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

Skip to comments.

Redefining Marriage: Proponents of same-sex marriage insist they’re “on the right side of history.”
The National Review ^ | February 19, 2014 | Dennis Prager

Posted on 02/23/2014 11:44:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

In 2006, 57 percent of Virginia’s electorate voted to amend their state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Last week, U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen ruled the amendment unconstitutional.

In 2004, 76 percent of Oklahoma’s electorate voted to amend their state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. On January 14, 2014, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern ruled the amendment unconstitutional.

In 2004, 66 percent of Utah’s electorate voted to amend their state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. On December 20, 2013, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby ruled the amendment unconstitutional.

In 2004, 75 percent of Kentucky’s electorate voted to amend their state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. On February 12, 2014, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II “struck down part of the state ban that he wrote treated ‘gay and lesbian persons differently in a way that demeans them’” (Washington Post).

In 2008, 52 percent of California’s electorate voted to amend their state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled the amendment unconstitutional.

There is no doubt that federal judges will continue to do this throughout the country. Even the vote of 81 percent of Alabama voters will count for nothing to some federal judge.

Society is no longer being permitted to define marriage in the only way marriage has ever been defined in the annals of recorded history. Many societies have allowed polygamy, many have allowed child marriages, some have allowed marriage within families; but none in thousands of years has defined marriage as the union of people of the same sex.

None of this matters to these judges or to all those who seek to redefine marriage and can’t convince a majority of their fellow citizens to agree.

For them, it is identical to ruling that laws that banned interracial marriages were unconstitutional. But that argument is utterly flawed. First, the analogy is false because there is no relevant difference between black people and white people, while there are enormous differences between males and females. Second, no great moral tradition or thinker ever forbade interracial marriages (interreligious marriages were sometimes forbidden). Moses, for example, married a black woman, and neither the Bible nor God hinted that it was wrong.

Some conclusions:

Proponents of same-sex marriage regularly label opponents “radical” and “extremist.” However, given that no society in thousands of years has allowed same-sex marriage, it is, by definition, the proponents of same-sex marriage whose position is radical and extreme. You cannot redefine marriage in a more radical way than allowing members of the same sex to marry. You can argue that this is the moral thing to do. But you cannot argue that it is it not radical.

All these judges have a hubris that is simply breathtaking. They not only know that they read the Constitution more accurately than the vast majority of the residents of many of America’s states. They are also entirely comfortable with forcing great majorities of Americans to accept this new definition of marriage.

That it is conceit rather than legal reasoning is easily shown when one peruses the opinions of these judges.

I will cite only Judge Vaughn Walker as an example:

Walker: “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”

“No rational basis”? This is hubris. What he is stating is that for all of Western history — and contemporaneous non-Western history — there has not been a rational basis for defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Vaughn Walker is convinced that he thinks more rationally than every moral leader and thinker in history, not one of whom advocated same-sex marriage. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, the Enlightenment — all were irrational regarding same-sex marriage, according to Judge Walker.

In his mind, it is irrational, just to cite one example, to prefer that men and women form families in order to provide children with a mother and a father.

Walker: “Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”

Yes, without in any way reducing the worth or the decency of any gay human being or dismissing the depth of same-sex love, California, like the rest of the world, has indeed believed in the superiority of man–woman unions. Not in the superiority of straight men and women as people: The gay human being is created in God’s image every bit as much as the straight human being; and there are gays who have led vastly more moral lives than many straights. But regarding how the family — the building block of society — should be constituted, the civilized world has always believed that it should be based on a married mother and father.

Society has also believed in the superiority of mother–father families to single-parent families; and that, too, never meant that every married person is inherently superior to every single person.

Walker: “Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis.”

This is another example of the lack of serious thought — as opposed to serious passion — that underlies the movement to redefine marriage. If American society has a “constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,” then there is no plausible argument for denying polygamous relationships, or for denying brothers and sisters, or parents and adult children, the right to marry.

On the matter of same-sex marriage, mass passions and coercive judges are winning. Above all, hubris is winning. That is why proponents always assert that they are “on the right side of history.”

