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

Skip to comments.

Adversaries on Gay Rights Vow State-by-State Fight
NYT ^ | July 6, 2003 | SARAH KERSHAW

Posted on 07/08/2003 11:11:14 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe

Spurred on by the Supreme Court's landmark ruling decriminalizing gay sexual conduct, both sides in the debate over gay rights are vowing an intense state-by-state fight over deeply polarizing questions, foremost among them whether gays should be allowed to marry.

Even with most legislatures out of session until early next year, lively debates are already taking shape across the country, from Hawaii to Connecticut, Oregon to Alabama to Massachusetts. Potentially fierce battles over marriage and other rights loom in dozens of statehouses and state courts, as social conservatives — including the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee — try to breathe new life into a proposed constitutional amendment that would effectively ban gay marriage.

In dozens of interviews this week, activists, pundits on both sides and legal scholars from across the political spectrum said that with the Supreme Court's June 26 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, the country was at a revolutionary moment akin to the aftermath of the decisions in Brown v. the Board of Education, which banned school segregation, and Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion.

"The right wing is really galvanized by this, throwing down the barricades," said William Rubenstein, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles and the faculty chairman of the Williams project on sexual orientation law.

At the same time, he said: "Gay rights activists are excited and want to go the next step. On the one hand the Lawrence decision gives advocates an enormous weapon in their arsenal, and at the same time it will mobilize opponents of same-sex marriage in ways we haven't seen."

Most agreed that the question of whether the United States will allow gays to marry would become the next major focus of both the gay rights movement and of social conservatives, now that the Supreme Court effectively removed what has been used by many states as the basis for discrimination on a wide array of civil rights questions.

A decision last month in Ontario to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples, which is expected to go into effect for the whole country by the end of the year, making Canada the third country after the Netherlands and Belgium to allow gays to marry, is also bound to put the gay marriage question on the front burner here.

"America has hit a tipping point in which fair-minded people now support equality and inclusion for gay people and most Americans are ready to accept marriage," said Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry, an advocacy group in New York.

"We are in a Brown v. Board of Education moment right now," Mr. Wolfson said. "The Supreme Court has said in the strongest possible terms that love and intimacy and family have deep constitutional protection for all Americans and that gay people have an equal right to participate. This gives us a tremendous tool for moving forward to end the discrimination."

"At the same time," he added, "it is important to remember what came after Brown: major legal challenges and acts of courage but also fierce resistance."

Glenn Stanton, senior analyst for marriage and sexuality at Focus on the Family, a national organization opposed to gay rights, agreed there would be resistance. "I think that what will happen is that states will be seeking to say, `You know what? Don't bring any of that stuff here,' " he said. "We know what we want, we know what marriage is, and we know what sexual relationships are. They will be asking how they can protect life as they know it, rather than life as the Supreme Court tells them it's going to be."

State gay rights groups and social conservative groups are preparing for legislative and court fights.

"These are the first shots in the largest battle in the culture wars since Roe v. Wade," said Brian Brown, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, a conservative group. "The people of Connecticut are not going to stand for this."

He added: "Politicians in Connecticut will have nowhere to hide. You'll have to choose a side. Either you support traditional marriage or you radically redefine it."In the 2003 legislative session, Connecticut, Montana and Rhode Island debated bills that would permit same-sex marriage, all of which died, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group.

No state permits same-sex couples to legally marry, but in 2000, the Vermont Legislature conferred on gay couples in the state all of the rights married couples enjoy, but that does not entitle them to hundreds of federal rights or rights of married couples in other states.

In seven states, bills that would create civil unions similar to Vermont's were introduced, the Human Rights campaign said, and they died in all but two — California and Massachusetts, where they are pending.

Thirty-seven states already have what are called Defense of Marriage Acts, saying that marriage is between one man and one woman. In 2003, 10 states introduced bills that would either create one, if they were among states that had no defense of marriage act, or would prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships forged anywhere else. Some of those states, including Texas, already had Defense of Marriage Acts but were seeking to expand them. Of those, only the Texas bill passed.

Gay rights groups said that even as they are emboldened by the Supreme Court ruling, they are also preparing for a backlash, especially in more conservative states.

Alabama is considered by gay rights activists to be one of the most resistant states to gay rights.

"Some people in our organization are very concerned about a backlash," said Ken Baker of Equality Alabama, a gay rights group. "We'll deal with it if it happens."

Another major battlefront is the courts. There are dozens of pending cases across the country relating to child custody, adoption, employment discrimination and gay marriage. Two court cases brought by couples seeking to legalize same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and New Jersey could yield landmark rulings.

