Posted on 05/20/2014 12:59:43 AM PDT by Objective Scrutator
The press has been in a reminiscent and celebratory mood this past week, as America reached the 10th anniversary of homosexual marriage.
What is little discussed is that the first same-sex wedding license was issued only because Republican governor Mitt Romney broke the law. And he not only broke the law, he ordered every city and county clerk to break the law, too, or get fired.
It is no exaggeration to say that America has same-sex marriage because of Mitt Romney.
As the media has endlessly reminded us this past week, the first domino to fall in the crusade to give marital recognition to non-normative sexual unions fell in Massachusetts, and it fell because then-governor Romney pushed it over.
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
I agree with you on that, it is happening much faster than I thought it would. A process which I thought would take place in years is happening in weeks and months. It will most likely be at a majority of the states by years end. Pray for guidance.
It’s true that this nation needs to repent and turn back to God. But I cannot and will not stop opposing queer marriage, nor queerdom as a general principle.
I believe there is effectiveness in using bald terms to remind others of the filthy acts engaged in by homosexuals. They have managed to drape a veil of illusion over themselves; many people actually believe it’s just another form of “love.” Well, once they get informed about feces ingestion and anuses falling out, that pleasant little “love” fantasy will dry up and blow away.
voters almost always reject it - even California
True only 4 states voted for gay marriage with majority population. Maryland, Maine, Minnesota and Washington State....Those are the ONLY states that should allow gay marriage and even that is debatable.
I agree totally with the idea that homosexuality is a spiritual war. Romans 1 makes it clear that homosexuality is not an entry-level sin but instead, the final stages of rebellion against God. However, society has the right to express its disapproval of homosexuality. Where to draw the line is the question society needs to ask. Most people would agree that the balance needs to fall somewhere between "no line" and a "hard line" at illegality of homosexual behavior.
Our society seemed to have a pretty decent compromise position at allowing homosexual activity but not required society to formally recognize these homosexual unions. That arrangement had worked for a long-time until arrogant, activist judges and politicians like Mitt decided that they knew better.
That is true only because Dubya actually held federal office. George W. Bush made some poor decisions because he compromised his political instincts. Romney would not have had to compromise his political instincts to do the same or worse. Romney's political history showed one thing - while George W. Bush accepted a compromise position, Romney would have started at that same compromise position and then moved left.
Yes, Romney is better than Obama. However, it is in the sense that the destruction of an F4 tornado is better than the destruction of an F5 tornado.
Government is solely a force, nothing more and nothing less. ALONE government empowers the homosexual agenda. Otherwise, free Americans would peacefully reject gay marriage on their own terms; indeed, that they would is WHY homosexuals need government force supporting their social agenda. ONLY government prevents Americans from doing what is morally right.
If not for the force of government behind it, the whole Gay Agenda would be dead in the water.
Reagan was right -- government is the problem. The SOLUTION is to reduce government.
Geo. Washington warned that government "is a force" and "a dangerous servant." A dangerous servant such as government should be USED SPARINGLY. Conservatively. I am a conservative -- I am for the sparing -- aka conservative -- use of government.
The sparing, conservative use of government would then free individuals to decide whether or not they wanted to play along with the pretend "marriages" of homosexuals. I have full faith that the majority of my countrymen would civilly, peacefully reject that pretend fantasy of "marriage" between two homosexuals, and tell them to take a hike.
You gotta know you're on the wrong track when you're calling to regulate something that is pretend. Using government to make homosexual "marriage" illegal OR legal, is like making unicorns illegal OR legal. Government creates PROBLEMS. Solutions often lie in eliminating the government component. This is one.
Read my words carefully. I said that one should never vote for a RINO in a primary, not general election. Mitt Romney’s only good trait was that he wasn’t B. Hussein.
Nixon was probably WORSE than JFK. Are you aware that Nixon created the environmentalist deity, the EPA? Are you aware that he had plans for creating a socialized medicine system, and admits it?
The ONLY thing Nixon did right was Vietnam. Anyone who voted for Nixon over Reagan in the 1968 primary is a traitor, through and through.
Maryland and Maine suggest that there are plenty of imbecile voters out there. Whether or not the gays won legitimately or by voter fraud, the fact remains that they can and will push their agenda through at the grassroots level. One of the central tenets of homosexuality is to force everyone to accept their perversion (in schools, through banning of “hate” speech, etc.) and have their “marriages” be taxpayer funded. If you give gays political rights, they can and will try to shove their agenda down your throats.
Think of the proper response of the government as reactionary, rather than proactive.
Anyone who voted for JFK over Nixon in 1960 is a traitor, the election of JFK destroyed America.
Reagan called JFK a Marxist, and it was JFK who devoted his life to the 1965 Immigration Act to replace the American voters.
Well it was just recently made legal, I hope you won't oppose those of us who hope to return it not being legal.
That would still mean that we have to decide what federal law is regarding gay marriage.
That would mean no gay marriage.
“That would mean no gay marriage.”
Yep. The way it was in this nation for decades.
“Romney was merely following the wishes of the people of Massachusetts.”
I doubt it, though no doubt it would pass a popular vote today, at the time it was a court decision and the people were not allowed to vote on it. There actually once was considerable opposition to it on the East Coast. Maine voted it down a couple of years before voting it in.
JFK was obviously a communist, no dispute there. At the time of the 1960 election, Nixon was a comparatively reasonable choice. He only went power mad later on in his Presidential term. That being said, George Bender was clearly the better candidate for the 1960 Republican nomination, having a close relationship with Robert Taft.
The only bad thing about JFK being shot was that it allowed LBJ to take office, who was probably the worst politician since FDR.
True, JFK created the 60s and Vietnam, and immigration, even the homeless, and unionized government,
The worst of radical 60s/post Great Society Nixon, is sometimes compared to the best, and not fully informed impression of pre radical 60s JFK.
If the 1950s Eisenhower veep had defeated JFK in 1960, the 60s would never had happened, and 1975 America would have looked closer to 1960 America, than what it became, because of JFK’s election.
Without JFK, the last 100 million foreigners and their offspring, would not have replaced the American voters, and ended our nation.
None of us know what that means, what does it mean?
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.