But history is very long. Our grandchildren, or their grandchildren, will judge whether this is true. The Left since Marx has asserted that every one of its radical positions — such as the demise of capitalism — is on the right side of history. Virtually none turned out to be.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: activistcourts; culturewar; gaybullies; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; listentothecoolkids; mediabias; nuclearfamily; pinkjournalism; romneymarriage; romneymarriage4all; samesexmarriage; sexpositiveagenda; sexrevolt; sexualrevolution; smashmonogamy; smashthepatriarchy; waronchildren; waronmarriage; waronreligion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last
What say you?
1 posted on 02/23/2014 11:44:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The ancient Greeks and Romans thought they were on the “right” side of history. History has proved otherwise.


2 posted on 02/23/2014 11:49:47 PM PST by informavoracious (Open your eyes, people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: informavoracious; All

Yeah, the poor Greeks and Romans, history outran them, as it will outrun us, no matter what we do.


3 posted on 02/23/2014 11:57:09 PM PST by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: informavoracious
I don't think they thought it to that level...

however, Roman law and institutions pervades the modern world

Note also that the homosexually free culture of Greece still did not have any homosexual marriage

4 posted on 02/24/2014 12:01:19 AM PST by Cronos (ObamaÂ’s dislike of Assad is not based on AssadÂ’s brutality but that he isn't a jihadi Moslem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“wrong side of history!” memes are like the race card for the left. They love to say it in order to marginalize the opponents of their agenda, but like the author intelligenetly states, the left believed this about virtually everything they have ever tried to do. “Unions are the future! Conservatives are on the wrong side of history!” Well, now unions are biting the dust all across the country. This is simply Alinsky writ large.

They compare it to the interracial marriage issue, that the history aspect is the same, when it is completely different. Bans on interracial marriage were a product of Darwinian evolutionary theory and the insane eugenics craze of his proteges. They were a flash in the pan as far as history goes. Whereas same sex marriage has never in the history of civilization been legal even during times of maximum acceptance of sodomy (see ancient Greece and Rome). Over 2000 years and not one grain of this concept anywhere on the globe. That tells you that its odds of surviving the exceedingly long tide of ‘history’ are practically nil.

And as I have often said, if I need be on the ‘wrong side of history’ to be on the right side of eternity, then so be it. History is a product of man. Eternity is a product of God.


5 posted on 02/24/2014 12:02:20 AM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Yes, but Jesus is the King of History and he might have a few things to say to those judges overturning the will of the people.


6 posted on 02/24/2014 12:07:07 AM PST by Slyfox (When Jesus sees a momma holding her little baby, he remembers when his own momma held him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

There is no “side” of history. These people are knuckleheads.


7 posted on 02/24/2014 12:07:52 AM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

They use marriage as a veil for sodomy.


8 posted on 02/24/2014 12:09:37 AM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
People don't marry each other. The government marries them.

There is no loss of freedom involved.

9 posted on 02/24/2014 12:10:42 AM PST by freerepublicchat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
... but none in thousands of years has defined marriage as the union of people of the same sex.

Juvenal called it:

"I have a ceremony to attend," quoth one, "at dawn to-morrow, in the Quirinal valley." "What is the occasion?" "No need to ask: a friend is taking to himself a husband; quite a small affair." Yes, and if we only live long enough, we shall see these things done openly: people will wish to see them reported among the news of the day.

Satire II, circa 100 AD

10 posted on 02/24/2014 12:22:06 AM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
  'Marriage Equality' is a marketing slogan and it worked very well. No one wants to be against 'equality.' People who state the obvious truth that marriage recognizes a unique relationship between a man and a woman are shunned. It is unique. It is not equal to anything.
11 posted on 02/24/2014 12:27:50 AM PST by Maurice Tift (Never wear anything that panics the cat. -- P.J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

We are truly living amongst flaming lunatics.... God help us and our beloved USA.... Semper Fi bro....


