Posted on 08/01/2012 9:07:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
When the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in Congress in 1996, the vote was bi-partisan and overwhelming. In the House, the tally was 342-67. Only the farthest left of Democrats and a handful of Republicans voted against it. A majority of Democrats supported marriage. In the Senate, the vote was even more lopsided and bi-partisan, 85-14. Again, most Democrats backed marriage. In both houses of Congress, the DOMA passed with such strong margins that President Clinton could clearly see the measure had better than "veto strength." That is, if he had vetoed the Defense of Marriage Act, Congress could have passed it over his veto. That would have required 67 votes in the Senate and 292 votes in the House. Bowing to the inevitable, Clinton signed the bill.
Now, President Obama has refused "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed" if he disagrees with them.
He announced early in his administration that he would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. He has done everything he can in the last three and a half years to dismantle the law. It is a process not unlike termites eating away at the foundations of a house. Until just a few weeks ago, he apparently hoped that the law would collapse as he systematically undermined its foundations. It didn't. So President Obama, prompted no doubt by Vice President Biden's blurted out support for counterfeiting marriage, has "evolved."
Even the most committed advocates of evolutionary biology would deny that you can see evolution proceeding in just sixteen years. Nonetheless, Mr. Obama's position on marriage has changed. Or, more accurately, we might say his true position has come out. In 2008, he told Pastor Rick Warren that he believed "marriage is between a man and a woman. And God is in the mix." Which one moved?
Democrats have announced they will put same sex marriage in their platform when they meet in convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. This, in a state that voted last May to sustain true marriage. North Carolina voters joined 31 other states in backing true marriage. The vote was a stunning 61%-39%. That was up from the last reputable public opinion poll which had showed 55% supporting marriage to 39% opposed.
North Carolina's marriage referendum was part of a nationwide pattern. True marriage typically does better at the ballot box than in public opinion surveys. Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida are battleground states this year. In Ohio in 2004, 62% of voters backed true marriage. That helped to carry the Buckeye State and the election for George W. Bush. In Wisconsin in 2006, 59% of voters backed marriage. Every county in the Badger State except ultra-liberal Dane County (Madison) voted for marriage. And that was in the same year when Nancy Pelosi's liberal cohorts swept into office. Florida saw marriage voters break the 60% threshold to lock marriage into the state constitution.
If the Democrats' platform embraces this radical proposal, they will be voting to end marriage, not change it.
If you say a man may marry a man, and a woman may marry a woman, then on what principled basis can you say three men may not marry? George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley advocated polygamy at the Newseum in 2008--and was wildly cheered by the mostly liberal audience. As a professor of constitutional law, Turley knows that same-sex couplings will lead to polygamy--
"and I'm for that," he says.
In every statewide referendum on this issue, black and Hispanic voters provided an indispensable source of support for true marriage. These voters reject the idea that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue. The mantle of civil rights must not be seized by those who would deny Americans their civil right of marriage. In order for this to remain a civil right, there must be true marriage left in society.
Mae West once said: "Marriage is a great institution, but I'm just not ready for an institution." It's too bad Mae West is not sitting on the Democratic Platform Committee.
She had a keener understanding of true marriage than many of today's evolved politicians.
No, but marriage as we knew it, has already ended in many places. Heterosexual couples will still get married.
In another generation or two, “Progressives” will demand a law forcing clergy to allow them to “marry” their factory built, robotic sex partners.
Once you “re-define” marriage, there is no way to stop marriage from continual re-definition. First polygamy, then Polyamory (group marriages). Turley is right, there is no logical or legal way to stop that train once it veers off the tracks. But, as Turley also reveals, that is the purpose of this whole thing. Gays don’t want to re-define who CAN get married; they want to redefine marriage. First thing to go, faithfulness.
Once government gets into the business of handing out benefits based on an individual's legal status, it will always attempt to redefine the legal meaning of that status for its own purposes.
As long as they control "public education," they will succeed.
Barney Frank was on Hardball yesterday arguing with Matthews of all people about this. Fwank was arguing that the DNC taking up an ‘marriage equality’ (same sex) official party plank was ‘no big deal’ because Obama has already come out on the issue this year. Matthews who is a supporter of the idea was worried it could hurt Dems in some voting areas.
Barney Frank has got to be one of the most unattractive and unpleasant spokesmen that Dems have, and he represents the homo-, err LGBT crowd on TV. Every show including Hardball with friend and ally Matthews Fwank goes into a Fwank annoying girly-like gay hissy fit looking stupid again, Either he is on drugs or he has untreated mental issues.
We need Fwank to be the official nation gay (LGBT) exhibit model for kids and young adults.
Marriage, as in Holy Matrimony, is a sacrament. It is divine in God’s eye between a man and a woman. No matter what homosexual couples do, it can NEVER be considered Marriage. (I can call my dog a cat but he will never be a feline.)
The Gay/Lesbian community will have to accept that homosexuality will never be accepted. We’ve been tolerant as in ‘Love the Sinner. Hate the Sin’. Man would have to rewrite the word of God to accomodate this unnatural behavior.
Their behavior demonstrates that this isn’t about equality. They want extra special treatment as a protected special interest.
