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

Skip to comments.

Why same-sex marriage affects my marriage
Mpls Star Tribune ^ | September 28, 2012 | RILEY BALLING

Posted on 09/28/2012 3:31:32 PM PDT by rhema

In the marriage debate, people frequently argue that how one chooses to define marriage doesn't affect other people's definitions of marriage, and because my definition is as good as yours, it should also be promoted by society.

Many times it is stated: "What I choose to do in my marriage doesn't affect your marriage." However, same-sex marriage affects all of our marriages.

First, to explain, private actions have public effects. All our actions, both private and public, define our identity. Being human, we are motivated to impart our identity to future generations. As we have seen, and understandably so, people in homosexual relationships are trying to change society to more readily embrace and promote their view of their identity. This is possible largely due to the disassociation between sexual relationships and procreation.

In contrast, there are many who have not disassociated sex and children, and for reasons both secular and religious have incorporated heterosexual relationships into their identity. These people have generally been trying to live up to the ideal that marriage was established millennia ago to promote the raising of children in safe environments supported by their biological parents.

Sadly, we don't always live up to this ideal, and most have experienced the trauma caused by a breaking family. However, we know of marriages that practically achieve the ideal, and we see the happiness that children find in a supportive family structure. Even though some traditional families are breaking, it doesn't mean the ideal of traditional marriage is broken.

[ . . . ]

Although not all are able to participate in a traditional marriage that yields children, we all benefit by its establishment in creating strong homes for the next generation with strong direction from self-sacrificing parents. The disestablishment of this ideal affects us all.

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


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: Minnesota
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; marriageamendment; moralabsolutes

1 posted on 09/28/2012 3:31:34 PM PDT by rhema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rhema

Marriage is a religious sacrament. There is no rational argument for “gay marriage”. Civil Unions would achieve the same thing they claim they are trying to accomplish.

This is about imposing their moral code on everyone around them. YOU are not allowed to disagree with their lifestyle. You must, via the power of the state, be forced to embrace their dogma. That is basically fascism. It has nothing at all to do with civil rights.


2 posted on 09/28/2012 3:40:09 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

First, to explain, private actions have public effects.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

True. For a long time, I had as my tagline...

“Yes, as a matter of fact, what you do in the privacy of your bedroom is my business”.

I had it up to indict those libertarians who (naively) would state that they didn’t care what two consenting (homos) adults would do in private. It was not anyone’s business - and not the government’s business - what they did.

WRONG! Attitudes like that have led us where we are today: Repeal of DADT, Sexual perversions in our schools, universtities and our churches, and dozens of other social illnesses directly and indirectly tied to homosexuality.

Most of us were alive just a few years ago when sodomy was illegal in all 50 states. What a great country we had then, right? Therefore we KNOW that turning a blind eye to what “two consenting adults...” has led to the moral and economic destruction of a once great country.


3 posted on 09/28/2012 3:48:44 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

It’s been a convenient secular tool. What better way to go to bat against religion than claim particular religions’ existence violates one’s own rights? It’s a distorted, and awful ideology, but that’s what one of freedom’s biggest enemies is right now.


4 posted on 09/28/2012 3:49:05 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

ping


5 posted on 09/28/2012 3:54:00 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

I keep asking gays (pointedly my nephew) WHY 2 (also why not brother/sister mother/daughter etc.)?

I can give a rational basis for society supporting and subsidizing traditional marriage.

The only answer they can give is “’cauze I want.” “gay Marriage” merely means a contract between 2:n adults (for now) to share resources.

Such a contract provides no benefit to society so it won’t be promoted (all pro-family laws will be defunded) and thus will be ended (sooner or later and probably sooner).

Thus gay marriage ends marriage and with it society.


6 posted on 09/28/2012 3:55:45 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (We can’t just leave it (food choice) up to the parents. -- moochele obozo 2/12/2012 (cnsnews))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Civil Unions would achieve the same thing they claim they are trying to accomplish.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Actually they want the complete destruction of traditional families in America. And even Civil Unions would acheive that goal.

Therefore, gays must be denied the right to marry AND be denied civil unions.

As goes the American Family - so goes America. As the homos gain more “rights” we lose morally AND economically.


7 posted on 09/28/2012 3:56:20 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rhema

One sign of how bizarre it is, is that we will have to invent a new word to describe regular “marriage” for the 99.96% of human marriage activity.