12 posted on 02/24/2014 12:49:11 AM PST by progunner (no compromise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I still think this gigantic campaign for gay marriage is engineered in the shadows by divorce lawyers. Who wouldn’t want such a massive increase in their customer base? And I’m actually sort of serious about that. Always follow the money.


13 posted on 02/24/2014 12:58:41 AM PST by JennysCool (My hypocrisy goes only so far)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: progunner

I was in the 2nd United States Infantry Division, not the 2nd Marine Corps Infantry Division, but my father was an 0699 and served in World War II, Korea and Vietnam, so I'll say "Semper Fi" back at you. Did you know that the 2ID is the only Army division that has been commanded by and included members of the Marine Corps at one time?

14 posted on 02/24/2014 1:00:20 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Sarah Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

No,,,, I didn’t bro. thank you for the info. It’s strange,,,, I went from Paris Island right to “Dugway” when they found out I was a fourth generation gun/bulletsmith. Dugway is an Army installation....


15 posted on 02/24/2014 1:12:52 AM PST by progunner (no compromise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: progunner

Yes, Dugway Proving Grounds, in Utah. I knew a retired female Master Sergeant who was stationed there as a counterintelligence agent.


17 posted on 02/24/2014 1:19:25 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Sarah Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Your well informed my friend. That area has quite “the history” from what we were told when we arrived in the summer of “65”. We, I and a bunch of other door gunners were there to get “familiarized with GE’s great gift to us,,,, “the mini-gun” Absolute awesome weapon.


18 posted on 02/24/2014 1:35:50 AM PST by progunner (no compromise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
What say you?

We no longer have free government. We are not a free people. Our government is arbitrary. When one man lives at the will of another, that man is a slave.

No election can reverse eighty years of anti-constitutional court decisions. Elections increasingly serve to determine who will be our masters.

There is little time.

19 posted on 02/24/2014 1:50:07 AM PST by Jacquerie ( Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Electorate: All the people in a country or area who are entitled to vote in an election.

“Who are entitled” is the key so the story is misleading to begin with. Based on the story out of 100% of the people entitled to vote, voted which is BS. A small number of folks entitled to vote actually voted and out of that small percentage XX% voted for.


20 posted on 02/24/2014 2:11:59 AM PST by maddog55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
What say you?

Doesn't matter what I think, it matters what God says. I think he is against it, at least that is what the Bible says.

21 posted on 02/24/2014 2:19:18 AM PST by verga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freerepublicchat
People don't marry each other. The government marries them. There is no loss of freedom involved.

Catholics view marriage as a sacrament and a covenant. The couple performs the sacrament for each other. The priest presides to insure that they have the proper matter (Man and a woman) and follow the proper form (exchange of vows).

22 posted on 02/24/2014 2:24:24 AM PST by verga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

In time, proponents of same sex marriage will publicly be portrayed as sewer dwelling filth.


23 posted on 02/24/2014 2:28:46 AM PST by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Well put!


24 posted on 02/24/2014 2:42:20 AM PST by skr (May God confound the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

What the hell do they care? Actually?

The agenda has been to SMASH THE PATRIARCHY, SMASH MONOGAMY, and establish antiestablishmentarianism (end the rule of law, upend the church, wrong is right, down is up).

They aren’t concerned about history or moving forward. They seek to overturn the applecart and fulfill their own carnal desires.

Same sex divorce and the adopted children of such self-centered relationships are never discussed.

As they said in the 60s, “LA LA LA LA LA LA ,live for today...”


25 posted on 02/24/2014 2:47:45 AM PST by a fool in paradise ("Health care is too important to be left to the government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool

I’m not sure about the divorce lawyer angle. Gays are a pretty small portion of the population, and altho common sense says that they may divorse at a higher rate than the rest of the population (the novelty will wear off), they, cognizant of the financial downsides of marriage (marriage penalty, increased under Obamacare) will marry at a lower rate than the rest of the population.


26 posted on 02/24/2014 2:48:48 AM PST by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Various forms of socialism (national socialism, soviet socialism, etc.) were also on the “right side of history” and that terrible error lasted nearly a century. Being on the right side of history doesn’t mean something is a good idea.


