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

Skip to comments.

Opposing Gay Marriage Is a Waste of Your Time
National Journal ^ | May 14, 2014 | Ron Fournier, Senior Political Columnist & Editorial Director

Posted on 05/15/2014 1:31:50 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Edited on 05/15/2014 3:42:23 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

Like those who stood against civil rights for African-Americans, gay-marriage foes are fighting a battle they can't win.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Nine slender statues stand beneath a window to the Arkansas governor's office – bronzed, life-sized images of the black children who integrated Little Rock Central High School on Sept. 25, 1957 and helped ignite the Civil Rights era. "They defied prejudice," says Gregory Donaldson, an African-American Baptist minister from St. Louis visiting the display with his wife Nanette. "They defied bigotry."


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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: arkansas; civilrights; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; judicialactivism; ronfournier; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last
And didn't Idaho just have a judge declare it legal the other day?

Fournier began his journalism career in 1985 at The Sentinel-Record in Hot Springs, Arkansas. Two years later, he moved to the Arkansas Democrat in Little Rock, Arkansas. He stayed there for another two years before joining the Little Rock bureau of the AP in 1989. While there, he covered Bill Clinton during his final term as Governor. When Clinton was elected President, Fournier moved to the AP's Washington bureau.[2]

Fournier first left the AP in 2004 to take a Harvard Institute of Politics fellowship. During this period, he also co-wrote the book Applebee's America with Matthew Dowd, a Republican strategist, and Doug Sosnik, a Democratic strategist. In 2006, he took a position as editor-in-chief of a new Internet website called Hotsoup.com, which aimed to foster discussion on a number of topics including politics. The site failed to catch on, however, and Fournier returned to the AP in March 2007 as its Online Political Editor, after considering “a senior advisory role” with Republican Senator John McCain's presidential campaign.[3]

In May 2008, Fournier was named the acting Washington bureau chief, replacing his "mentor" Sandy Johnson.[citation needed] Since taking over the position, Fournier has led a dramatic shift in the AP's policy, moving it away from the neutral and objective tone it had become known for and toward a more opinionated style that would make judgments when conflicting opinions were presented in a story.[4]

Fournier has won the Society of Professional Journalists' 2000 Sigma Delta Chi Award for coverage of the United States presidential election, 2000.[citation needed] He is also a three-time winner of the White House Correspondents' Association Merriman Smith award.

In July 2008, while investigators for the House Oversight Committee were looking into the death of Pat Tillman, they uncovered a 2004 email from Fournier to Karl Rove encouraging him to "keep up the fight."[5]

On August 23, 2008, following U.S. Senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's announcement of his selection of Senator Joe Biden as a running mate, Fournier wrote a widely circulated piece titled "Analysis: Biden pick shows lack of confidence".[6] A Washington Monthly columnist described the piece as "mirror[ing] the Republican line with minimal variation".[7] Editor & Publisher noted that Fournier's article "gained wide linkage at the Drudge Report, Hot Air and numerous other conservative sites...." and was targeted by MoveOn.org for alleged bias.[8]

In February 2013, Fournier wrote a column about breaking ties with a White House official after a pattern of "vulgarity, abusive language" and "veiled threat(s)", but did not identify the official due to his policy of granting blanket automatic anonymity to all his sources.[9] Fournier received some criticism from commentator Glenn Greenwald for behaving in a "petulant" manner and for his policy on anonymity for sources.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Fournier

1 posted on 05/15/2014 1:31:50 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Come out of the closet, Ron! It’s not too late for a trans-sexual operation!


2 posted on 05/15/2014 1:34:51 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

RE: Opposing Gay Marriage Is a Waste of Your Time

Is opposition to BEING FORCED TO celebrate gay marriage a waste of your time too?


3 posted on 05/15/2014 1:39:27 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Whether we speak against it or not shouldn’t be a matter of whether it will succeed or not but of whether it is right or wrong.

The homosexual lobby hopes to silence us. But some of us will never be silent. If we can’t speak from the center of the crowd anymore, then we will speak from the edge of it. Our voices will echo from corners, from the wilderness, if necessary from prison. Our voices will echo from the grave. They will never be silent.

Never.


4 posted on 05/15/2014 1:39:28 PM PDT by Engraved-on-His-hands (Conservative 2016!! The Dole, H.W. Bush, McCain, Romney experiment has failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Give me a damn break. Objecting to perverted forms of sex is not the same as despising skin color. Suggesting that it is is beyond insulting to the memory and plight of those who were beaten and hanged from trees or burned out of their homes.

Shove it where the sun doesn’t shine, Ron, you twit.


5 posted on 05/15/2014 1:39:54 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Making Queer 'Marriage' part of the
Civil Rights Movement
was just a damned brilliant PR move.