No one wants to have to wade through a 5 minute question and answer session down at the plant, just to find out what the foreman means when he says his daughter is getting married to her high school sweetheart.


8 posted on 09/28/2012 3:56:39 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

As did in Mass. when Romney was Gov. First he instituted gay marriage then same sex adoptions. He also believes gays should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scout Program. One thing leads to another just as it has with abortion.


9 posted on 09/28/2012 3:59:47 PM PDT by brightright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Agreed.


10 posted on 09/28/2012 4:01:24 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

“Gay marriage” as provisioned by the state forces third parties into servicing homosexual behavior.


11 posted on 09/28/2012 4:04:06 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: brightright

Then vote for O if Romney is such a poor choice.


12 posted on 09/28/2012 4:04:37 PM PDT by Imnidiot (THIS SPACE FOR RENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: brightright; Morpheus2009
As did in Mass. when Romney was Gov. First he instituted gay marriage then same sex adoptions

Well once again BR you are simply lying. Nice try Obamabot but you lose

Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts began on May 17, 2004, as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to allow only heterosexual couples to marry. Massachusetts became the sixth jurisdiction in the world (after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec) to legalize same-sex marriage. It was the first U.S. state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[1]

13 posted on 09/28/2012 4:07:58 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Imnidiot
BR is an Obamabot liar. Here are the facts

Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts began on May 17, 2004, as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to allow only heterosexual couples to marry. Massachusetts became the sixth jurisdiction in the world (after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec) to legalize same-sex marriage. It was the first U.S. state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[1]

14 posted on 09/28/2012 4:09:11 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Here is a 2004, National Review article on how we got homosexual marriage.

“The Missing Governor” http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/210678/missing-governor/hadley-arkes

“And if it is countdown for marriage in Massachusetts, it is countdown also for Mitt Romney, whose political demise may be measured along the scale of moves he could have taken and the record of his receding, step by step, until he finally talked himself into doing nothing, or nothing much.
Against a plural body like a legislature, a single executive could act as force to impart focus and energy. But as the legislators splintered along several lines, Romney preserved a decorous silence in public, while he sought counsel, and mulled over schemes, in private. The range of things he could do in combination with the legislature was considerable–if there was a will to do them.”


15 posted on 09/28/2012 4:21:23 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

I agree that Romney has a poor record...but as I said: Vote for Obama if Romney is so bad.
I’m sure you warned everyone about Romney prior to his winning the nomination.
He is our now choice (whether you like it or not). If you are against him, you are FOR Obama.
Your cutting him down only drives people to the One.
Continue badmouthing Romney if you want Obama to win. Simple as that.


16 posted on 09/28/2012 4:23:38 PM PDT by Imnidiot (THIS SPACE FOR RENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
I have to disagree with you. Negative activities have natural negative consequences. God set the system up that way.

The problem with our culture is that we try to protect people from their bad decisions through manipulation of the rules. The problem with regard to DADT is not homosexuals. The problem is politicians telling the military the best way to conduct warfare. In the natural state of things there would be no homosexuals allowed in the the military. It is because of big government and do-gooders (badders) that they have been allowed. The problem with normalizing adultery in schools in not caused by adultery. It is caused by a nationalization of education and the grip of communist teachers unions. If left completely up to ELECTED local school boards this would not be a problem. There may be a dozen or so school districts teaching the normalization of homosexuality in Berkely or San Francisco or Manhattan but it would not be a wide spread problem like it is today.

Here is your interesting thought for the day....

We spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year to find a cure for AIDS. The purpose of which is primarily so that homosexuals, prostitutes, johns, drug addicts and primitive African savages do not have to worry about suffering the natural consequences of their actions.

FYI...

There are two types of Libertarians. One group who are atheists who believe that in the absense of God there is no such thing as "good". If there is no such thing as "good" no man has any right to tell another man how to live.

The other group of Libertarians of which I am a member believe that God created a perfect plan and a perfect system. Every punishment and every reward has been baked into the action by the creator himself. There is no reason for a man to punish a man for being bad when if the act is truly bad it will be self punishing. If the act is truly good, it will carry it's own reward. These things have been described through the centuries as "vice" and "virtue".

How much punishment should one get for sticking their finger in a light socket? My recommendation would be 110 volts of punishment. 500 would be too many and 50 not enough.

How much reward should someone get for brushing their teeth everyday? My suggestion would be that they simply get to keep their teeth. No need to give them extra teeth.

