"I'm Prince Charles, and I endorse this legislation."
Posted on 10/28/2011 6:55:43 AM PDT by martosko
A bill that would repeal New Hampshire’s 2009 law legalizing same-sex marriage would also allow two citizens of either sex to enter into a civil union — even siblings.
New Hampshire Republican state Rep. David Bates, the sponsor of the bill, confirmed this to The Daily Caller.
Asked about the logic behind allowing siblings to enter into civil unions, Bates responded, “You have that question backwards. By definition in the bill, a ‘civil union’ means a contractual agreement that provides reciprocal benefits and obligations to the parties to the agreement.”
"I'm Prince Charles, and I endorse this legislation."
Talk about pulling back the curtain and letting the sunshine in. This is exactly where this “civil unions” thing was always heading, with children being the final step.
Heard on the Connecticut River:
“Row faster. I hear banjos.”
Ping.
No surprise as this was pretty much the endgame all along.
“Come in, Berlin”
Please define “civil union”. Can’t people already enter into legal contracts, so what does it change?
the world has gone insane
No doubt this liberaltarian wants to marry his son or daughter or both.
Could this open up a massive loophole for inheritance taxes? I could “marry” my son and it all passes tax free. Like Woody Allen? hmmm
Freepmail wagglebee 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 ]
It all depends on the state’s definition of “civil union.” If it is all the same “rights and privileges” of marriage under anther name, then yes, this is a huge mistake.
But I agree, any contrivance that seeks to approximate marriage, even distantly, is a Pandora’s box that will eventually be redefined to counterfeit real marriage. The Republicans are painting themselves into a corner here.
the end of the homosexuals is to be able to molest children.
We now have cross dressers then it will be reduce the age of consent which MA has done
The legal age of consent to sex is 12 in most states.
It is just illegal for anyone over 18 to accept it.
(It was 10 or 12 in most states before 1900 without limits, and marriages were legal with just the father’s permission.)
and how the homo’s would love to have sex with 12 year olds.
I'm for this, as long as the word "marriage" is struck from the law at the same time.
I firmly believe the big fat problem is allowing government into the marriage business in the first place. The proper definition of government and the proper definition of marriage are mutually exclusive - i.e. it's none of the government's damn business.
Whenever a marriage is questioned, it should be by asking in what church or spiritual tradition the marriage was created, and that will tell all that needs to be known about the significance of any particular marriage, for those inclined to judge it.
“Oh, it’ll never go there, you’re exaggerating.”
I’d like some sources to your assertion that the age of consent was 10 to 12 in most states before 1900. And by consent, do you mean illicit sex or only marriage?
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.