Posted on 02/25/2014 7:44:37 PM PST by ReformationFan
‘those’ being those people that are forcing homo marriage on us as ‘reasonable’ and ‘natural’ are themselves repulsed by another groups proclivities. it’s quite ironic to hear such statements from those demanding the rest of us change... while they themselves exhibit the same behavior towards another group
it all just shows that there are no boundaries that wont be crossed by the left in their march to destroy this country
Well, next time you see him, please tell him I said THANK YOU for providing me and my husband with so many hours of enjoyment, from My Bodyguard to the wonderful Firefly -- I've always been attracted to him on a level I couldn't figure out (until I learned he was politically conservative!! That may explain the attraction, as kindred spirits!), and my husband has always liked him as well, just "something" about Adam Baldwin. He's one of those rare actors that for ME, is King of the Screen when he's on, no matter who else is sharing the screen with him. PLEASE tell him thank you and that many are praying for him and his, and consider him a blessing. Thanks!
I would not be bold in speculating that the do gooders were church going folk back hundred years or so. They wanted government to get involved to make sure us sinners stayed on the straight and narrow. They thought the church just wasn't enough to keep us moral, so they got the government involved. Well hundred years later the law of unintended consequences has come down hard ....
When government steps in to take over church duties, strife and wickedness is a necessary consequence. Welfare -- government taking over the religious duty of charity -- is a textbook example. Anti-libertarian Social Conservatives as much as any liberal Democrat WOULD DO WELL TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT. Government can indeed screw anything up. I am a limited government Christian conservative to understands the truth: Reducing government reduces the problem.
I agree.
Homos are misogynists.
When same-sex marriage first came up, I mentioned to people that everyone could be married to someone for tax purposes. Marry your father, brother, uncle.
In 1999 I attended a wedding and at the rehearsal diner we just happened to be seated at the table with the principle involved in the gay marriage initiative from Hawaii. Remember that? And how Rush laughed at it? Well, I understood his angst and he was on a screed, as he couldn't visit his sick lifemate ( that has now changed ) but when he started on not being able to inherit his estate and access to gov't benefits, I quietly said to my better half, he doesn't need marriage, he needs a good Financial Adviser. ( tangent to this, in a less than 2 years, I got to see professionals that did just that, but that is another story)
I have posted this story a few times here in FR over the years, and no one bites to my theory, and that is maybe Marriage wasn't the proper solution, but a Flat Tax and or Fair Tax was. ( yes it is too late for that, potentially ). If their is an ample individual exemption ( or none at all ) and no filing status differences and no Death Tax than doesn't that get them parity?
Correct me if I am wrong here, but I don't see any other "contracts" they can't have access too, I can't see why a life insurance agent couldn't find insurable interest for a life policy for example.
However the Gov't "Free Cheese" is what concerns me. Yes this will give them parody but the Irony is SSI, Medicare, and Medicaid are unsustainable without true reform / privitization, so you are getting access to something that is an unsustainable legacy cost like Detroit's pensions and GM's health care? This is a "victory"? If it is, is it a hollow one given many gay entrepreneurs may have more fiscal Libertarian leanings that we might know about and understand these programs are a mess and we might agree on free market type reforms.
Baldwin isn't crazy with his tweet, this trick to try to beat Inheritance Taxes, I think in New Jersey someone is trying to do this, and I can't remember if the Judge said no.
Their was a brilliant Jurist / Ethical go to guy on Bill Bennett's show after the Supreme's rulled and noted the unintended consequences of this and the legal quick-sand trap it will be with continued legal upheaval and eventual challenges to freedom of religion will be mind boggling.
Unfortunately the fundamental transformation continues...
In the good old days, gay men often adopted their “lovers” (yuck!) for tax purposes and inheritance rights. No one remembers this?
A shame that conservatives end up with the “D” Actors and liberals get the “A” actors. We get this guy and Victoria Jackson…..life is not fair at all.
Legally, marriage involves a whole lot more than just the declaration of a relationship.
Marriage evolved out of the natural mating behavior of humans, and the law evolved to provide a legal framework to provide protection to the children resulting from this biological relationship. If a person dies without a will, the law has already established through the legal framework of marriage how the estate will be distributed.
There is a lot of reason to believe that homosexuals want the legal protections of marriage to shield their estates from death taxes. By declaring that any two people can "marry", and that such "marriage" is equivalent to real marriage meant to produce and provide for children, there is a whole body of law that is being messed up. Unintended consequences will have far-ranging ripples here. Marriage fraud is about to reach heights previously unheard of.
Business partners can ‘marry’ to avoid being forced to testify against each other.
Crazy old women can ‘marry’ their 47 cats to add them to their health insurance.
Mothers can marry their sons for group health insurance.
And last but not least, hookers can ‘marry’ 500 illegals who want to become ‘citizens’....
You're right Civ - elections have consequences...
Have you been under a rock? I can’t believe you think he is a D actor. Every real American knows Adam Baldwin.....Rent the movie “My Bodyguard” and “Full Metal Jacket” Watch the “Firefly” series and the “Chuck” series. I think you’ll find that your comment was just made up in your head. I suppose you think other conservatives like Bruce Willis & Clint Eastwood are D actors also. Sorry if I sound a bit upset, but I absolutely love Adam Baldwin and you will too if you see his work.
He was on X-files for a while as well. Certainly not a Bruce Willis, but no Victoria Jackson either. B+ to A- level. One of the best supporting actors out there.
Jayne/Casey rules.
Rent the movie “My Bodyguard” and “Full Metal Jacket” Watch the “Firefly” series and the “Chuck” series.
I am glad that you like him as an actor, but even the movies you mention are old as heck. Chuck has been off the air for years.
Roger that...but he reads FR on occasions. He’ll like that :)
It is about the tax break for the perverts and divorce money for their lawyer supporters.
Fear of being sued for coming out against Fags is killing our country.
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.