See. God knows what he was doing. Have faith.

I in no way support government recognition of homosexual unions. If you look at my tagline you will see it is the latter of the two things.

17 posted on 09/28/2012 4:26:48 PM PDT by nitzy (A just law will neither punish virtue nor reward vice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

“YOU are not allowed to disagree with their lifestyle. You must, via the power of the state, be forced to embrace their dogma. That is basically fascism. It has nothing at all to do with civil rights”.

And right out of the Communist Manifesto.


18 posted on 09/28/2012 4:32:16 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ansel12; rhema
Gay marriage, like Roe V Wade, was court imposed law. Those trying to say different here are simply lying to you.

Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts began on May 17, 2004, as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to allow only heterosexual couples to marry. Massachusetts became the sixth jurisdiction in the world (after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec) to legalize same-sex marriage. It was the first U.S. state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[1]

19 posted on 09/28/2012 4:32:54 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
This is about imposing their moral code on everyone around them. YOU are not allowed to disagree with their lifestyle.

I'll go you one further: the "gay marriage" issue is about destroying the Church. Period. Look at what's happening in the United Kingdom right now: the State Sponsored Church of England is being forced to perform 'gay marriages' under penalty of law.

Think that's not coming here if the homosexual activists have their way?

20 posted on 09/28/2012 4:32:54 PM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Gay "marriage" will affect all future marriages and all Americans in general because...

1. No true Christians or Jews will be able to work in the marriage business. If a business ever denies a gay couple its services that business will be sued out of existence.

2. No true Christians or Jews will be able to work in any business that indirectly supports the marriage business. If florists or photographers or people who rent out halls deny their services to a gay couple they will be sued out of existence.

3. All Christian or Jewish organizations that make some money each year by renting out buildings they own will either have to stop renting to anyone or prepare to have their property signed over to the first gay couple that has their reception request denied.

4. All Christians and Jews will have to take their children out of public schools where the sex education teachers will be forced to teach gay "marriage" as equivalent to traditional marriage.

5. All Christians and Jews will have to take their children out of private schools. If those schools fail to teach gay "marriage" as OK then they will be closed as discriminators.

6. Christians and Jews who attempt to homeschool their children will be declared child abusers if they fail to teach their children that gay "marriage" is OK. This will be folded into the anti-bullying agenda which is quickly focusing on anti-gay-bullying and the supposed epidemic of "homophobia" that supposedly terrorizes America's youth.

7. Anyone who uses the words "states" and "rights" in the same sentence will be declared a homophobe as well as a racist.

8. I don't see Americans supporting person-animal, person-machine, or even incestual relationships any time soon. However, it will be increasingly difficult to deny people who want to engage in multiple "marriages". If gay partners are now being treated as spouses by Homeland Security with regard to deportation, then I don't see how they can deny a man entry into America along with his multiple wives if he is able to successfully claim he is a political refugee from an Islamic country. Once a few of these folks are allowed in, it will only be a matter of time before the marriage licenses, which used to have lines for Husband and Wife, and now have lines for Partner A and Partner B, will be expanded to include lines for Partners C, D, E, etc.

21 posted on 09/28/2012 4:35:02 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Imnidiot
I’m sure you warned everyone about Romney prior to his winning the nomination.

Yep and now I am doing everything I can to elect him. Romney may not be perfect but we don't have the luxury of waiting for perfection. By 2016 we will be so far down the rabbit hole fiscally and legally there will be no coming back

22 posted on 09/28/2012 4:35:13 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Willard is on record favoring sodomite adoption of children and allowing them to be scout masters. Yes he’ll be better on social issues than Obummer, especially religious freedom, but as far as sodomy is concerned, he’s not much better than Obummer. And, he’s already said he would not try and reinstate DADT, saying it was “settled law”. He was the only republican (I don’t call RuPaul and Johnson republicans), who didn’t care if sodomites openly serve. The man is a liberal, one that we are stuck with.


23 posted on 09/28/2012 4:40:43 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Homosexuality behavior is a Vice. It destroys the fact that there are Laws of Nature-—it violates many of them.

Promoting Vice as Virtue corrupts the next generation and destroys the US Constitution and Rule of Law—based on Virtue (Justice).

