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

Skip to comments.

True ZOT, For All Americans
New York Times ^ | 11-3-11 | Andrew Rosenthal

Posted on 11/04/2011 10:55:20 AM PDT by merryandrew

It has been 47 years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and 46 years since the passage of the Voting Rights Act. And yet the political leaders of this nation of liberty cannot seem to muster the courage and principle to sweep away one remaining example of institutionalized, government-sanctioned discrimination: The 1996 law that denies the right of marriage to same-sex couples.

The law, the Defense of Marriage Act, was passed in the heat of election-year fear and bigotry against men who want to marry other men, and women who want to marry other women.

It was a bipartisan act of cruelty, sponsored initially by Republicans but passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. It was then, and still is, unconstitutional, because it violates the principles of federalism by allowing states to refuse to recognize marriages performed in other states and because it is blatantly discriminatory....

(Excerpt) Read more at loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: analsex; analsexadvocate; civilrights; doma; equality; fecalsex; fecalsexadvocate; gaymarriage; gomorrah; homonazi; homonaziagenda; homonazis; homonazism; homosexualagenda; homosexualism; indiscriminate; newyorkslimes; nyslimes; pederast; pederastagenda; pederasts; pederasty; perversion; pervert; retread; sexualanarchy; sexualchaos; sexualperversion; sexualpervert; sliming4perversion; sodom; sodomy; troll; undiscerning; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

1 posted on 11/04/2011 10:55:26 AM PDT by merryandrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: merryandrew
because it violates the principles of federalism . . .

They're going to start fretting about this "federalism" bullsh*t now?

2 posted on 11/04/2011 10:58:31 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew; 50mm; darkwing104; Old Sarge
I love the smell of ozone in the afternoon!

Lamh Foistenach Abu!
3 posted on 11/04/2011 10:59:42 AM PDT by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 - St. Michael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew

Gay Marriage is not a civil rights issue.


4 posted on 11/04/2011 10:59:55 AM PDT by Tzimisce (Never forget that the American Revolution began when the British tried to disarm the colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew

One of the Communist Party planks is to break down the American Family.


5 posted on 11/04/2011 10:59:59 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost

Neither party pays much attention to federalism, really....


6 posted on 11/04/2011 11:02:13 AM PDT by merryandrew (They never polled ME....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew
This is the same New York Times that editorialized in favor of states rights to discriminate against gun owners. Heaven forbid that our Second Amendment rights don't end at the state line.

For what its worth, there is no "right to marry." Its a privilege and states have always had the authority to decide who gets to have that privilege. Andrew Rosenthal is as obsequious as he is stupid. And DOMA was simply an expression of the country's long-standing interest in affirming traditional marriage is the foundation of the basic building block of society, the family.

No one has been harmed by DOMA.

7 posted on 11/04/2011 11:03:27 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew
It was a bipartisan act of cruelty sanity, sponsored initially by Republicans but passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton.
8 posted on 11/04/2011 11:03:56 AM PDT by Phlap (REDNECK@LIBARTS.EDU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew
"The 1996 law that denies the right of marriage to same-sex couples."

Gays have the exact same marriage rights as everyone else does.

9 posted on 11/04/2011 11:05:12 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

Neither is traditional marriage.

Marriage is not a right or an entitlement. Its a serious undertaking between a man and a woman. Moreover, its a sacred vow between them and God.

But its just like liberals to trivialize the serious these days because they have deep contempt for the accumulated wisdom of the ages.


10 posted on 11/04/2011 11:06:50 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

No one has the right to marry any one.

And none of us have the right to marry the dead or our pets.

Errors like yours are in need of correction. Some conservatives fail to grasp the difference between a privilege and a right.


11 posted on 11/04/2011 11:08:51 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew
Man...am I off base. All this time I thought the US was founded on Christian principles and, unless I've missed something, most Christian religions are against same sex marriage. Therefore, it would seem to me, if France has what you want, migrate to France. If that doesn't make you happy, find some uninhabited island 200+ miles from any other nation, buy it, and start your own country. Then you can have your own way. Until then, my guess is that most people want to stick with heterosexual marriages in the US.
12 posted on 11/04/2011 11:08:51 AM PDT by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew

What the homosexuals are looking for is the financial booty that we give to married couples (in whatever form and however small) to aid the formation and raising of families.

But even more, they want the stamp, the imprimateur of respectabilty and encouragement they feel government approval would give them.


13 posted on 11/04/2011 11:09:44 AM PDT by rlmorel (The Rats won't be satisfied until every industry in the USA is in ruins and ripe for nationalization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

Marriage is a civil and a religious privilege.

Proof that its a privilege is demonstrated by the fact the union can be dissolved if the privilege is not exercised properly or has been abused, by the act of divorce.

Thus, marriage can be withdrawn from those who have freely entered into it. In contrast, a right can never be suspended or revoked.


14 posted on 11/04/2011 11:12:50 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: econjack

Correction: The US was founded on religious (and other) liberty.


15 posted on 11/04/2011 11:15:57 AM PDT by merryandrew (They never polled ME....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
In contrast, a right can never be suspended or revoked.