27 posted on 02/24/2014 3:05:25 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Redefining Marriage: Proponents of same-sex marriage insist they’re “on the right side of history.”

I'd say they were on the back side of history

28 posted on 02/24/2014 3:40:33 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool

I’ve been saying the same thing since the push began.


29 posted on 02/24/2014 3:43:12 AM PST by CrazyIvan (Obama phones= Bread and circuits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Ponder this:

The media keeps referring to that NBA guy as “the only openly gay player”. Does that mean there are dozens of closeted gays in the league?


30 posted on 02/24/2014 4:06:50 AM PST by sodpoodle (Life is prickly - carry tweezers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; P-Marlowe; Salvation; NYer; Dr. Brian Kopp

What say I? Heterosexual marriage is the testimony of history except for the last decade or so. Unnatural marriage is, then, flawed in the eyes of history. In fact, unnatural marriage is rejected STILL in a majority of this current world. So, not only is it flawed historically, but it is flawed NOW.

What will come of it?

It will make our children’s culture far more dangerous.

It is time for Christians to first be tied in the bonds of Holy Matrimony in their churches, and afterwards to go to the justice of the peace for a license. It is time for natural marriage Christian Churches to AGREE on a document of Holy Matrimony, which can only be issued by one of the churches in the agreement.

Why Matrimony? Because the root word is MOTHER. It is the holy estate designed as a protective environment for mothering. Unnatural marriage can NEVER be that.


31 posted on 02/24/2014 4:15:24 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin

In spite of what one reads about the homo emperors of Rome, and in spite of the existence of homosexuality, it was always considered a vice in ancient Rome.


32 posted on 02/24/2014 4:20:50 AM PST by Sans-Culotte (Psalm 14:1 ~ The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

only people that have never studied history would make such a claim.


33 posted on 02/24/2014 4:22:01 AM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Caligula was “on the right side of history” too.Morality,decency and common sense might be another matter.
34 posted on 02/24/2014 4:22:04 AM PST by Gay State Conservative (Stalin Blamed The Kulaks,Obama Blames The Tea Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Marriage is the legal protection provided to a biological relationship, in which a pair of people of opposite sex form a bond in order to produce children. The relationship is a biological imperative, evolved to guarantee the propagation of one’s genetic heritage.

No judge can change this biological reality.

Homosexuals simply cannot form pair-bonds. Most of them do not even have long-term relationships. They are suffering from a pathology, and the best we can do for them is attempt to find effective treatment—not pretend that they are normal by allowing them to meaninglessly sign the documents that legally protect pair-bonded couples.


35 posted on 02/24/2014 4:24:55 AM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

God’s way or man’s way. I’ll go with the former.


36 posted on 02/24/2014 4:39:24 AM PST by FES0844
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

I’d say this: I think one of these fascist judges are going to end up annoying the wrong well armed American at some point.


37 posted on 02/24/2014 4:47:09 AM PST by escapefromboston (manny ortez: mvp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
a fool in paradise has said it well.

The radicals of the 60s march to upset a society that they disagreed with has taken the shape of turning what is good bad. Same sex marriage is the latest idea to push western culture and Christian values out of the US.

38 posted on 02/24/2014 4:54:17 AM PST by Machfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

First thought: the winners write the history books, which is why this fight cannot be abandoned.

Second thought: like so many other cliches (’affordable health care’), this one has been taken up by the leftist masses because they love its self-righteous tone.


39 posted on 02/24/2014 5:05:09 AM PST by relictele (Principiis obsta & Finem respice - Resist The Beginnings & Consider The End)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
“on the right side of history.”

Wrong side of biology.

40 posted on 02/24/2014 5:07:39 AM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Progressives use “right side of history’ as their stamp of approval because they can’t use ‘right side of God.’


41 posted on 02/24/2014 5:22:36 AM PST by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

No government license was required to get married until “Miscegenation Laws” were enacted, requiring a license for mixed race marriages.

It shocks the conscience how we manage to ignore a “separation of church and state” doctrine, and somehow turned over a religious act (marriage) to the government, to regulate.

