Posted on 06/27/2013 5:31:57 AM PDT by bestintxas
Wow...Linda has lost his mind.
Lindsey Graham is as liberal as any northeastern democrat.
The difference is that the people of South Carolina have enough conservatives to elect someone better.
It’s sad that Linda is sitting in the seat that was for so long occupied by Strom Thurmond.
RE :”Graham said, “The federal government has the right to define marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act basically says that one state is not bound by the dictates of another, that when it comes to defining the relationship called marriage, South Carolina can do it one way, California can do it another, and, at the federal level, we would not recognize same-sex couples’ benefits.”
This battle is already lost Grahamnesty, where the f.. were you before it was?
Too busy working with Dems.
God defines marriage, Sen. Graham. God always has and always will have the final Word on this subject. Man can take any votes they want, but the results will never change God’s mind.
Jesus said, “For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they shall be one flesh.” (Matt. 19:5).
“Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever,” (Hebrews 13:8.)
the majority of states recognize traditional marriage. Propose an amendment.
Lindsay Graham: Stupid POS.
Lindsay Graham = Lindsay Lohan without such a high degree of respect for the law, without her intelligence, and without her interest in the opposite sex.
It is technically true, but that is why I said misleading: the misleading part, is that in today’s news cycle, it leads one to think he must agree with the court’s decision, which he did not. Some of the early posters seem to be under that impression as well....since we know many people comment on headlines without reading.
So - why are you so offended by my comment?
“So - why are you so offended by my comment?”
Any time someone infers something like the word “misleading”, seems the facts speak otherwise
decide for yourself...
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that addresses marriage, so the states make that call. If we had a real supreme court that ruled only on the basis of what is addressed by the Constitution none of this would be an issue.
He’s a worthless dick-licker for obama, like mccain.
The Republic is in dire need of a reboot back to startup parameters.
Graham is wrong, but right by default. That is, churches have abrogated their authority to establish the rules for sacramental marriage.
This authority could be reestablished with work and determination. It calls for ecumenism. That all conservative and Orthodox churches that are firm in their beliefs, should reach an accord setting the ground rules for marriage, and the *recognition* of marriage by them all.
The hard part comes later, as part of the agreement, by *refusing* to recognize marriages made in contravention of the rules, or by other bodies not party to the agreement; and the hardest part of all, to tell their congregants to, in the future, have only church marriages, not to get secular marriage licenses.
Since government’s involvement has been so diluted that unmarried couples are seen as in fact married as far as the law is concerned, government marriage licenses are useless.
Importantly, churches could “add to” this agreement, but they could not lower its standards.
In any event, by churches recognizing church marriages, but not those conducted by liberal churches or secular marriages, the sacrament would be restored as both important and outside the purview of government.
And while government could still issue marriage certificates, they could eliminate all the rules, so that some deviants could marry a whole herd of goats, and it would be legally recognized. But the churches could sneer at the proceedings as meaningless, and refuse to call the involved “Mr. and Mrs. and 12 goats.”
Yo, Lispy... the federal government has enumerated powers, not “rights.” WE THE PEOPLE retain rights, you faggedy dumbass.
...or they might be right......and you are majoring in minors.
Either that or he is planning on running on the RAT ticket.
Hard to do when some orthodox groups accept divorce and remarriage and others don’t.
“and the hardest part of all, to tell their congregants to, in the future, have only church marriages, not to get secular marriage licenses.”
This is probably what is going to end up happening, either as a choice or as an involuntary punishment from the state—’discriminate by not renting your hall to state recognized married gays we won’t let your pastor issue state recognized marriage licenses for your members’ or even if you don’t marry gays at all.
Freegards
At this point It is the republicans own fault for allowing an open primary. He will get the nomination. If I were a SC resident I would vote third party or not at all in the senate election.
I though about the divorce angle, which is why the agreement has to be limited to the rules for marriage.
For example, though the Catholics prohibit divorce, this only applies to Catholics. They would still call married people from other churches in the agreement, married, if they chose, or unmarried. But if they wanted to become married under Catholic auspices, or for the Catholic church to recognize their existing marriage, the Catholic rules would apply in addition to the agreement rules.
Oddly enough, this would benefit all the churches that are part of the agreement, because many of their congregants who just got a secular marriage, would want to renew their vows in a “real church wedding”.
gfy lindsey
“For example, though the Catholics prohibit divorce, this only applies to Catholics.”
It’s the remarriage part that Catholics prohibit, but I don’t see a problem if Catholic rules apply to folks wanting to become Catholic. That’s the way it is now.
“Oddly enough, this would benefit all the churches that are part of the agreement, because many of their congregants who just got a secular marriage, would want to renew their vows in a “real church wedding”.
Agreed. There have been several articles with Catholic pundits who suggest that the Catholic Church consider removing itself from the civil aspect of marriage, some are new since the sc rulings.
Here’s an old one from last nov:
Freegards
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.