The Massachusetts case, brought by Julie and Hillary Goodridge, who were denied a marriage license, could be decided this month.

A ruling for the plaintiffs would make the state the first to legalize gay marriage. Some social conservatives are already preparing.

"We're looking at this closely," said Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council. "Things are going to heat up. The next legislative session I'm sure is going to be feisty around these cultural issues."


TOPICS: Canada; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Alabama; US: California; US: Connecticut; US: Hawaii; US: Massachusetts; US: Montana; US: New Jersey; US: New York; US: Oregon; US: Rhode Island; US: Texas; US: Vermont
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ageofconsentlaws; bigamylaws; culturewar; doma; downourthroats; druglaws; focusonthefamily; fof; gay; hedonists; homosexual; homosexualagenda; incestlaws; lawrencevtexas; libertines; marriageamendment; marriagelaws; nuclearfamily; perversion; polygamylaws; prisoners; privacylaws; profamily; prostitutionlaws; samesexdisorder; sexlaws; sodomy; sodomylaws
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

1 posted on 07/08/2003 11:11:15 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
We're already in the hole here in Arizona since Janet Napolitano is a Lesbian and she has already started pushing pro-Gay agenda items.
2 posted on 07/08/2003 11:12:45 AM PDT by princess leah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
We Salute Free Republic's Donors! Be one!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

3 posted on 07/08/2003 11:13:57 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
International Healing Foundation

CLICK HERE

4 posted on 07/08/2003 11:30:00 AM PDT by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Two points need to be made, and made again, because the lamestream media are lying about them. 1) Homosexuals are trying to weasel their way into the institution of "marriage" in order to corrupt the language and the institution it represents -- in order to push the theory of "moral equivalence."

The justification of the homosexual marriage argument is that homosexuals "should have the rights that heterosuxuals do." 2) The point that is missed -- on purpose -- is this: Any two people can, for any reason, establish by contract joint and survivor ownership of homes and real estate, and joint and survivor of stocks, bonds, bank accounts, etc.

Any competent banker or competent lawyer can easily tell Adam and Steve how to provide for each other in the event of the death of one -- without taking over the word and concept of "marriage." The people who are claiming this "right" are both lazy and stupid. They already have what they claim they need. And they think that we are too stupid to notice that their central argument is flat-out false.

Did I miss anything?

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, now up FR, "Ah-nold Will Win."

5 posted on 07/08/2003 11:36:48 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob ("Saddam has left the building. Heck, the building has left the building.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Did I miss anything?

You missed plenty.

First, there are many, many legal benefits of marriage that cannot be had by drawing up the contracts you suggest. Spouses inherit the other's property tax-free, that doesn't happen in the contract environment you describe. Spouses get social security survivor beneifts when one dies, that doesn't happen in the contract environment you describe. A spouse can sue a third party for the wrongful death of the other spouse, that doesn't happen in the contract environment you describe. I could go on, but you get the idea.

And also, why should two people of the same sex have to pay exorbitant lawyer fees to get just some of the benefits that an opposite sex couple can get by paying a $15 dollar marriage license fee?
6 posted on 07/08/2003 11:48:28 AM PDT by Dilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe; Sabertooth
Count me as part of that RIGHT WING that is opposing the HOMO AGENDA!

7 posted on 07/08/2003 12:11:27 PM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." Abraham Lincoln
8 posted on 07/08/2003 12:46:40 PM PDT by azhenfud ("for every government action, there must be an equal and opposite reaction")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
I am so sickened by your endless fag-friendly posts. For all of our sakes, go to DU or get the hell back in your closet.
9 posted on 07/08/2003 12:49:02 PM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
"And also, why should two people of the same sex have to pay exorbitant lawyer fees to get just some of the benefits that an opposite sex couple can get by paying a $15 dollar marriage license fee?"

Because they CHOOSE to be perverts.

10 posted on 07/08/2003 12:54:01 PM PDT by azhenfud ("for every government action, there must be an equal and opposite reaction")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
"I am so sickened by your endless fag-friendly posts. For all of our sakes, go to DU or get the hell back in your closet."

So if you're conservative you have to hate "fags" and if you're liberal you have to love them? I just want to make sure I get it right.
11 posted on 07/08/2003 12:58:02 PM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
In the same way you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?
12 posted on 07/08/2003 1:00:09 PM PDT by Dilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
And also, why should two people of the same sex have to pay exorbitant lawyer fees to get just some of the benefits that an opposite sex couple can get by paying a $15 dollar marriage license fee?