We will get “thinkers” (next generation children who are indoctrinated into thinking homosexuality is normal) who are unable to use Reason (since the Laws of Nature/Cause and Effect is where Logic and Reason and Science originate and homosexuality is unnatural/insane by every standard)——just like Marxists/muslims/pagans-—we will have no Ethical system built on Reason and Faith which is the Ethics of Christianity combined with the Nicomachean Ethics. Western Civilization will be destroyed.

The cultural Marxists—Gramsci/lukacs, etc-—devised a way to destroy Western Civilization-—they merged Marx with Freud-—to create perversion and destroy the natural family. Destroy the family-—by corrupting the children’s thought process-—which they do with Sex Ed and brainwashing on TV and movies-—and you destroy all reason and logic-——
Replace it with “urges” and “feel good” philosophy which always collapses cultures.

You will force ideology onto the next generation where “Justice” and Rule of Law will be non-existence since “Justice is a Virtue” in Western Civ and is only because of Christian Ethics and Individualism and Absolutes—which originated with the Greek Masters. Absolutes and Fixed Laws of Nature existed until Marx———and the Postmodernists who hated Christianity most. Western Civilization was shaped for thousands of years by Christianity-—which promotion of something so irrational and vile like homosexual behavior-—will destroy.

There is no “right” to sodomize another human being. It removes all dignity and reduces man to a godless beast.


24 posted on 09/28/2012 4:41:46 PM PDT by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
Many times it is stated: "What I choose to do in my marriage doesn't affect your marriage."

Yes, and it is essentially the same argument as "Don't like abortions? Then don't have one."

25 posted on 09/28/2012 4:46:02 PM PDT by shhrubbery! (NIH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

People can read the 2004, National Review article linked in post 15, to learn how “gay marriage” started in Massachusetts during Governor Romney’s watch.

Here is Mitt Romney describing his personal relationship to the radical homosexual agenda.

Mitt to the left of Ted Kennedy—”I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for Americas gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.

I am not unaware of my opponent’s considerable record in the area of civil rights, or the commitment of Massachusetts voters to the principle of equality for all Americans. For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent’s record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.”

“We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and the bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.”
Sincerely, Mitt Romney


26 posted on 09/28/2012 4:48:33 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie; brightright

Sorry MNJohnnie for the confusion...I thought the comment was from brightright. Didn’t notice the poster name change. Please forgive me.


27 posted on 09/28/2012 4:59:16 PM PDT by Imnidiot (THIS SPACE FOR RENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Here is the gift of same sex marriage to my family: my homosexual brother who married his gay partner is now dead from AIDS. My other brother who practices homosexual behavior has also been diagnosed with AIDS.

Freedom. Marriage. Life. That is what God intends for us. Not homosexuality and same sex marriage, an abomination.


28 posted on 09/28/2012 5:25:28 PM PDT by FlyingEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
How can same sex marriage even be an issue?

Never mind what the "gays" think they are up to.

It is the result of the previous cheapening of marriage, due to a generation or so of normally sexed misbehavior.

29 posted on 09/28/2012 5:48:16 PM PDT by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie; ansel12; rhema; brightright; Imnidiot

The folks posting that Romney was for gay marriage are either lying or terribly mistaken. Romney was not only NEVER for gay marriage, he tried to get a Protection of Marriage amendment on the state ballot.

________________________________________

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state had to allow gays to marry. Romney led the effort to get a Protection of Marriage amendment on the state ballot so that the citizens could overturn the court. The state legislature stalled on allowing the amendment, so Romney led a rally in Boston demanding that the people be allowed to vote on it. In the end, the Democrat legislature voted down the amendment and wouldn’t allow it on the ballot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts

________________________________________

Part of Romney’s speech at the rally:

“Legislators so energized to protect the newly discovered gay right to marry had no compunction about trammeling the long established, constitutional right of the people to vote.

The issue now before us is not whether same sex couples should marry. The issue before us today is whether 109 legislators will follow the Constitution.

Tomorrow, I will send these 109 a copy of the Constitution and of their oath of office.

And this week, we will file an action before the courts, calling upon the judiciary to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens.

Let us not see this state, which first established constitutional democracy, become the first to abandon it.”

http://illinoisans-4-mitt-romney.blogspot.com/2006/11/mitt-romney-remarks-111906-democracy.html

________________________________________

Further proof - the left’s protest against Romney’s Protection of Marriage amendment:

Rally Against Romney “Bigot!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaLsE-y1TQE


30 posted on 09/28/2012 6:25:46 PM PDT by Tamzee (The U.S. re-electing Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and ramming the iceberg again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Well, if those consenting adults KEPT IT in the bedroom, it wouldn’t affect anyone else. However, when they FORCE everyone else, BY LAW, to accept what they do, that’s another thing, entirely.