This unfortunate turn of events is also how we began down the slippery slope of losing our children to the State via Parens Patriae, by making government a contracted part of our families and have a multi-billion dollar family court industry with all of its ancillary parasites (therapists, counselors, evaluators, child support enforcement officers, child protective services agents and a host of others) all dependent upon the destruction of the family for their livelihoods.


42 posted on 02/24/2014 5:38:10 AM PST by Ex-Pat in Mex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“I will cite only Judge Vaughn Walker as an example”

A faggot judge living with his “partner” should have recused himself from the case. What a bunch of BS the US Supreme Court could have cared less if Walker was a fag. He was a judge and in their eyes he is GOD.


43 posted on 02/24/2014 7:46:42 AM PST by NKP_Vet (“From man’s sweat and God’s love, beer came into the world.” – St. Arnold of Metz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

If any judge can override the rule of the people, why in the hell do we have elections.........and why in the hell has their not been a recall election on Barry Bathhouse?????????????


44 posted on 02/24/2014 7:48:08 AM PST by NKP_Vet (“From man’s sweat and God’s love, beer came into the world.” – St. Arnold of Metz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
These microaggressions come about when heterosexual people consider LGBTQ people to be sexual deviants or overly sexual. One example of this on a systemic level is the federal ban for any man who has had sex with another man to donate blood. So even if a man is HIV-negative and has been in a monogamous relationship all of his life, he is considered to be at risk and therefore an ineligible donor.

Any studies to indicate how many homosexuals ever have a 1-and-done monogamous for life relationship with a partner who also was a virgin and remains monogamous?

- Homosexuals are a small subset of the population.
- Monogamous people who only ever have 1 partner in life is a much smaller subset of the population than it once was.
- Homosexuals who remain monogamous even in marriage are a tiny subset of all of that.

And he wants us to accept the pink unicorn of two such persons (one or both of whom want to donate blood, even a smaller subset) to taint the nation's blood supply so hedonistic sodomites can feel better about themselves?

45 posted on 02/24/2014 8:03:56 AM PST by a fool in paradise ("Health care is too important to be left to the government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
There is no “side” of history. These people are knuckleheads.

History is written by the victorious. We are engaged in a cultural revolution that began in post-WWII America as waged by Socialists. It continued through the 1960s as the red diaper doper babies began to go to college, and is now bearing fruit.

46 posted on 02/24/2014 8:06:51 AM PST by a fool in paradise ("Health care is too important to be left to the government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Walker: “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”

Walker's opinion is facially absurd. No state denies marriage licenses to gay men and lesbians.

What states deny are licenses for men to "marry" men, or women to "marry" women.

47 posted on 02/24/2014 8:10:44 AM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freerepublicchat

**People don’t marry each other. The government marries them. **

Are you familiar with the Sacrament of Matrimony?

The hands and the vows of the couple are most important!


48 posted on 02/24/2014 9:06:05 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All

Those that worked so hard to present the idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman should appeal these rulings to the supreme court.

Or the court of appeals and then when the leftist unconstitutional ruling Judges support the other Judges’ unconstitutional rulings, then to the supreme court.

This also should have been done for all the states that voted for limiting gov benefits to citizens, not illegal insurgent invaders, also.

The constitution needs to be interoperated correctly, not “changed” to suit the leftists.

There is nothing in the constitution that condones homosexuals getting married.


49 posted on 02/24/2014 9:06:56 AM PST by Syncro (So? -Andrew Breitbart [1969-2012] RIP King of The New Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
why in the hell do we have elections

We have elections because we were founded as a lawful and virtuous nation.

Obama and all his ilk are neither lawful nor virtuous.

They are playing by their own rules by which they are working to stomp on our necks until we are hammered into the ground like a nation littered with tent stakes.

Moochie and Bammer have told us about their desire to fundamentally change our nation...

50 posted on 02/24/2014 9:46:14 AM PST by Slyfox (When Jesus sees a momma holding her little baby, he remembers when his own momma held him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

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