And also, what about the person who is in love with his/her animal and practices bestiality? Surely they deserve the same consideration as a same-sex perverted couple.

Both classes of perverts are equal.

13 posted on 07/08/2003 1:02:20 PM PDT by FBFranco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
"In the same way you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?

Shall I assume, by your question, you consider heterosexual persons perverted? Take a good look at the rest of the animal and some of the plant kingdoms and see how many other species pervert sexual contact as homo's do.

14 posted on 07/08/2003 1:07:53 PM PDT by azhenfud ("for every government action, there must be an equal and opposite reaction")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FBFranco
And also, what about the person who is in love with his/her animal and practices bestiality?

I'm not going to bother arguing the obvious point that animals are different from people, and I'll let you argue that opening up marriage to same-sex couples starts the slippery slope toward bestiality, but recognize that the slippery slope argument goes both ways. If the government can restrict marriage to only opposite-sex couples, then why shouldn't it also be allowed to restrict marriage to only same-race couples? Or same-age couples? Should the government be able to restrict marriage only to couples able and willing to procreate? And if a couple doesn't procreate as promised, then what, annul the marriage?
15 posted on 07/08/2003 1:11:36 PM PDT by Dilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
Shall I assume, by your question, you consider heterosexual persons perverted?

You know what happens when you assume....

You assert that people choose to be homosexual (or perverted, as you call it). I ask you whether people also choose to be heterosexual.
16 posted on 07/08/2003 1:14:13 PM PDT by Dilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
"I ask you whether people also choose to be heterosexual."

Then I shall answer you. No. People choose to be perverts.

17 posted on 07/08/2003 1:17:16 PM PDT by azhenfud ("for every government action, there must be an equal and opposite reaction")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
So people don't choose to be heterosexual, they're just born that way?
18 posted on 07/08/2003 1:20:30 PM PDT by Dilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
"I am so sickened by your endless fag-friendly posts. For all of our sakes, go to DU or get the hell back in your closet."

There is just NO reason for this type of hateful vitriol. There is a lot of room in the tent known as conservatism and healthy dialogue is part of our movement.

19 posted on 07/08/2003 1:22:51 PM PDT by Dr. Luv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
Right.
20 posted on 07/08/2003 1:25:03 PM PDT by azhenfud ("for every government action, there must be an equal and opposite reaction")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband; Tailgunner Joe; Sabertooth
I can't stress it enough. IT IS A LEARNED TRAIT, IT IS A LEARNED TRAIT, IT IS A LEARNED TRAIT. What's next for them? Pre Natal care for their dirt babies?
21 posted on 07/08/2003 1:26:42 PM PDT by Seamus Mc Gillicuddy (ROCK ON NJ FREEPERS!!!! DOWN WITH HILDABEEST!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Luv; ohioman
"There is just NO reason for this type of hateful vitriol. There is a lot of room in the tent known as conservatism and healthy dialogue is part of our movement."

Generally speaking, this is about as healthy as ohioman's dialogue gets. Most of his posts consist of calling people names and accusing them of being insuffuciently patirotic.
22 posted on 07/08/2003 1:29:13 PM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
And don't think that it's just a few right-wingers in Alabama, Mississippi and Texas that don't like the Supreme Court's ruling on the sodomy law. A poll released by Fox News showed that, by a margin of 44%-40%, Americans DISAPPROVED of the decision.
23 posted on 07/08/2003 1:33:18 PM PDT by No Dems 2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
fair to say most everyone is born hetero. Plenty of conditions in a childhood can lead to a sexual idealization of same-sex persons later on. Some are more inclined than others to go homo in circumstances that another person may just be a messed up hetero. An environmental catalyst to a natural predisposition or something like that.

The fact (and I regard it as fact) is that these people often do not "choose" to be homo; they are walking, talking dysfunctional products of their childhood. In that respect, they shouldn't be castigated as evil, unless they wear their dysfunction like a suit of armor and try to advocate legislation and social policy that legitimizes their dysfunction as a healthy, natural choice They are, in such cases, acting from a position of extreme pain and selfishness, if not outright evil.

24 posted on 07/08/2003 1:37:18 PM PDT by Semaphore Heathcliffe ("Allow myself to introduce...myself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
You ignore the social importance of marriage between a man and a woman. Only conventional families and the children they raise insure the long term survival of society.

Sex partners do not equate with heterosexual marriage. Real marriage is a long-term private and social compact of family raising, not just sex. Because of the social benefits, Society has recognized it and granted marriage special status.

