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

Skip to comments.

Define marriage as one man and one woman
Petitions.Whitehouse.gov ^ | 1/16/2015 | Undefined

Posted on 01/18/2015 11:35:27 AM PST by NetAddicted

We the People request that marriage is officially defined as the union between one man and one woman. The age old tradition must be preserved to ensure America keeps its values. Traditional marriage would in fact be the ideal scenario for a child to be raise and future Americans to be developed. We ask the Obama Administration to preserve the concept Traditional Marriage for future America.

(Excerpt) Read more at petitions.whitehouse.gov ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; poll; ssm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last
To: Oliviaforever

“You could have 300 million signatures”

You couldn’t get five million at this point in history. The time to do this was 1994 and the GOPe chickened out and passed DOMA instead.

It was possible to amend the Constitution then, and it would be impossible to repeal now.

That moment is gone.


21 posted on 01/18/2015 2:11:25 PM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: djf

“But you cannot call it marriage.”

You will soon be forced to do exactly that, or be severely punished.


22 posted on 01/18/2015 2:14:10 PM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NetAddicted
Traditional marriage would in fact be the ideal scenario for a child to be raise and future Americans to be developed.

Going to outlaw traditional divorce too?

23 posted on 01/18/2015 2:15:36 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged

The problem with the religious marriage theory is that the parties to this contract undertake certain obligations to one another that human nature inclines them to default on unless the counterparty has an enforcement procedure or, failing that, a way to recover damages.

Just as with all other contracts, this requires the power of the ruler to enforce.

True marriage requires no divorce, criminalization of adultery, and laws supporting traditional gender roles (higher pay for men, alimony).

Almost no one supports any of these pillars of true marriage, in fact, all laws enabling true marriage have been repealed. So, no matter what anyone says, almost no one supports true marriage,


24 posted on 01/18/2015 2:23:08 PM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

1. Re-read the relevant part of the Bible. There’s a couple words left out of the question which would have caused the question to answer itself.

2. A priest with knowledge of the Bible would have been able to provide the answer.


25 posted on 01/18/2015 3:02:45 PM PST by ExGeeEye (The enemy's gate is down....and to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NetAddicted

Signed


26 posted on 01/18/2015 3:06:20 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JudyinCanada

The issue with which the SC should grapple is the meaning of marriage. Let’s see of they can offer clarity on that issue.


27 posted on 01/18/2015 6:09:43 PM PST by Louis Foxwell (This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
You couldn’t get five million at this point in history. The time to do this was 1994 and the GOPe chickened out and passed DOMA instead.

It was possible to amend the Constitution then, and it would be impossible to repeal now.


I was just thinking about that yesterday morning, and I remember it well. Bill Clinton was saying that while of course he agreed that marriage is just between one man and one woman, he didn't like the idea of "mucking around" with the Constitution. A feeble argument if I ever heard of one, and an argument which the Republicans did not seize upon and bash Bill Clinton over his lying hypocritical head!

The liberal media said that it was preposterous to go for an amendment, because no one was pushing same sex marriage, and the attempt to pass a Constitutional amendment was just a political stunt by those "evil" Conservatives. The liberal media claimed that the Republicans were just looking for a nonexistent problem that did not need a solution, and that we should focus on other things.

Christian Conservatives were assured by the Republican party that this was not really worth pushing, we had a law and that was enough, amending the Constitution might make the liberal media hate the Republican party even more, and that there was no way that same sex marriage would ever become law of the land.

And now, here we are.
28 posted on 01/19/2015 2:02:18 AM PST by dbehsman (Attention liberals and liberaltarians, Judgment Day is coming. You've earned it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 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