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

Skip to comments.

How to Win the Marriage Debate (a must read)
American Thinker ^ | February 8, 2012 | Selwyn Duke

Posted on 02/08/2012 9:06:26 AM PST by Paladins Prayer

The big news on the culture-war front is a federal court's striking down of Proposition 8, California's constitutional amendment protecting marriage. In a two-to-one ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote, "The people may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry."

Now, I'm not sure why the judges mention a "disfavored group," as if singling out a "favored" one for unequal treatment would be okay. As far as I know, the 14th Amendment, on which the court based its ruling, doesn't offer equal protection to only those the current fashions deem "disfavored." Thus, I think this is an example of emotionalism influencing a ruling and its language, sort of as if a judge sentenced a defendant and, adding an adjective, announced him as "stupid" Mr. Smith. Calling a group "disfavored" is similarly a subjective judgment. This is not the only thing the judges were subjective about, however.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: california; homosexualagenda; marriage; proposition8; ruling
This is the best article I've ever read on this subject. Be sure to read it to the very end. You won't be disappointed.
1 posted on 02/08/2012 9:06:30 AM PST by Paladins Prayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

The Ninth Circuit: rebuttal bait for Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas.


2 posted on 02/08/2012 9:10:31 AM PST by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
Now, some will say the court accepts that there has been a redefinition of marriage. If so, they had best tell us what it is. Because, you see, our leftist marriage engineers have not redefined marriage.

They have undefined it.

Brilliant!!

3 posted on 02/08/2012 9:13:47 AM PST by Hodar ( Who needs laws; when this FEELS so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

Based on information and belief, single, competent adults currently have the right to marry in every state.


What is festive about sodomy?


4 posted on 02/08/2012 9:16:40 AM PST by seton89 (Starve the Beast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

What would marriage provide for a gay couple that they don’t already enjoy through civil unions and legal contracts?


5 posted on 02/08/2012 9:19:14 AM PST by Baynative (The penalty for not participating in politics is you will be governed by your inferiors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
This is why conservatives should never use the term "gay marriage," as this is an explicit acknowledgement that such an institution exists.

Ping to Maggie Gallagher, that vaunted "defender of marriage"!

Thanks for posting this. It is, as you say, well worth the reading.
6 posted on 02/08/2012 9:26:18 AM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

It would be interesting to know what qualifies someone to serve on the 9th Circuit. I’m not even sure you have to be able to fog a mirror.


7 posted on 02/08/2012 9:30:49 AM PST by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Forced acceptance on the rest of society through force of law.


8 posted on 02/08/2012 9:35:44 AM PST by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

Excellent post — thank you.


9 posted on 02/08/2012 9:36:23 AM PST by Albion Wilde (A land of hyper-legalisms is not the same as a land of law. --Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

I’m pretty sure the only requirement is to be an uber Moonbat.


10 posted on 02/08/2012 9:37:09 AM PST by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry.

The issue for the left is largely monetary, of course. Spouses qualify under insurance plans, significant others generally do not. Social security benefits and pensions are granted to the spouse of the deceased, not the significant other.

So the real point for the left is to grant monetary advantage to a favored group, (rather than a disfavored group). I think they know their reasoning is inconsistent and contradictory. They just don't care since the goal is to work the system to 'get' something for one of their faithful groups. Leftists are usually motivated by self interest, the holier than thou rhetoric is merely justification, like calling baby murder 'women's reproductive rights'.

11 posted on 02/08/2012 9:37:29 AM PST by LucianOfSamasota (Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

Or as Michael Savage calls it, the Ninth Jerk-it Court of Shlemiels.


12 posted on 02/08/2012 9:37:29 AM PST by Paladins Prayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
What would marriage provide for a gay couple that they don’t already enjoy through civil unions and legal contracts?

It's not about "protecting" or "granting" "rights" to anyone. It's about the ability to MAKE other people bend to their will and accept something they find morally reprehensible.

If I want to believe Sarah Palin and I are married and live in a castle on the moon, that's my right. The issue arises when I try to force you to believe it. That authoritarian impulse of the left rises its ugly head again.