31 posted on 09/28/2012 6:30:43 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
The range of things he could do in combination with the legislature was considerable–if there was a will to do them.”

Yeah, well, I guess he could have tried, but considering the legislature in MA is over 3/4 Democrat, he wouldn't have gotten very far on this issue, simply because he was a Republican. But some Democrats were against homosexual marriage, and we almost got a referendum on the ballot, until Deval Patrick came along and, ahem, encouraged 5 legislators to change their minds and NOT support the referendum, and we didn't get the votes needed to put it on the ballot. So the citizens of MA were denied the ability to vote on the issue, because those who supported homosexual marriage knew it would be voted down at the ballot box.

32 posted on 09/28/2012 6:41:01 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tamzee

We covered all this years ago, read the article linked to in post 15 for an example of freerepublic’s past view.


33 posted on 09/28/2012 6:41:31 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: rhema

It’s going to get worse, my niece said there were girls in the seventh grade dating, these kids are seeing this behavior on TV, embraced by our politicians, our military, celebrities, they think it’s normal, and it allows for them to stand out among their peers, the seeds have been sown by the socialists, marriage between only a man and a woman will last another decade at most, the days of Noah indeed!


34 posted on 09/28/2012 8:40:05 PM PDT by IslamE (epiphany)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
We covered all this years ago, read the article linked to in post 15 for an example of freerepublic’s past view.

That is your strongest argument? That the governor who tried to pass a Massuchesetts Protection of Marriage amendment and organized a state rally against gay marriage should be actually be labeled as FOR gay marriage because he didn't disobey the state's Supreme Court?

He was even lobbying for federally protecting marriage years before that...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917643/posts

In 2004, Gov. Romney Called For A Federal Marriage Amendment In Testimony Before The Senate Judiciary Committee. GOV. ROMNEY: "We need an amendment that restores and protects our societal definition of marriage, blocks judges from changing that definition and then, consistent with the principles of federalism, leaves other policy issues regarding marriage to state legislatures." (Gov. Mitt Romney, Testimony, United States Senate Committee On The Judiciary, 6/22/04)

35 posted on 09/28/2012 9:56:32 PM PDT by Tamzee (The U.S. re-electing Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and ramming the iceberg again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tamzee

I think the uglier arguments and the 6 years of evidence that we have here at freerepublic, should probably wait until the election is over.

Then we can dig up the vast number of threads here where we have covered this and destroyed every Romney argument for all these years.


36 posted on 09/28/2012 10:18:57 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie; Tamzee

There were options open to Romney after the ruling. Opponents of same sex marriage citing the States Colonial Era Constitution that gave the Governor authority over matters relating to marriage argued that the courts decision was not binding. But on March 30 2004 Romney according to his spokesman said he had not explored the Constitution section giving him power over “cause of marriage” and weather it gives him any legal power to stop same sex marriage.
Pro family leaders and conservative asked him to issue Executive Orders to block same sex marriage. There was no public comment from Romney.
April 22 2004 Rep. Goquen filed a Bill of Address for Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance to remove Chief Justice Marshall for violation of the code of Judicial conduct. Again no comment or support from Romney.

April 16 2004 Romney announced his administration is changing marriage licenses from husband/wife to party A/party B. Yet when in July 2005 when asked to change birth certificates from mother/father to parent A/parent B he said only the legislature could make those changes. On May 17 2004 Romney INSTITUTED gay marriage in Mass.


37 posted on 09/29/2012 1:06:02 AM PDT by brightright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
One sign of how bizarre it is, is that we will have to invent a new word to describe regular “marriage” for the 99.96% of human marriage activity.

It's gotten to the point that I can't even relax and enjoy the "wedding announcements" section of the newspaper, I feel like I have to brace myself for a notice of a "wedding" other than the man-woman variety.

I was browsing through a pleasant feature story in the SF Chronicle the other day and thought it was a nice article until I came across the phrase "his husband" ---- eeek!

38 posted on 09/29/2012 1:29:25 AM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I think the uglier arguments and the 6 years of evidence that we have here at freerepublic, should probably wait until the election is over.

