FReepmail “Antoninus” to be added or removed.
Posted on 02/13/2012 5:41:39 PM PST by writer33
I see, “ YOU CONSERVATIVES “
Marriage has been understood by all societies since the dawn of time as the union between one man and one woman.
If you look up the word “marriage” in ANY of the law dictionaries, Blacks, Bouviers, Andersons, it will say the same thing.
Marriage is the union between one man and one woman.
This is just historical fact. It has zero to do with “discrimination” or any other BS they are trying to convince us of.
Call them “civil unions”, call them “partnerships”, call them whatever you darn well please.
But it is not and never will be marriage.
Do you need you government to tell you you have to employ cross dressing perverts in your business or in your local school? Well guess what you have to. Just part of their grand plan to decriminalize the deviant behaviors of the pond scum that libertarians don’t seem to object to.
>> You know very well what I am talking about
I do. You and the Left are trying to use govt to control the citizens’ behavior. I’m telling you and the Left to get the # out. I’d rather entrust our morality with God and His representatives especially when it involves the most basic sacraments and traditional rituals of life.
>> Just part of their grand plan to decriminalize the deviant behaviors
You have it backwards. The govt is criminalizing the objection of deviant behavior.
He has taken the arrows for it—he can’t even google his own name in front of his children—
His children can’t even google their OWN name. Senator Santorum has put his all into the fight. I loved when you said Romney has “positions” on issues. Santorum has convictions.
>> Can’t have a valid or legal marriage in most states without a marriage license.
Licenses? What are we dogs? Is God’s blessings not enough?
What does this story have to with congress? Rick is supporting the fight to continue in WA to reverse this nonsense. If anything, you should be quoting the 10th amendment and praising Rick for following it.
FReepmail “Antoninus” to be added or removed.
>> So ? what are we to do when government forces us to accept gay marriage ? sit around and let it happen ? no.
That is exactly the problem.
My position is that we should legally remove the govt’s ability to criminalize our objection to the hijacking of marriage. As far as I’m concerned, there’s no such thing as homosexual marriage. Contractual relationships are a different matter altogether.
Santorum stated in an interview a few weeks ago that decisions made in government do have moral and social consequences. The interviewer commented that moral/social and economic issues are intertwined.
While starting with Woodrow Wilson, amped-up by FDR, then kicked into high gear by LBJ’s social engineering, government created the moral decay in inner cities and decimated two-parent families. It cost the taxpayers billions to prop up the failed policies of the DUmocrats.
Promoting marriage and the sanctity of LIFE should be a major platform item in the Republican party. When people have a common respect for life and marriage, they have a stake in ensuring the means to protect it and encouraging policies that maintain prosperity.
Couldn’t agree more.
How many marriages end in divorce. This country is already headed off the CLIFF! and we fight back with moral/social issues to solve the trillions in debt? Look at this guy getting bulldozed by liberal kids. By the end, Santorum was visibly seething and the crowd was shouting and unruly. “I’m out of time now,” he finally declared, leaving the stage to sustained boos.
REAL PRESIDENTIAL METERIAL VIDEO getting Bulldozed by Liberals here http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/santorum-gets-into-testy-debate-on-gay-marriage/
GO NEWT!
That's funny. States used to be able to push religious ideals. I live in a state that still has Blue Laws. Here is one part from the Constitution of Massachusetts that was signed in 1780 that discredits your argument:
"the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend on piety, religion and morality."
What exactly changed to force states to not be able to dictate the moral codes they see fit be they religious or otherwise?
So Newt is in support of gay marriage then? Are you as well?
>> That’s funny. States used to be able to push religious ideals
Irrelevant as the States pushed lots of things that are no longer considered ethical. That’s not to question ideals. Just saying precedent alone does not justify its Constitutionality.
Your MA quote is simply stating a condition. It doesn’t discredit anything I said. Arguably, a civil govt will not impose upon piety, religion nor morality.
I realize many believe our morality will fall into the gutter without the force of law. Well, considering the law that’s facilitated over 50 million nascent deaths, as far as I’m concerned, the morality of law is not something we should bet our lives on, nor should we assign to the laws of God.
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.