13 posted on 02/08/2012 9:37:38 AM PST by South Hawthorne (In Memory of my dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
The 9th Circuit errs because homosexuals are not denied the ability to marry. Look at Elton John. He is homosexual and was legally married. A homosexual may, however, be denied the ability to marry who they please. However, they are not the only ones being denied. Most states limit marriage to one man, one woman, of legal age, and not closely related. Under the courts ruling, a person who is a bigamist, zoophile, pedophile or wanting to engage in an incestuous relation is also being discriminated. By only focusing on one of the limiting factors in the statue they are themselves engaged in discriminating behavior and not providing equal protection under the law under their own arguments. Truly following their argument would allow any relation to be protected as a marital right. The “undefining” of marriage indeed.
14 posted on 02/08/2012 9:39:40 AM PST by Armando Guerra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South Hawthorne

exactly.

It’s about shutting down religious adoption agencies.

It’s about suing churches for refusing to perform their ceremonies.

It’s about benefits.

It’s especially about school curriculum.


15 posted on 02/08/2012 9:42:07 AM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

How can “civil unions” be civil when it is defined by sodomy. There is no “right” to sodomy-—something which is not conducive to the “general welfare” of a civil society by any amount of twisting the meaning of the Constitution. The Constitution and Just Law is designed to promote “Virtue”, the necessary element in a free nation and the fundamental reason for social contracts, understood by all Founders of the Constitution.

To deliberately promote ideas which destroy civil societies, should be as illegal as promotion of killing babies-—both vile, inhumane and need to be abolished.


16 posted on 02/08/2012 9:42:25 AM PST by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

I’ve been asserting that for years.

If you discard the ONE definition for marriage,
you have NO definition of marriage.

Once you cut loose society from its moorings,
you have set it adrift to define anything as right or wrong,
even things you think are repugnant now.

And if you say that society can change the definition of right and wrong as is accepted at the time,
then you have no business judging the holocaust or slavery in America.


17 posted on 02/08/2012 9:42:38 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
Benito Mussolini,
reprised by Barack Hussein Obama


18 posted on 02/08/2012 9:45:56 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

The shutting down adoption agencies is about the indoctrination of children into an evil worldview-—the secular humanism where sodomy is “good” so these warped children will grow up thinking that “homosexual” marriage is rational.

It is why they have “gay pride” in all public schools....to force the concept that “sodomy is good”. It is to normalize a vile, demeaning urge to defile bodies—which will remove all Christian Ethics from our country.

It goes back to the Postmodern movement: God is Dead. They want Satan worshipped and excrement is what is glorified in Satanic rituals-—the Bohemian Grove Sandusky-type world.


19 posted on 02/08/2012 9:49:12 AM PST by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
"The people may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry."

Hot dang! Does this mean me and my sister Shirley can get hitched now?

20 posted on 02/08/2012 9:50:05 AM PST by Ranald S. MacKenzie (It's the philosophy, stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ranald S. MacKenzie

Good luck with that! I personally plan to marry six more women, two goats, and my car.


21 posted on 02/08/2012 10:01:58 AM PST by ZirconEncrustedTweezers ("No. But I will.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
I think a lot of people, including Freepers and other assorted conservatives, are closing their eyes to a stark reality: that voting and making rational arguments in the public square mean nothing at this point. Nothing. How can anyone believe, for example, that the 9th Circuit made this ruling based on their best interpretation of law? This was a blatant dictatorial act, as so many court rulings have been. The written opinion was just a formality to placate those among us who are still gullible enough to believe we have rule of law left in this country. Quite a few of the larger political issues in California, for example, have been decided by some court or another, often by a single judge, rather than by vote of the people. Prop 187 to limit services to illegals was struck down, Prop 8 to keep marriage defined as man-woman was struck down. Everyone likes to make fun of liberal California, but every time its people have tried to keep it on the right track, the judiciary has intervened.

What we are experiencing is a political coup by leftists to remake the country. This is no different, absolutely no different, than if an army of Soviets were storming our beaches and forcing us to give up all of our own culture and law, except that we are simply not shooting back. The author of this piece makes an excellent argument, but that is because the argument is self-evident. Even those making these rulings would most likely agree with his reasoning but they do not care. They are not making these rulings based on American law or tradition - they are making these rulings purposely to destroy American law and tradition and culture. They are anti-American infiltrators of our judiciary and their sole purpose is to tear down our entire system, no doubt to replace it with a communist "utopia", and we're letting it happen because we're still under the delusion that these people are simply misguided.

We are at "go" time, people. We should all be viewing these rulings, these courts, and the various other governmental diktats as illegitimate, and act accordingly. Going back and forth, making these grand arguments is a complete waste of time.
22 posted on 02/08/2012 10:19:17 AM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

The gay marriage law is to ease their conscience and force the public, by law, to dictate a false sense of social status among heterosexuals.