Families with children pass on society's good values to their children, defer immediate gratification to store up wealth for their children and stay together for love of the spouse and the protection of their children.

Society benefits by stable families as they, not the state assume the burden of child raising. Society benefits by families' long-term wealth building as there is more wealth for investing in businesses and social infrastructure.

Homosexual and casual sex alliances do not generate wealth building as they live for today, not tomorrow. Children of casual sex do not have two parents to guide and protect them. Most single mothers try hard to raise their children, but only with sacrifice and extra efforts. Look at the wealth statistics for single moms, they don't have the second income source two parent families do.
25 posted on 07/08/2003 1:39:38 PM PDT by RicocheT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT
Everything you say about why the government protects marriages is true. But nothing you say is a reason for excluding same sex couples (especially those raising children) from the protections of marriage. And nothing you say explains why the government allows people to marry who can not or will not have children.
26 posted on 07/08/2003 1:43:28 PM PDT by Dilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: No Dems 2004
A poll released by Fox News showed that, by a margin of 44%-40%, Americans DISAPPROVED of the decision.

your numbers are crap - link please?

28 posted on 07/08/2003 1:59:51 PM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Emmylou
And perhaps you prefer Sodom and Gomorrah.
29 posted on 07/08/2003 2:05:42 PM PDT by bluebunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Luv
"There is just NO reason for this type of hateful vitriol. There is a lot of room in the tent known as conservatism and healthy dialogue is part of our movement."

I would never want to be in the same tent as you or Keglar. Like the homosexual lifesyle, that certainly would not be heathly. It also deserves no respect.


30 posted on 07/08/2003 2:10:52 PM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kegler4
"Most of his posts consist of calling people names and accusing them of being insuffuciently patirotic."

If the truth hurts..tough shiite. I am also sure that I have never accused someone of being "insuffuciently patirotic."
31 posted on 07/08/2003 2:12:19 PM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: scripter
please ping the list!

Also, we've missed you!
32 posted on 07/08/2003 2:16:17 PM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: lemondropkid56
don't worry, gomorrah is still illegal.
33 posted on 07/08/2003 2:16:47 PM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
"I would never want to be in the same tent as you or Keglar. Like the homosexual lifesyle, that certainly would not be heathly. It also deserves no respect."

Methinks you would be happier in a tent of one...

34 posted on 07/08/2003 2:19:52 PM PDT by Dr. Luv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
Exactly. The "big tent" my a$$. Yeah, the gop is becoming the big tent alright. Only the high-roller country club republicans are allowed. The sophisticated people don't want us around ruining their image.
35 posted on 07/08/2003 2:20:16 PM PDT by bluebunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

To: ohiopyle
You idiots may get a replay of April 13, 1861 if you don't knock it off.

You don't need to engage in treason against the United States to live in a place where the government supports your views on gays, all you need to do is move. Might I suggest Saudi Arabia, Iran, or the northen regions of Nigeria? I'm sure you'd be very happy in any of those theocracies. Sorry we knocked off the Taliban, I think you would have liked living under their regime.
37 posted on 07/08/2003 2:34:15 PM PDT by Dilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband; *Homosexual Agenda; GrandMoM; backhoe; pram; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; ...
please ping the list!

Here 'tis. Thanks for the ping.

Homosexual Agenda Index
Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search
All FreeRepublic Bump Lists

38 posted on 07/08/2003 3:03:24 PM PDT by scripter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: All
We know homosexuality isn't solely rooted in biology - environment is the major factor from where homosexuality is rooted. We also know the choice to engage in homosexuality results in severe health hazards, yet some here are content to let homosexuals do as they please. The true friend to homosexuals are those who encourage them to leave the lifestyle.

I encourage all to read the links found at The Many Myths of AIDS.

39 posted on 07/08/2003 3:19:03 PM PDT by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
I ask you whether people also choose to be heterosexual.

Typical homosexual propaganda. Comparing a pathology to normal behavior is ludicrous. Do people choose to be bestials or are they born that way too?

40 posted on 07/08/2003 3:36:43 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Any competent banker or competent lawyer can easily tell Adam and Steve how to provide for each other in the event of the death of one -- without taking over the word and concept of "marriage."

Did I miss anything?

Good points. Another is that since homosexuals in general, and men in particular, are wildly promiscuous, the whole idea of monagamous "marriage" is only a politcal ploy for sympathy, appealing to peoples's sense of fairness and justice and sentimentality. They want nothing to do with marriage in any sense of the word. They want to change the world into a bordello that makes them feel comfortable and normal people shoved into the closet.