However, I will never understand why the Negroes don't object. In the 'hood, if flamboyant queers had gotten on the front of the bus, Rosa Parks would have willingly walked to the back ... or gotten off.

6 posted on 05/15/2014 1:41:22 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (A gay Muslim foreigner as POTUS? Sure. What could go wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Marriage is not a Right. Try marrying your sister to see that FACT.

Its not related to interracial marriage either as that was about genetics and protecting women. There are no issues with kids born of a HomoFacist Union nor is there a weaker sex that society normally protects.


7 posted on 05/15/2014 1:41:26 PM PDT by Mechanicos (When did we amend the Constitution for a 2nd Federal Prohibition?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

>> Judge Chris Piazza, who ruled that a constitutional amendment overwhelmingly passed by voters in 2004 banning gay marriage was “an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality.”

In reality, judge, your ruling is an expansion of the word “marriage”.


8 posted on 05/15/2014 1:41:31 PM PDT by Ray76 (True change requires true change - A Second Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Opposing homosexual marriage is a waste of time, if the liberals keep getting their way, and homosexual marriage continues to be imposed by the courts.

Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on whether there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. They carefully sidestepped that core question in last year’s rulings dealing with homosexual marriage.

To me, a key issue with homosexual marriage has been the issue of exactly who gets to define marriage. Is marriage to be defined by the people, by state legislatures, by churches and religious faiths, or only by the courts? Should marriage relationships be recognized at all by government, or only by religious faith traditions?

Another issue is that, every time the courts rule for homosexual marriage, they are changing the definition of marriage. There is no equal protection argument as such, because under traditional marriage law, everyone is treated equally. I understand a homosexual man doesn’t want to marry a female, but he has the right to do so. To arrive at homosexual marriage being a civil right, the courts have to invent this new right, and change the definition of marriage, not just rule on issues of equal rights.

Another legal issue the courts are simply ignoring, is the fact that this whole area of sexual identity/sexual orientation, is not a protected class under federal civil rights laws. So the courts are deciding that homosexuality SHOULD be a protected class under such laws, when they then decide that we should have homosexual marriage.


9 posted on 05/15/2014 1:41:52 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

How could this country have fallen so quickly? Helped by RINOs. I’ll be long gone by the time the history of this is written with truth, power and eloquence...


10 posted on 05/15/2014 1:42:30 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

No doubt that the libs are overwhelming winning this one, soon we wont even be able to say that we oppose it : reference NFL.


11 posted on 05/15/2014 1:43:03 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Obama : 'I never said that you can keep your doctor . Republicans lie about me ')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Like those who stood against civil rights for African-Americans, gay-marriage foes are fighting a battle they can’t win

Now that is disgusting and insulting. Stop comparing a persons choice to act as a pervert to that of a person born with black skin..... How hateful.........


12 posted on 05/15/2014 1:44:30 PM PDT by SECURE AMERICA (I am an American - Not a Republican or a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Like those who stood against civil rights for African-Americans, gay-marriage foes are fighting a battle they can't win.

Fighting for God's priorities is NEVER a waste of time. We will win eternally. Sorry, Ron.

13 posted on 05/15/2014 1:44:48 PM PDT by Colonel_Flagg ("Compromise" means you've already decided you lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Fine. I won’t oppose homosexual marriage...just say homosexuality is sinful behavior that is utterly and obviously unnatural.

Do you think the homofascists will let me work in peace? Do you think homofascists will ‘tolerate’ me?


14 posted on 05/15/2014 1:45:42 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
However, I will never understand why the Negroes don't object.

No Left faction will ever oppose any other Left faction on the grounds that it might jeopardize their government cash flow. They play as a team because they have a clear concept of what the reward is for doing so.

15 posted on 05/15/2014 1:48:24 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ([CTRL-GALT-DELETE])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Good points.


16 posted on 05/15/2014 1:48:55 PM PDT by Ray76 (True change requires true change - A Second Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The difference is that there are decades worth of objective clinical evidence that homosexuality is a dysfunctional compulsive behavior. Unfortunately, the objective evidence has been successfully shouted down for a few decades now, so that the only ones still opposing it are doing so based on moral considerations.

The pro-homosexual activists have created a cult of denial and fostered a society of enablers because we stopped having any conversation regarding what actually underlies the behavior.

And that’s why it’s fundamentally different from segregation.


17 posted on 05/15/2014 1:48:58 PM PDT by william clark (Ecclesiastes 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mechanicos

“Marriage is not a Right. Try marrying your sister to see that FACT.”

Well, that’s this year... next year who knows?


18 posted on 05/15/2014 1:50:37 PM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

He is another thought control commissar telling everyone that their beliefs are wrong and that you must comply with his. No mention of reeducation camps, like the NFL. Pray for guidance.


19 posted on 05/15/2014 1:51:11 PM PDT by phormer phrog phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The real battle line is when the queers try to outlaw the practice of Christianity because the religion views their behavior as sinful and improper. That is what they are really after.