23 posted on 02/08/2012 10:28:07 AM PST by lucky american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
What would marriage provide for a gay couple that they don’t already enjoy through civil unions and legal contracts?

Exactly. The state's involvement in any union between two of its citizens is restricted to matters of law, not religion. Yet marriage is not solely a secular institution. Let the state have its say on the secular relationship, but let's not pretend that that relationship is a marriage anymore than a lease is a marriage between a tenant and a landlord.

24 posted on 02/08/2012 10:39:18 AM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Federal tax breaks.


25 posted on 02/08/2012 10:43:02 AM PST by Adder (Da bro has GOT to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

Amen. Well said. God removed from Air Force patches, bestiality legalized for the military, the Komen foundation pressured to provide funding for abortions, impending widespread legalization of homosexual marriages and polygamy and the Catholic Church forced to pay for abortions or stop providing charitable care. Unfreaking believable. The worst of it is that no one on the left can make a single logical argument for any of this, and yet we are allowing our nation to be steamrolled by a minority of vocal idiots. It is indeed time for a political insurrection—starting with a third party if that proves to be necessary.


26 posted on 02/08/2012 11:11:55 AM PST by binreadin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

The sodomites (who already have unions that are exactly like marriage in the eyes of the law), only want the word “marriage” used to define what their union is. In otherwords they only want to piss off normal men and women that are in a normal marriage. It’s all about screaming and hollering till you get what you want. Perverted, immoral sodomites want to be counted as being “married” just like normal people. Maybe if can figure out how a man can get pregnant from anal sex. Maybe Elton John knows.


27 posted on 02/08/2012 11:42:08 AM PST by NKP_Vet (creep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

Willard the liberal is FOR HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS.

He sees nothing wrong with perferted, degenerate sex, that kills if practiced. He is also for sodomites being allowed to adopt children and raise them. In otherwords he does not think a child needs two parents of the opposite sex.

Willard the liberal is one more sick, demented person. Now tell me how his views on this differ from the most liberal democrat in the world. They don’t, not in the least. That’s why he’s the worst possible GOP candidate to run against Obama, because their social beliefs are identical.


28 posted on 02/08/2012 11:49:12 AM PST by NKP_Vet (creep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

“The issue for the left is largely monetary, of course. Spouses qualify under insurance plans, significant others generally do not. Social security benefits and pensions are granted to the spouse of the deceased, not the significant other.”

If it is a problem that significant others do not qualify under insurance plans and Social Security benefits and pensions are not granted to significant others while the same is not true of spouses, then perhaps the laws, regulations, etc. for insurance and Social Security should be changed.

When Blacks were discriminated against they did not change the definition of race so that blacks and whites were included in the same definition. They changed the laws, regulations, etc. that were discriminatory.


29 posted on 02/08/2012 12:15:44 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Yes-—I have been saying Romney is a Paleobama-—some other Freeper’s term but I am using it.

Obama forced sodomy into the military as “good” in complete defiance of Christian conscience-—it is even a bigger issue to Freedom of Religion and Conscience than the “contraception” issue-—why? It forces every military person to accept “sodomy as good” which turns the Bible into “hate speech” and Christians into bigots and you are forced to accept “evil” as normal. It is forcing the rewriting of Good and Evil—in the Bible-—and turns our fundamental philosophy girding our Constitution and Legal System-—Natural Rights from God——into- Natural Rights from Satan (and Barney Frank).

I have never heard of such fascist government force in the US and this “sodomy is good” idea will destroy morality and corrupt all the children——will make them like the boys of Afghanistan who dream of having their own harem of boys-—there is no sexual morality codes in islam for men—pedophilia is normal. Or it will be like the brutal, slavish Greek society where women are second class citizens-—where pederasty was glorified —even in myths about Zeus and Ganymedes.

We do NOT want a non Judeo-Christian culture which glorifies evil and child sacrifice. The perfect “Good and Evil” paradigm-—was created by St. Thomas of Aquinas-—because he took all the great ideas from Aristotle and the Stoics and combined them with the Theological virtues of love, hope and charity.

Christianity-—the only ideology that can sustain a FREE society—a virtuous one as proved throughout all of history. All Founders knew this-—and the Cultural Marxists are out to destroy all virtue-—Christianity and the natural family.


30 posted on 02/08/2012 12:19:18 PM PST by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

Amen. Well said. God removed from Air Force patches, bestiality legalized for the military, the Komen foundation pressured to provide funding for abortions, impending widespread legalization of homosexual marriages and polygamy and the Catholic Church forced to pay for abortions or stop providing charitable care. Unfreaking believable. The worst of it is that no one on the left can make a single logical argument for any of this, and yet we are allowing our nation to be steamrolled by a minority of vocal idiots. It is indeed time for a political insurrection—starting with a third party if that proves to be necessary.