Huh? The right to vote and the right to bear arms, for example, are routinely taken away from convicted felons (even after they finish their prison sentences).

16 posted on 11/04/2011 11:17:08 AM PDT by merryandrew (They never polled ME....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
"Errors like yours...."

What error? I said gays have the same marriage rights as everyone else - and that is true.That statement made no assertion as to the extent of the right merely that straights had no rights which gays don't. And yes, marriage is a God given right, it is not a privilege. Some conservatives fail to grasp that not every right we enjoy is specified in the Constitution, as the 9th amendment specifically points out.

17 posted on 11/04/2011 11:17:50 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew

I mean in general rights are absolute in nature for those who possess them but certain people are not allowed to exercise them, either because they have not reached a certain age, they committed a crime or they are not citizens of this country.


18 posted on 11/04/2011 11:23:51 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew
And yet the political leaders of this nation of liberty cannot seem to muster the courage and principle to sweep away one remaining example of institutionalized, government-sanctioned discrimination...

I was just SURE he was goijng to mention 'Affirmative Action'.

Shows what I know...

19 posted on 11/04/2011 11:27:03 AM PDT by WayneS (Comments now include 25 percent more sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew
And yet the political leaders of this nation of liberty cannot seem to muster the courage and principle to sweep away one remaining example of institutionalized, government-sanctioned discrimination...

I was just SURE he was going to mention 'Affirmative Action'.

Shows what I know...

20 posted on 11/04/2011 11:27:09 AM PDT by WayneS (Comments now include 25 percent more sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Marriage is not a right.

Go to some strange woman on the street and try imposing on her your “right” and see how far you get.

Again, certain forms of marriage have always been illegal and more over those who cannot enter freely into marriage are not allowed to marry at all.

That’s the way its always been.


21 posted on 11/04/2011 11:28:20 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

And speaking of freedom, this guy belongs to that subset of mankind, who in every in other instance, wants to diminish freedom to the greatest extent possible.

Like freedom of association. We must be forced to give our blessing to a certain kind of association, whether we like it or not.

That’s how much liberals truly value the spirit of freedom.


22 posted on 11/04/2011 11:32:25 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
"Go to some strange woman on the street and try imposing on her your “right” and see how far you get."

That makes no sense at all. Your position is like saying, Try going to the New York Times and forcing them to publish your story and if they refuse then there must be no right to freedom of the press. Just because one has a right to marry doesn't mean that another person is obligated to marry them. Just as the right to publish doesn't mean someone else is obligated to give you their printing press. And all "rights" are subject to restrictions which is why freedom of speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater which isn't on fire.

23 posted on 11/04/2011 11:35:03 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

You’re expecting logical consistency or something?


24 posted on 11/04/2011 11:39:57 AM PDT by merryandrew (They never polled ME....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

If there was a right to marry, all of us would be married.

We have the right to freedom of speech but we have no right to be heard.

The difference between a privilege and a right is that a privilege is conditional on the performance of certain obligations. A right is self-executing by nature. A privilege means we must abide by such and such to gain full benefit from it.

That’s true of a drivers’ license. Incidentally, all marriages are licensed, too. One has obligations to fulfill to validate the privilege.


25 posted on 11/04/2011 11:41:48 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew

Whoa now. I want my 2nd Amendment rights restored. This is an enumerated right, stripped away by decades of illegal legislation.

Marriage whether gay straight or polygamous or with animals is not an enumerated right (though it may be in the 10th Amendment, 2 comes before implied 10a rights).

Give me Vermont style carry laws. Then we can talk.


26 posted on 11/04/2011 11:42:09 AM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Exactly. Marriage is probably a right but implied not enumerated. Right to Keep and Bear arms is an enumerated right though. We Golden State Warriors have been disenfranchised. I want Vermont Style Carry first as is enumerated in 2A right to keep and bear (says nothing about permits, about discretion, about state police, about sheriffs etc). Then we talk about marriage as a right.


27 posted on 11/04/2011 11:48:39 AM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
"If there was a right to marry, all of us would be married."

That makes no sense at all. It's like saying if there was a right to peacefully assemble all of us would be assembled somewhere. And I note the that the right to peacefully assemble is a group right. No individual can "peacefully assemble" - they need the cooperation of others to exercise this right. And the right to peacefully assemble can be conditioned on obtaining a license or permit if the group wants to assemble in certain places at cetain times. And not all marriages are licensed - some states still recognize common law marriage. So you are wrong on every assertion you made.

28 posted on 11/04/2011 11:49:32 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine

Exactly.

Marriage is the subject of state legislation. You can’t marry any one or anything, if it was a right.

I can’t marry my sister or my cousin even if I am in love with them.


29 posted on 11/04/2011 11:50:14 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew

what about the guy on Jerry springer who wanted to marry his horse? Or that other guy who wanted to divorce his wife and marry his TV set. Now that would be true equality if the Govmint would recognize the Jerry Springerites as equal to our mere politicians.


30 posted on 11/04/2011 11:50:54 AM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

If there was a right to marry, there would never have been restrictions placed on it.