Legalizing queer marriage is step one. Step two will be a personal threat to many, many Americans, not to mention one more giant step along the continuum of widespread cultural decay and depravity. From a morality point of view, we are a dreadfully sick nation.


20 posted on 05/15/2014 1:54:32 PM PDT by RatRipper (The political left are utterly evil and corrupt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RatRipper

What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts


21 posted on 05/15/2014 1:55:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Cruz and/or Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

For if the Lord don’t care
And he chooses to ignore-ah
Tell it to the people
Of Sodom and Gomorrah

(from Steve Taylor’s song “Whatever Happened to sin?”)

Degradation and perversion will be judged.

America has murdered millions of unborn children, has enslaved millions more to government, and is now forcing the celebration of unnatural relations and perversion. We will answer for these sins.

We are living under judgement.

Pray that God saves a remnant.


22 posted on 05/15/2014 2:08:45 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; All
 photo 29063_thumb.jpg


Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


23 posted on 05/15/2014 2:10:06 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: musicman
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Winston Churchill

24 posted on 05/15/2014 2:11:14 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Cruz and/or Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Time to take Ron’s advice and “bend over and take it like a man”?


25 posted on 05/15/2014 2:13:50 PM PDT by Sans-Culotte (Psalm 14:1 ~ The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The author is absolutely correct about it being a losing fight. I started saying so on this forum about three years ago and was roundly denounced for saying so.

My analysis was based simply on the obvious change in public opinion on the issue and the astonishing rapidity of that change. Recent elections have proven I was right.

Personally, I’m opposed. But that doesn’t mean I have to pretend most Americans agree with me when they quite obviously don’t. I think the majority of Americans are wrong on quite a few issues, this is just another one.

Whether it’s a waste of time to fight it depends on your POV on whether fighting the good fight, even in a cause you know is lost, is just a waste of time.


26 posted on 05/15/2014 2:15:59 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Where are the libertarians that are usually pushing this theme on FR?

Including Rand Paul, and his FR supporters?


27 posted on 05/15/2014 2:17:29 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RatRipper

Look for Christians to be much more bolder in their faith in the future.


28 posted on 05/15/2014 2:28:06 PM PDT by Biggirl (“Go, do not be afraid, and serve”-Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If it’s okay with you, Ron, I’ll be the arbiter of what wastes my time.


29 posted on 05/15/2014 2:30:21 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Or a great deal of witnessing by Christians to bring many to the Lord down the road.


30 posted on 05/15/2014 2:30:33 PM PDT by Biggirl (“Go, do not be afraid, and serve”-Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands

AMEN.


31 posted on 05/15/2014 2:31:23 PM PDT by Biggirl (“Go, do not be afraid, and serve”-Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Opposing gay marriage is a waste of time in a culture that practices contraception.


32 posted on 05/15/2014 2:45:10 PM PDT by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Pray for the conversion of all to Christ.


33 posted on 05/15/2014 2:47:18 PM PDT by Biggirl (“Go, do not be afraid, and serve”-Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Comparing a racial minority to a behavior-based minority is like comparing apples and asteroids.


34 posted on 05/15/2014 2:53:13 PM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

(Great quote!!)


35 posted on 05/15/2014 2:54:07 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Having dark skin is not a behavior.


36 posted on 05/15/2014 3:15:26 PM PDT by Flavious_Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

God invented marriage, not man. God designated marriage, not as a contractual agreement, but as a covenant. Governments may be able to regulate contracts, but a covenant is based on the laws of God and not man. Thus marriage is an institution outside of the bounds of government.

As with all things Statist, the secular State’s definition of marriage and divorce has come to have more weight in society than God’s definition.

God defines marriage as being between men and women. While many men whom God called righteous in the Bible practiced polygamy, Jesus is quoted in Matthew chapter 19 that from the beginning of humanity, it was God’s intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman. In Mark chapter 10, Jesus stated that God, not man, joins the husband and wife and the two are “one flesh”, an act that by its very nature can only be heterosexual.

God defines sexual relations between people of the same sex as against His law, that is immoral. In Revelation 22:15, a book dictated to John by Jesus, God tells us that anyone who practices sexual immorality will not be granted eternal life.

Maybe it is time to get government out of the marriage business and to return it to the private sphere. The problem for me today is that people who want to call themselves “married” against God’s law (as I read it) are willing to use the State to force me to recognize that marriage, which I cannot do. The want to have the State’s public education system indoctrinate my children that homosexual marriage is “normal”. They want to force me to subsidize the homosexual marriage in the tax code just like the godly marriage is subsidized, and they will use state agencies to punish me for “discrimination” if I decline to accept their status in any way.