31 posted on 02/08/2012 12:33:15 PM PST by binreadin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]




Click the baby's bottle!
Many thanks, JoeProBono


Uh oh! This little guy is already breathing fire.
He's going to be a mean one!


Donate monthly to keep the mean dragons away

Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up

32 posted on 02/08/2012 1:21:32 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

legally speaking ALL marriage is defined as a civil union.

thhis is deliberate via the ABA model laws program.

There should be a prohibition against judges belonging to the ABA since it is a left wing lobby group that does not represent the vaaaaaaaast majority of lawyers.


33 posted on 02/08/2012 3:34:07 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

You are correct.

I am reading a book on the origins of Judicial Review and Jurisprudence in America, with lots of John Marshall quotes and opinions.

One think is explicitly clear-—all Just Law has to be reasoned and logical. That is what is missing today-—we have absurd irrational judges making laws.

Now, John Marshall said, that any laws (State or Federal) that are repugnant to the Supreme Law of the Land (Constitution) should be struck down as “Null and Void”.

Many current laws can be classified as so repugnant to freedoms and unconstitutional-—it is not even funny anymore. They need to be liquidated.

Homosexual “marriage” and “civil unions” of homosexuals are very repugnant to a document which states our Natural Rights come from God (and His standards) Sodomy is evil and NOT a Right. The “laws of nature” can NOT arbitrarily be flipped upside down and intentionally IGNORED when it is the basis of our Laws. Natural Law Theory is the basis of our Constitution and legal system—it is where Justice and Rights and Duty and Common Sense come from.

By legalizing something as bizarre as sodomy-—you take away natural rights of children and make them means to an end-—something that human beings can never be by our Standards in our Constitution with INDIVIDUAL rights and dignity to every human being. You allow force of law to deny children their biological parent. It is evil and never promotes the general welfare of each individual child keeping them from their natural biological family.


34 posted on 02/08/2012 3:57:58 PM PST by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Adder; IronJack
To my question; "What would marriage provide for a gay couple that they don’t already enjoy through civil unions and legal contracts?"

Adder brought up tax breaks and someone replied to me privately and said, hospital visitation and life support wishes for terminally ill partners.

I am trying to understand the reality in all of this so I can discuss it intelligently. I think the hospital issue can be taken care of legally with joint powers of attorney. I'm not a tax professional, but it seems that anyone who is civilly contracted can file jointly and it real estate is held as tenants in common the interest deductions would be treated the same as what my wife and I expect. If I am wrong I'd like to know.

It seems the only point of this argument is to make a mockery of the word 'marriage' and render it meaningless. If that is the case (even partially), I find it even more disgusting because in the liberal community which is where most gays seem to identify, not getting married is possibly more common than tying the knot.

35 posted on 02/08/2012 4:14:26 PM PST by Baynative (The penalty for not participating in politics is you will be governed by your inferiors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

I would think that HIPPA handles all hospital issues. Lord knows I have to sign my life away just to give permission for my wife to be advised of my conditions.

Marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. It has ALWAYS been so. To say it now encompasses anything else does indeed render the word and the institution meaningless as the article points out.


36 posted on 02/08/2012 6:10:48 PM PST by Adder (Da bro has GOT to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Eh... same-sex couples cannot file their Federal taxes jointly under any circumstances. See DOMA.

I know a couple of gay guys who would say “forget marriage, just let me sponsor my non-U.S. partner for permanent residency.” That’s a huge issue for people in my professional circle (law), which is pretty international. That issue also wins a lot of people over for favoring same-sex marriage, when they see their friends either staying separated or moving to Europe because of it.


37 posted on 02/08/2012 7:13:15 PM PST by ivyleaguebrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

BTTT!


38 posted on 02/09/2012 12:49:56 AM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
Instead, it should have been, "Marriage is hereby legally defined as a union between a man and a woman."

Unfortunately, even that is not sufficient.

To wit:

Transgender is a general term applied to a variety of individuals, behaviors, and groups involving tendencies to vary from culturally conventional gender roles.
[source: Wikipedia]

Transsexualism is an individual's identification with a gender inconsistent or not culturally associated with his or her biological sex. Simply put, it defines a person whose biological birth sex conflicts with his or her psychological gender.
[source: Wikipedia]

It should be clear to anyone reading the definitions above that the terms man and woman, per the authors suggestion, raise some immediate questions.

