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

To: Def Conservative

I agree with Rick Santorum on the need for a national consensus on what constitutes a “marriage” Yet I recognize we currently have DOMA which would protect Marriage in those States which yet acknowledge the Supreme Power -and the fundamental institution of our society.Those States in rebellion ought be allowed their deceptions within their borders alone. If DOMA were defended as every President is under solemn Oath to preserve,protect, and defend our Laws there ought be no need for yet another law.The problem with the fraud in the Oval Office is Barry Soetoro aka Barak Hussein Obama II has NEVER manifest any intent to honor the Oath —nor to preserve protect and defend the Laws— One cannot defend what one disbelieves. and abhors .which is WHY Obama is by his very nature UNFIT for the Office of the President.


10 posted on 10/17/2011 5:45:44 AM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: StonyBurk

“I agree with Rick Santorum on the need for a national consensus on what constitutes a “marriage.” Yet I recognize we currently have DOMA which would protect Marriage in those States which yet acknowledge the Supreme Power -and the fundamental institution of our society.”


I’d feel a lot safer knowing that we have a FMA, given that the DoMA may not be sufficient to protect us from activist judges and liberal presidents like Obama. Besides, so long as a single state has same-sex “marriage,” it will serve as a weapon for those who seek to destry traditional marriage.


58 posted on 10/18/2011 5:03:51 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

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