I think after seeing ugly arguments and 10 years of evidence on freerepublic that liars insist on lies in face of contrary evidence, I'll continue to call your posts lies.

39 posted on 09/29/2012 8:59:08 AM PDT by Tamzee (The U.S. re-electing Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and ramming the iceberg again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: brightright
Pro family leaders and conservative asked him to issue Executive Orders to block same sex marriage. There was no public comment from Romney.

The right does not destroy checks and balances and rule like a monarchy through the Executive branch, Obama does that. And you want to give him four more years?

April 22 2004 Rep. Goquen filed a Bill of Address for Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance to remove Chief Justice Marshall for violation of the code of Judicial conduct. Again no comment or support from Romney.

Bills of Address have to pass a majority in the legislature (85% democrat at the time) and the Governor's Council (8 democrats, 1 republican at the time). Elections have consequences and this situation is the perfect example. When you let socialist Democrats gain enormous control of the government, Republicans have very little to zero ability to stop their agenda.

April 16 2004 Romney announced his administration is changing marriage licenses from husband/wife to party A/party B. Yet when in July 2005 when asked to change birth certificates from mother/father to parent A/parent B he said only the legislature could make those changes. On May 17 2004 Romney INSTITUTED gay marriage in Mass.

Again, Romney was following the Supreme Court ruling... the birth certificates that you seem to throw out as "proof" against him is actually proof FOR him. There was a Supreme Court ruling that made gay marriage legal, there was no such ruling forcing him to change birth certificates.

This situation is a PERFECT example of why we need to drive Obama out of the White House, elections have consequences and the socialists gained control of the Mass legislature and Mass Supreme Court... unless you prefer to see this putrid corruption of society gaining even more force in our country with that communist monster as President so you can just whine and blame other people even more for the damage he'll do?

.

40 posted on 09/29/2012 9:39:15 AM PDT by Tamzee (The U.S. re-electing Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and ramming the iceberg again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tamzee

I’m trying to avoid dragging in that the official freerepublic position by the owner, is that he agrees with the article in post 15.

I don’t know that you called him liar on many, many, threads like these.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2870891/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2907637/posts

He is supporting a Romney win right now, although he has never retracted anything about Mitt. I think that it is best to wait until after the election to pursue some of the more brutal, exposes of Mitt Romney.


41 posted on 09/29/2012 11:32:50 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Tamzee

Here is the timeline on how the radically pro-homosexual agenda Romney, who proudly declared that he was to the left of Ted Kennedy when it comes to promoting homosexuality, handled the marriage issue, when he was finished, it was legal. Romney was no rightwing warrior as a Governor.

I. Mitt Romney demonstrates his commitment to homosexual “rights” before becoming Governor of Massachusetts in January 2003:

1994 Campaign vs. Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate: Romney pledged he “will provide more effective leadership” than Kennedy on homosexual rights; endorsed by Log Cabin Republicans.
2000-2002: As head of Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, Romney banned Boy Scouts from participating.
2001 Called first citizens’ petition to define marriage “too extreme” and “bigoted” because it banned civil unions.
2002 Campaign for Governor: Romney makes promises to GLBT community, according to leading Boston homosexual newspaper; endorsed by homosexual activist Log Cabin Republicans.
II. Nov. 18, 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) rules that same-sex marriage is protected in the Mass. Constitution, and gives the Legislature 180 days to act (“Goodridge” ruling).