That said, it was a very well written article, but the problem goes even deeper. If gender is redefined, or undefined, then it doesn't matter what arguments you make concerning a man and a woman as it relates to marriage because it will still be ambiguous, which is exactly what the left wants, because logically...and I've argued this many times, over many years...marriage is contingent upon an understanding that gender is the only true distinction of the human species. Once you wash that away, everything washes away with it, which is why the left is so adamant about doing it. Most people, even intellectuals on our side, haven't made this connection yet. In any event, it probably doesn't matter since transgenderism and transsexualism have already been accepted as legitimate.

Ironically, gender, as the only true distinction which transcends all other superficial differences within the species, is really the only true way to apply marriage fairly since it is not contingent to race, culture, heredity, etc.

The premise of marriage has always been about gender, even from the beginning When God made them male and female, and the arguments lie within that premise.

It is the reason why marriage is limited to only two people, and why, if you alter the qualitative aspect of marriage, you necessarily alter the quantitative, since one is based on dissimilarity which infers a fixed quantity, whereas the other is based on similarity which infers a variable quantity. In this second case, you could limit it to two, but it would be entirely arbitrary and thus prejudicial and bias from the outset.

39 posted on 02/09/2012 2:36:33 AM PST by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

All those objections are civil (secular) matters and can be handled by new laws or by modifying existing ones. They certainly don’t need to be managed by completely redefining one of society’s most stable, critical, and enduring institutions. They’re nothing but a smokescreen, and the ultimate answer is to amend the Constitution to define marriage once and for all as the union between one man and one woman. Period.


40 posted on 02/09/2012 5:58:58 AM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

So if you lived in Washington State and you had a civil union (everything but marriage) then that somehow prevented hospital visitation and life support wishes?

Life support wishes can be taken care of through advanced directives and the like (legal instruments). As far as I’m concerned, a private hospital should be allowed to set its own policy on visitation rules. Don’t like them, go to a different hospital.


41 posted on 02/09/2012 3:15:05 PM PST by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

Is there a legal definition of “consummating” a homosexual marriage?


42 posted on 02/09/2012 3:26:37 PM PST by JediJones (Newt-er Romney in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ivyleaguebrat

They must be good friends. Your first page of posting history going back to May of last year is 95% on homosexuality-related topics. Are those the only topics you come here to follow?


43 posted on 02/09/2012 3:37:12 PM PST by JediJones (Newt-er Romney in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
Are those the only topics you come here to follow? Hardly. In fact, I mostly try to avoid these threads. I'm the type who feels the need to post only when I disagree with the going sentiment, and I think it's fair to say I have a moderate position on the issue compared to many FReepers who frequent the "homosexualagenda" list. But many times I can't help but respond to comments that I think are over the top.
44 posted on 02/09/2012 4:58:00 PM PST by ivyleaguebrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
Are those the only topics you come here to follow?

Hardly. In fact, I mostly try to avoid these threads.

I'm the type who feels the need to post only when I disagree with the going sentiment, and I think it's fair to say I have a moderate position on the issue compared to many FReepers who frequent the "homosexualagenda" list. But many times I can't help but respond to comments that I think are over the top.

45 posted on 02/09/2012 4:58:31 PM PST by ivyleaguebrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ivyleaguebrat

Sorry for double post.


46 posted on 02/09/2012 5:00:07 PM PST by ivyleaguebrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

If you want to win the War on Marriage you’d be for civil unions as well. The major argument on which homosexual activists have some standing is in the legal realm. Civil unions provide the answer while protecting marriage as between on man and one woman. Civil unions are available not just to homosexuals, but to anyone.

We’ve already lost generation Y as they’ve been fully indoctrinated into the homosexual lifestyle. It will only get worse as time goes on since American parents do not control or influence their children’s indoctrination in government schools.

DOMA stands, but it isn’t sufficient as this court case shows. They’ll keep coming back until they flip Kennedy or some other mushy middler. The actual solution is to end government schooling through vouchers, but the ideological purists among us and the middle class fear vouchers. Not for the same reasons, yet with the same effect.


47 posted on 02/10/2012 4:19:33 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

“Civil unions are available not just to homosexuals, but to anyone”

Far as I know in the US Civil Unions are for same-sex couples, a couple of foreign countries allow them for opposite sex couples.


48 posted on 02/10/2012 8:19:07 AM PST by NKP_Vet (creep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | 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