Someone should get government out of Marriage altogether. Everyone should be subject to the same Civil Union laws.
Isn’t there a ‘Solomon’ out there that would promote this?
Look at the response to the Chick-Fil-A fiasco. They are overwhelmed with customers today. And the bakery in Colorado that refused to do a wedding cake for a homosexual marriage has seen his business double.
The people have spoken. The silent majority is making it clear that they are there.
Today the Homosexuals have realized the consequences of pursuing their own “Bridge Too Far.”
The sleeping giant has awakened. This will have political ramifications far beyond Chick-Fil-A, et al.
This just may be the end of the forward march of the homosexual agenda for the foreseeable future.
And then there is November. :-)
Marriage as we knew it in ended in 1973.
What we have now is gay marriage for heterosexuals, and although I oppose legalizing pretend marriages for same sex couples, it’s important to acknowledge that traditional marriage (permanent, legal enforcement of fidelity, no remarriage with a living spouse) is already illegal in all 50 states.
In today’s America, we are not allowed to do our own math. The mandate is retardation and mental illness.
Barney thinks he has come out the closet, when he is a rapist who has not fully publicly yet praised his own corruption and rape of the US tax payers.
That is, right there, the hypocrisy of the politician, but also his mental illness... because like a Jack the Ripper who thinks he is a good guy during the day, so are all these dangerous people covering up themselves in self belief of feeling persecuted.
They poke themselves in the eyes to blindness and they accuse those who want them to stop. It is murder-suicide.
I am assuming you are talking about Fannie and Freddy.
Normally I cant stand O Reilly BUT watching him yell at, accuse and lecture Mr Sissy-pants Hissy-fit Fwank was a pleasure, and great entertainment. I never seen anyone else do that. Fwank will have a fit anyway so why not give him hell.
“Look at the response to the Chick-Fil-A fiasco. They are overwhelmed with customers today. And the bakery in Colorado that refused to do a wedding cake for a homosexual marriage has seen his business double.
The people have spoken. The silent majority is making it clear that they are there.
Today the Homosexuals have realized the consequences of pursuing their own “Bridge Too Far.”
The sleeping giant has awakened. This will have political ramifications far beyond Chick-Fil-A, et al.
This just may be the end of the forward march of the homosexual agenda for the foreseeable future.
And then there is November. :-)”
I’m with you all the way on this, brother - I do not for a minute believe in some endless agenda driven by Dems and gays that will continue on and on into a distant future.
Historically, movements reach their heights, and then comes the decline. We are seeing signs of this all around us today.
Why then are so many still pessimistic, still imagining the inevitable march into the next decades of all this leftover 1990s craze which is still with us, and which we now see falling apart? 2 decades from now it will be clear that what seemed indestructible (liberal rainbow army) was in reality only a house of cards...
“The vote was a stunning 61%-39%.”
If you told someone in 1992 that by 2012 only 61% of NC voters would think that state recognition of marriage should only be between a man and a woman, they would be more stunned I reckon.
Freegards
No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen (September 11, 2001 - NY Times)
He also writes about the Weathermen's sexual experimentation as they tried to ''smash monogamy.'' The Weathermen were ''an army of lovers,'' he says, and describes having had different sexual partners, including his best male friend....And as for settling into marriage after efforts to smash monogamy, Ms. Dohrn said, ''You're always trying to balance your understanding of who you are and what you need, and your longing and imaginings of freedom.''
Smash monogamy is the name of the game. In Texas Same Sex Marriage is not recognized, so lesbians come here and try to find an activist judge to grant them a Same Sex Divorce.
It's not about being married or "no longer living in sin in the eyes of God" by shacking up. It's about subverting the establishment.
I believe the Democrats are painting themselves into a corner, as it were. They are going to either stand up for gay rights and include the issue in their platform, or they are going to reluctantly back down. Either way, they are screwed. They shouldn’t have offered it in the first place. If they proceed, they will alienate huge numbers of traditionalist voters in the Democrat party, like Blacks and Hispanics, and an untold number of their so-called Working Class voters. If they back down, they will upset a lot of their core supporters.
I PREDICT: Ultimately, they will decide that it is too dangerous, and blame the “Religious Right” for being too intolerant and forcing them to take it out of their platform. It may seem unlikely, but Republicans will take the blame in the media for an entirely Democrat decision. The left and their propaganda organ will have no compunctions about pushing the narrative, because they are liars anyway.
The important, and yet largely ignored, canvass on which all this is being painted is that every single time this issue comes to a vote of the people, homosexual marriage is defeated.
Every. Single. Time.
(Science in Seconds ^ | July 13, 2012 | Rheanna Sand)
But if robots are to ever become androids, like the "fully functional" Data from Star Trek TNG, they are going to have to be touch-responsive. But making an entire robot that responds to human touch is a herculean task, so a graduate student from Japan has simplified matters by inventing - get this - an emotionally responsive set of robo-buttocks...
It’s treated as if it is a big demand issue, but homosexuals are 1-2% of the general population (higher in prisons and the media). Not everyone will enter into a marriage. So we are looking at 0.5%-1% of the population who are affected yet the lavender mafia in the media newrooms push it in the faces of the 99%.
And parents do NOT want to confuse their children as to what is natural.
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.