Nov. 18, 2003 Romney responds to SJC ruling with four-sentence statement implicitly recognizing SJC’s authority, says only remedy will be a constitutional amendment: “I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman.”
Nov.-Dec. 2003 Romney reportedly working with Legislators promoting “civil unions”.
Jan. 2004 Romney silent on proposal to remove four SJC justices through Bill of Address (put forward by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance).
Feb. 4, 2004 SJC tells Legislature that civil unions for same-sex couples will not satisfy its interpretation of the Mass. Constitution; only full-fledged marriage will do.
Feb. 5, 2004 Romney publishes editorial in Wall Street Journal laying all blame on the SJC for problem in Massachusetts. Suggests other states strengthen marriage statutes and pass constitutional amendments. Says don’t “attack … gays, singles or non-traditional couples.”
Feb. 2004 Justices of the Peace are told by their professional association they will be able to claim “conscientious objector” status and refuse to perform same-sex marriages — though this was never agreed to by Romney administration.
Feb.-May 2004 Pro-family leaders and columnists urge Romney to defy court, and issue Executive Order to block same-sex marriage; no public comment from Romney.
March 12, 2004 As Legislature postures on constitutional amendments, Romney continues to say amendment to Mass. Constitution is solution.
March 26, 2004 Word leaks out that Romney’s Dept. of Public Health (DPH) and attorneys are planning training sessions for Town Clerks and preparing same-sex marriage licenses.
March 29, 2004 Romney tells Republicans in Mass. legislature to vote for Travaglini-Lees “compromise amendment” which would ban same-sex marriage but establish civil unions (and would not go to voters before Nov. 2006). Republican legislators had earlier opposed this amendment because of the civil unions clause, and it passed only due to their changed votes.
March 29-31, 2004 Romney seeks stay of SJC ruling until constitutional amendment issue is settled, but Atty. General Reilly refuses to take Governor’s case before SJC. [Did Romney believe that same court that issued Goodridge ruling would seriously consider his request for a stay?]
March 30, 2004 Romney says he’ll “abide by the law of the land as it exists on May 17” and says he would not order town clerks to defy court edict. Romney says he’d not explored the Constitution section giving him power over “causes of marriage” and whether it gives him any legal power to stop same-sex marriage (according to spokesman).
April 12, 2004 Romney spokesman says training sessions for town clerks will begin “with plenty of room to spare before May 17.” Ron Crews of Mass. Coalition for Marriage states hope for an Executive Order to halt the marriages.
April 15, 2004 Romney files emergency bill in Legislature to seek stay of SJC ruling, and is rebuffed and reprimanded by Senate President Travaglini.
April 15, 2004 Romney’s DPH Registrar of Vital Records informs town clerks by letter of training sessions before SJC ruling becomes effective.
April 16, 2004 Romney announces his administration is scheduling training sessions for May 5-12 with licenses changed from “husband/wife” to “Party A/Party B”.
April 17, 2004 Mass. Dept. of Revenue (under Romney) declares SJC ruling the new “law”.
April 22, 2004 Romney does not comment on Rep. Goguen’s filing of Bill of Address for Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance to remove the 4 SJC judges, or Article 8’s revelation of Chief Justice Marshall’s violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. (Marshall had appeared as keynote speaker at homosexual advocacy group dinner in 1999 advocated extension of “rights” for homosexuals, and failed to recuse herself from ruling on same-sex marriage though she had publicly expressed her bias.)
April 26, 2004 Romney’s chief Legal Counsel, Daniel Winslow, issues directive to Justices of the Peace to resign (or be fired, fined, or sued) if they are unwilling to perform same-sex marriages (exact date not given on document).
April 29, 2004 Romney writes to 49 other Governors to inform them he’ll uphold section of Mass. marriage statutes banning same-sex marriages for out-of-state couples.
May 5-12, 2004 Town clerk training sessions held. [GLAD – Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders — is only source on content of sessions; perhaps they were responsible for content?]
May 15, 2004 Romney issues proclamation: May 15 is “Gay/Straight Youth Pride Day”. Romney’s “Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth” events include parade, GLBT activism (with prominent transsexual radical activists), and a GLBT prom – two days before same-sex marriages are to begin.
May 17, 2004 Same-sex marriages begin across Massachusetts. Romney issues brief statement: “All along, I have said an issue as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage should be decided by the people. Until then, I intend to follow the law and expect others to do the same.” [What law? Original marriage statutes clearly defining marriage as between a man and a woman were –and are — still on the books, unchanged by the Legislature. So Romney is not enforcing the actual law—just a court opinion.]
May 18, 2004 Romney begins enforcement of section of marriage statute banning out-of-state couples marrying in Mass. if that marriage would be illegal in their home state, while other intact sections of the marriage statute (“man” and “woman”) are ignored.
June 22, 2004 Romney testifies before US Senate Judiciary Committee for federal marriage amendment and blames Court for situation in Massachusetts.
Oct. 29, 2004 Romney signs new law eliminating blood test for STDs as requirement for marriage license (Ch. 388 of Acts of 2004). [Note: this is the only part of marriage statutes changed to satisfy demands of same-sex marriage]
Dec. 2004 Romney has no comment on bills filed by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance for 2005-6 session: to remove four SJC judges; strengthen definition of marriage in statute; and declare same-sex marriages since May 17, 2004 null/void and without statutory basis.
Feb. 21, 2005 Romney makes speech before South Carolina Republicans, then is accused of “flip-flopping” on civil unions by homosexual lobby. Romney also negatively refers to demands by the homosexual activists that birth certificates be changed to read “Parent A/Parent B” (instead of “father/mother”), arguing he had no authority to make such a change [though he had no such qualms about changing the marriage license].
June 16, 2005 Romney joins VoteOnMarriage (VOM) amendment effort, which would recognize same-sex marriages prior to amendment taking effect, and not ban civil unions. (Romney says VOM is superior to the Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment.) Romney also announces support of VOM’s proposed bill promoting partnership benefits for any couple wanting them (see “Benefits Fairness Act” filed Jan. 2006). Romney says he’s opposed to removing the four SJC judges. Calls for a “high degree of respect and tolerance for people whose lifestyle and choices and orientation is as they may choose.”
July 22, 2005 Romney says only Legislature can change birth certificates from “father/mother” to “Parent A/Parent B”.
Sept. 14, 2005 Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment defeated in Legislature.
Nov. 2005 Romney tells Federalist Society that judiciary must be grounded in Constitution and law and precedents, and only the Legislature and people can change that base.
Jan. 2, 2006 Boston Globe reports Romney issued special Governor’s ceremonial marriage licenses to 189 same-sex couples in 2005 (including to homosexual activist state senator), claiming he did not refuse because he was evenly applying the “statute”. [Note: There is no new statute establishing same-sex marriage.]
Jan. 11, 2006 Romney files “Benefits Fairness Act” with VoteOnMarriage, which is roundly criticized by GLBT lobby, and shelved in Committee as late-filed bill.
March 10-14, 2006 Romney says laws require Catholic Charities not to discriminate against same-sex parents in its adoption placements [but there’s only an administrative regulation]. He says same-sex couples have “a legitimate interest” in adopting children.
June 2, 2006 Romney sends letter to US Congress arguing for federal marriage amendment.
June 28, 2006 Romney urges Legislature to vote on VOM amendment, and addresses importance of following Constitution.
Sept. 30, 2006 Romney says he has to “follow the law,” and accept Mass. Superior Court ruling stating Rhode Island lesbian couple can marry in Massachusetts (following an earlier SJC ruling addressing Rhode Island’s lack of prohibition of same-sex marriage).
Oct. 15, 2006 Romney addresses nationally broadcast “Liberty Sunday” (Family Research Council) event in Boston. Blames SJC for Mass. problems, says we need an outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people regardless of different choices they make, and as a nation we must reject discrimination and bigotry. Calls for support of federal marriage amendment.
Nov. 19, 2006 Romney holds rally on State House steps announcing he’s delivering a copy of the Constitution to every Legislator who voted to recess the Constitutional Convention (to avoid the vote on the VOM amendment required by state Constitution). Romney also announces he’s appealing to the courts. [But he says nothing about the SJC precedent of Dec. 20, 2002, ruling that the Legislature must vote in this situation, which already affirms that he should call Legislators back.]
©2006 MassResistance (11-23-06)