Meaning that we have to hire crossdressers, can't use the word "homosexual" (as in Britain), employers having to provide benefits to "partners", kids in school learning about fisting and whatnot, "Gay Pride" parades down Main St. USA, being fired if we express the wrong viewpoint about sexuality, etc.

41 posted on 07/08/2003 4:46:44 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
And also, why should two people of the same sex have to pay exorbitant lawyer fees to get just some of the benefits that an opposite sex couple can get by paying a $15 dollar marriage license fee?

Because two people of the same sex have never, in the history of civilized societies, ever been able to marry. You can take your argument and use it to cover a man marrying his mother, or his father, or daughter, or two brothers, or a gang of friends, etc.

The end of the argument is that there is an absolute unchangeable standard of wrong and right, and homosexuals and their supporters don't like that and want to shove their moral relativism down our throats. I personally have had enough and am going to fight it with every ounce of my being for the rest of my life.

42 posted on 07/08/2003 4:51:31 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Luv
There is just NO reason for this type of hateful vitriol. There is a lot of room in the tent known as conservatism and healthy dialogue is part of our movement.

I've seen Dilly's posts before and he is a total 100% homosexual supporter and gets rather unpleasant about it. There is no room in conservatism for the promotion of sexually deviant behavior. Healthy dialogue about aberrant sexual behavior means telling the truth about it, not kowtowing to homonazis.

43 posted on 07/08/2003 4:56:25 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
I'm sure you'd be very happy in any of those theocracies.

You people should read the dictionary before you use long words. A theocracy means being ruled by non-elected religious hierarchy types - mullahs, priests, etc. It does NOT mean a government whose laws are informed by traditional moral codes.

44 posted on 07/08/2003 5:01:37 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: pram
FYI:

http://www.freerepublic.com/~dilly/

This account has been banned or suspended.

45 posted on 07/08/2003 5:25:55 PM PDT by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
I give the homo marriage laws in Canada about 20 years to survive. Socialism and childless sex partners do Not mix.
46 posted on 07/08/2003 6:16:37 PM PDT by John Lenin (I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dilly
In the same way you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?

More like how a kleptomaniac chooses to steal. You're not a sum of all your base and immoral desires. You don't have to act on every evil urge that enters your mind. There is still time for you. Make the most of it.
47 posted on 07/08/2003 6:45:31 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lemondropkid56
The day the butt pirate 2% openly enter the GOP "Big Tent" is the day that 40% Christians walk out.

Sounds like a bad trade if you ask me.
48 posted on 07/08/2003 6:50:06 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Homosexuality:

Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior and a mental illness.

Homosexuals: 1) subject their body parts to uses nature did not intend, such activities often presenting immediate risk to the participants; 2) are prone to greater suicide, depression and other mental disorders and deficiencies than the heterosexual population at large; 3) are prone to far greater sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, than the (normal) heterosexual population; 4) molest young people (pedophilia) at a far greater rate than heterosexuals; 5) engage in degrading sexual promiscuity, oftentimes engaging in risky sex with many partners during the same event; 6) are engaged in aggressive and widespread efforts to indoctrinate our children by introducing the homosexual lifestyle using public schools as the primary indoctrination “vehicle” and likewise, through the movie/music/TV industry, with the dual goals of gaining school-age acceptance of homosexuality and encouraging sexual activity among children, especially same-sex experimentation; 7) view most everything through a mindset heavily biased in favor of the homosexual lifestyle and culture, which renders them mostly useless when asked to opine on matters that normal heterosexuals better resolve.

The mental deficiencies described herein applying to homosexuals shall not be confused with the deficiencies associated with the left wing democrat/socialist/marxist/ feminist/environmentalist minds, etc., which have their own distinct set of mental disorders.

This doesn't even touch on what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.

49 posted on 07/08/2003 6:54:10 PM PDT by Imagine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
You got it in one. They could and may already live together, own property in joint tenancy together, will property to one another, appoint one another to exercise broad powers under various powers of attorney etc. Prior to the Lawrence decision they could even wantonly engage in gross and septic sexual behavior without interference 99.99999 percent of the time (the cops in Lawrence had to be conned into entering the room where the sodomy was taking place).

What they really want is for the rest of us to tell them they are okay, healthy, good, and normal despite the manifest evidence to the contrary. If they cannot persuade or deceive us into accepting that queer equivalence, they will employ the coercive power of the state to attempt to shut us up.

50 posted on 07/08/2003 7:04:51 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 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