If the State must force me to acknowledge its power to declare two men to be “married”, then I must support efforts to remove that power from the State. If people who don’t want God defining their personal morality demand a separation of church and State then let us also have separation of marriage and State as well. If those people don’t want any displays of the Ten Commandments in government buildings, they cannot hide behind the Commandments that protect marriage when it comes to “marriage” that God cannot and will not sanction.


37 posted on 05/15/2014 3:28:22 PM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I’ll stand against this evil and fight it to my dying breath. America may indeed adopt this abject depravity of fag-marriage. And, that will be the ultimate, symbolic demarcation point for me that America has fully become an evil, degenerate nation. A nation that truly needs to be defeated and brought down.

Fournier can go die in a fire as far as I’m concerned. People like him shoving this sick, twisted garbage onto this once great nation are no better than a subhuman al-Qaeda militant.


38 posted on 05/15/2014 3:36:06 PM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

The Supreme Court has to right to even hear a case like this. It’s a state issue.

And it’s not about equality or discrimination. The color of ones skin is much different than sexual orientation when it comes to law.


39 posted on 05/15/2014 3:38:46 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Conservatives are all that's left to defend the Constitution. Dems hate it, and Repubs don't care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

They’ll go overboard and turn people off. They always do.

Just wait until the first time this gay NFL player gets creamed (no pun intended) on the field by some OT...the left will scream and demand fines.


40 posted on 05/15/2014 3:41:34 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Conservatives are all that's left to defend the Constitution. Dems hate it, and Repubs don't care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It’s pointless to oppose murder as well.


41 posted on 05/15/2014 3:57:42 PM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

I don’t know. If I were black, I’d be outraged at such comparisons.


42 posted on 05/15/2014 4:17:36 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

We need to keep fighting. Look at abortion. We were so screwed in 1973 and now we are making some decent strides. Of course we have a lot more to do but we are chipping away at it. We can do the same with Gay Marriage easily.


43 posted on 05/15/2014 4:32:55 PM PDT by napscoordinator (Governor Scott Walker 2016 for the future of the country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus

“The Supreme Court has [no] right to even hear a case like this. It’s a state issue.”


Given that theses judges are striking down state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, because they supposedly violate the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court has not only the right, but the obligation, to settle the matter. The correct answer, of course, is that nothing in the U.S. Constitution prohibits a state from defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but until SCOTUS so rules we’ll keep having rogue judges imposing same-sex marriage by judicial fiat through their outrageous interpretation of the 14th Amendment.


44 posted on 05/15/2014 4:41:55 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

Good point.


45 posted on 05/15/2014 4:46:42 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Conservatives are all that's left to defend the Constitution. Dems hate it, and Repubs don't care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

No doubt that the libs are overwhelming winning this one, soon we wont even be able to say that we oppose it : reference NFL.

...not likely...aren’t there plenty of people opposing it on this forum...? How do you suppose they will be silenced...?


46 posted on 05/15/2014 4:56:43 PM PDT by IrishBrigade (')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
God designated marriage, not as a contractual agreement, but as a covenant.

The idea that a woman should only breed with one man, who will then assist in the protection and care of resulting offspring, predates both government and religion (even if one accepts Genesis, I don't think it claims the continuous existence of religion between the time of Adam and Moses; if a proper religious tradition already existed, it would not have been necessary for God to instruct Moses in writing the Torah).

Religious arguments against marriage are counterproductive in talking with anyone who does not accept the religion in question. The secular argument is much stronger: 99.99999% of all people who have ever lived, lived in a society which recognized a concept of marriage involving exactly one male as different from any kind relationship involving any other number. The requirement that marriage involve exactly one male is not imposed by government, nor by religion, and the only way it can be viewed as "bigoted" is if the vast majority of people who have ever lived are bigots.

Further, even if gays have the right to call themselves whatever they want, that does not imply that anyone else has any obligation to honor such declarations. The right of free association implies the right to honor the kind of marriages that has essentially always been nearly universally recognized, without incurring any obligation to recognize so-called "marriages" which fail to meet one of the most basic and universal requirements of marriage (that it must involve exactly one male)

47 posted on 05/15/2014 4:57:12 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

What, exactly, is gay “marriage”? Can anyone define that?


48 posted on 05/15/2014 5:11:54 PM PDT 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; All

We should let the libs keep cramming gay marriage, climate change, and everything else down everyone’s throats 24/7.

Americans hate being told what to do. We just have to be ready when that happens.


49 posted on 05/15/2014 5:43:31 PM PDT by gura (If Allah is so great, why does he need fat sexually confused fanboys to do his dirty work? -iowahawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“What, exactly, is gay “marriage”?”

As far as the state is concerned, it is simply whatever judges, pols, or 50% +1 of the voting public thinks it can be at any one time. They’ll let you know if you need to be punished for disagreeing with them about it.

Freegards


50 posted on 05/15/2014 5:53:14 PM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 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