Liberals are seeking to sweep away one type of long-standing restriction. But one can argue then, if its a right, why can’t every else have it also?

Common law marriages are a type of marital privilege sanctioned by certain states. They could abolish it if they want to.

That can’t happen to a right for those eligible to exercise it. Hence the difference.


31 posted on 11/04/2011 11:55:58 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk

If liberals had the honesty of their convictions, they would say they’re in favor of extending discrimination a notch more, not to get rid of it.

But a vacuous and stupid poll-tested slogan like “Marriage Equality” sounds good.

If they get it their way, the fact remains some marriages will still be more equal than others.


32 posted on 11/04/2011 12:00:57 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]



Mash His Cute Little Nose

We're Looking For a Little Yellow

Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor

33 posted on 11/04/2011 12:08:12 PM PDT by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
"If there was a right to marry, there would never have been restrictions placed on it."

Every other right has restrictions why would marriage be any different?

34 posted on 11/04/2011 12:17:10 PM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost

AS usual, the liberals are hypocrites about everything. There is literally no issue they hold so dearly (with perhaps abortion being the exception) that they will not be hypocritical about. Just look at the different way they have examined Herman Cain with a microscope and total lack of care they have about Obama’s relationship with KNOWN TERRORISTS.


35 posted on 11/04/2011 12:27:28 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Because marriage is a privilege. Not all of us are suited to handle it. With that privilege comes many responsibilities as well as of course conjugal pleasure.


36 posted on 11/04/2011 12:48:04 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew; ConorMacNessa; 50mm; darkwing104

37 posted on 11/04/2011 2:44:44 PM PDT by Old Sarge (RIP FReeper Skyraider (1930-2011) - You Are Missed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge

Cute kitty!


38 posted on 11/04/2011 2:59:55 PM PDT by merryandrew (They never polled ME....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew

Like others have said, everyone has equal marriage rights. Any single man can marry any willing single woman not his close relation.

Equality isn’t what homosexuals want. They want to change marriage so that the state sanctions destructive behavior.

Discouraging destructive behavior isn’t bigotry. It’s the action of a healthy society. Turning a blind eye to or sanctioning destructive behavior is the action of a dying society. This petulant blogger may get his wish but the society that grants it will be courting it’s own extinction.


39 posted on 11/04/2011 3:01:46 PM PDT by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew; darkwing104; 50mm; Old Sarge; 230FMJ; A.Hun; abigailsmybaby; AFPhys; Aircop_2006; ...
Merryandrew, a homosexual agenda pushing retread, has been ZOTted. Good SNIFFing by ConorMacNessa.

To be added or removed from the Viking Kitty/ZOT Ping List, FReepmail Darkwing104

40 posted on 11/04/2011 7:37:17 PM PDT by 50mm (Trust nobody and you'll never be disappointed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew
Cute kitty!

LMAO
41 posted on 11/04/2011 7:54:40 PM PDT by Freedom_Fighter_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 50mm

Wow. What a gay thread. :-D


42 posted on 11/04/2011 8:01:57 PM PDT by Allegra (Hey! Stop looking at my tagline like that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew

43 posted on 11/04/2011 8:04:17 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
What a gay thread.

Why, yes it is.


44 posted on 11/04/2011 8:09:04 PM PDT by 50mm (Trust nobody and you'll never be disappointed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew

Today, Andrew Rosenthal is editorial page editor of The New York Times. In his biography, it is observed, “In 1964, he won the 3rd Grade Spelling Bee at Public School 183 in Manhattan, on the word ‘necessary’” (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/business/media/24askthetimes.html?pagewanted=all). On August 14, 2011, almost a decade following Frankel’s thoughtful piece, Rosenthal disseminated the following tweet(http://twitter.com/#!/andyrNYT):

“Perry announce speech. Did he miss a GOP cliche? One fave: Isreal [sic] won’t have to worry about him. As if it ever has to worry about a US prez.”

In the past, I have corresponded with Rosenthal concerning anti-Semitism, the op-ed page of the Times, and grotesque anti-Semitic readers’ comments posted by the Times online, some of which were removed by Rosenthal. Concerning Rosenthal’s snotty Twitter item, I would begin by observing that although he won a third grade spelling bee, he misspelled “Israel”.

http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/08/compare-max-frankel-with-andrew.html


45 posted on 11/04/2011 8:16:31 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew

“You owe me Respect!”

Lamo...


46 posted on 11/04/2011 11:25:43 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew

See Yuh . . . Biotch...


47 posted on 11/04/2011 11:27:45 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew

That should pretty much seal Satan’s plan you whackjob. Let’s just kill pro-creation and all will be jolly. What a nut you must be. Stay away from me. I promise to warn you


48 posted on 11/04/2011 11:30:53 PM PDT by eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce
Gay Marriage is a term with no referent in reality.

It's in the same category as "square circle", or "pregnant father".

49 posted on 11/04/2011 11:35:38 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: merryandrew
Is that barry? You really want to marry Andrew? You people are sicker than the devil.


50 posted on 11/05/2011 5:11:38 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (Dear God, thanks for the rain, but please let it rain more in Texas. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 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