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

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: 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: 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: 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 ]

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