages as in the marriage tax), ought not be denied to one group of people versus another because of how they self identify.

To use situational ethics to overcome the clearest and strongest tenant of the central faith of our great republic reduces us to the civic equivalent of “cafeteria Catholics” picking and choosing which things we truly believe in and rationalizing away which are unsavory to us. It produces things like 1/8 human, or Octaroons or people as chattel or separate but equal...all used by occupants of a particular era to cocoon themselves in denial, deprive their neighbors of dignity and hide their faces from universal truth. Lincoln said it, Olson repeated it and it deserves to be shouted loud enough to echo through history:

IT WILL NOT STAND! IT WILL NOT STAND!

We all had better get used to it.

Denying rights to individuals we deem somehow less than ourselves will not stand.


89 posted on 08/19/2010 7:41:56 AM PDT by johnnycap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: johnnycap
““No successful civilization in the history of the world has endorsed the concept of a round earth.” -1491”

Your statement is not correct. Many early civilizations thought the world was round. In fact, in 1491 most scientists thought the world was round. Columbus thought the world was much smaller than it actually was and thought by sailing west he could reach the East Indies. His opponents argued the world was round but much larger than Columbus thought and that a voyage to the East Indies would be too far to undertake.

Your larger point that homosexuality is in some way new and innovative is also false. Homosexuality is as old as Sodom and Gomorrah. It has been widespread in the declining days of the Roman Empire and was widely accepted in modern societies such as Germany in the 1930’s. The Brownshirts were a homosexual organization and many of the top National Socialists were homosexuals.

90 posted on 08/19/2010 7:42:38 AM PDT by detective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

“Allowing more immorality will make things better? No.”

-Then set your energies to putting your own house in order before you start after the house across the street. You collectively have made a mockery of the sacrament of marriage and now you come before us to defend it. You collectively should all be ashamed of yourselves.


91 posted on 08/19/2010 7:43:40 AM PDT by johnnycap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
"Government out of marriage is the goal of the left and a specific goal of the homosexuals."

Hardly, since they are using the government's involvement to legitimize their claims. They want government involved to ensure their claims are honored as legal.

When government can define through the force of law what marriage (or any sacred institution) is, that institution has lost its sanctity. Even captains at sea still use bibles to perform marriage and funeral services.

92 posted on 08/19/2010 7:44:54 AM PDT by ronnyquest (There's a communist living in the White House! Now, what are you going to do about it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: johnnycap
If marriage is so damned sacred then how come more than half of them are trashed and burned by the very people who held them up as such a big deal on the day they got those six toasters and wore those beautiful clothes?

so the other half that succeed can appreciate the Blessing ???

93 posted on 08/19/2010 7:45:48 AM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: johnnycap
If you detest Christianity, upon which much of Western Conservative thought is based, and celebrate homosexuality, which for hundreds of years was abhorred by Western Civilization and criminalized by several states, why are you on a Conservative forum?

Your beliefs are leftist progressive.

94 posted on 08/19/2010 7:46:15 AM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: johnnycap
-Then set your energies to putting your own house in order before you start after the house across the street. You collectively have made a mockery of the sacrament of marriage and now you come before us to defend it. You collectively should all be ashamed of yourselves.

So you are pushing the homosexual agenda. Btw, I have been married for forty years. We still hold hands.

95 posted on 08/19/2010 7:47:25 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: johnnycap

‘Denying rights’ is #1 on the pro-gay-marriage hit parade.

‘Deny’ means that something is being withheld or revoked.

‘Rights’ are, of course, those inalienable (?) things we spend so much time on here and elsewhere. The Constitution and Bill of Rights enumerate some of them but they are far from an all-inclusive list.

This is why the definition of marriage is the crucial item. Playing the game of what is a right and what isn’t and who is being denied and who isn’t does not lead to a binary decision on what constitutes marriage which is the crux of the issue. If we define marriage as being between one man and one woman then nothing is being denied and no rights are being infringed because ‘gay marriage’ in theory and in practice cannot and does not exist.


96 posted on 08/19/2010 7:49:29 AM PDT by relictele (Me lumen vos umbra regit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: relictele

bfl


97 posted on 08/19/2010 7:50:06 AM PDT by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: johnnycap
This is the crap that you are pushing as normal and moral.

Folsom Street Fair

98 posted on 08/19/2010 7:54:22 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: johnnycap
Without taking the time to critique other dogmatic assumptions in your post I will deal with one big assumption you make.

You are trying to make a case that because someone thought their religious views justified thinking blacks are lesser humans by birth, (the Bible says all men are of one blood and does not mention the word race), that the norming of homosexuality and the redefinition of marriage is justified.

If you want to redefine marriage as not between a man and a woman, but between 'two individuals', then I would like to know why you would not approve of the marriage between 4 individuals or between a baker's dozen of enlightened individuals?

Even you would draw the line somewhere I assume?

Please don't be shallow in your explanation, and don't be a hypocrite who is wanting to create the perception that fifteen people who want to get married as one cluster and demand moral justification are a 'less legitimate social class'.

99 posted on 08/19/2010 7:55:22 AM PDT by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Jim,

If you are serious, if you do not want open discourse, if you only want us to pat each other on the back and tell us we are right and the rest of the world is stupid, then close down all the dissenters.

You are free to block my posting privileges. But then, what kind of a forum do you really have? I have been here under two names. I first came to your sight for the truth about what was happening with this young woman at the White House, Ms. Monica Lewinsky. I have been here under one of those two names ever since. I came here for the truth.

There are always three sides to the truth: your version, my version and the actual truth which lies somewhere in between. If you believe that eliminating one of those sides improves our chances at finding truth, then shut me down. However, while I am a strict Roman Catholic and believe in the sanctity of marriage, I do not believe we garner a deeper understanding of what that really means by closing down the opinions of those who disagree with us. Nor do I believe that denying others their dignity and rights under the spirit of the constitution is the root to a stronger celebration of that Holy Sacrament.

As an American, I too believe that individuals should prosper from their inginuity and imagination but not on the sweat and backs of the enslaved. Our deep held convictions do not become hardened through denial of rights or opinions. To love marriage and to love equality are not mutually exclusive and only by spirited discussion will we ever arrive at an accomodation of both (the truth). If you wish to sensor me out of a true discourse, by all means do so. I would gladly become an internet martyr and a minor patriot for this endeavor for I truly believe that without free speech there is no Free Republic anyway.


100 posted on 08/19/2010 7:55:32 AM PDT by johnnycap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-447 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