42 posted on 09/29/2012 11:41:11 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Tamzee

In 2002 Romney opposed a marriage amendment that would have PREVENTED same sex marriage. He claimed it was too extreme and bigoted because it banned civil unions.

When running for office he stated he would be better for gays than Ted Kennedy.

The court ruling gave the legislature 180 days to take such action as it may deem appropriate. The legislature never “obeyed” the judges by changing the marriage statutes. The court never ORDERED or SUGGESTED any intervention by the Governor.

When the legislature did not legalize gay marriage Romney claimed the Judges did. That was a violation of the Mass. Constitution which says “The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers” There was no law only just a court opinion When he made changes to the marriage license from husband/wife to Party A to Party B and and required officials to issue licenses and perform same sex marriages there was no law requiring him to do so.

Later when gays requested he change birth certificates from mother/father to parent A/ parent B he said that only the legislature can do that. He knew that when he changed the marriage license but did not follow the LAW then.

The original marriage statutes clearly define marriage as between a man and am woman were and still are on the books unchanged by the legislature, except for the Law eliminating blood tests for STD. Romney signed that LAW [Ch 388 of acts of 2004] which is the ONLY statue changed to satisfy demands of same sex marriage.


43 posted on 09/29/2012 12:07:09 PM PDT by brightright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | 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