Adversaries on Gay Rights Vow State-by-State Fight

NYT ^ | July 6, 2003 | SARAH KERSHAW

[princess leah]

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.

[Support Free Republic]

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!

[Cindy]

International Healing Foundation

[Congressman Billybob]

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."

[Dilly]

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?

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Count me as part of that RIGHT WING that is opposing the HOMO AGENDA!

[azhenfud]

"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

[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.

[azhenfud]

"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.

[kegler4]

"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.

[Dilly]

In the same way you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?

[FBFranco]

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.

[azhenfud]

"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.

[Dilly]

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?

[Dilly]

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.

[azhenfud]

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

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

[Dilly]

So people don't choose to be heterosexual, they're just born that way?

[Dr. Luv]

"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.

[azhenfud]

Right.