Much more palatable than marrying another guy.
Posted on 07/20/2009 4:50:34 PM PDT by TheBigIf
These two boneheads would like us to think that gays did not exist when the Constitution was written.
“There is no inequality here. “
Their arugment is that they can’t marry who they LOVE. If thats the criteria than ANYTHING will be legal.
“If the gay community wants to invent a new word to describe a union between two men or two women, they’re welcome to it.”
They don’t want that because it wouldn’t further the cause of destroying the traditional family.
“Some FReepers will hate me for saying so, but we get ourselves absolutely nowhere by quoting Scripture to people who would use Scripture to wipe their butts.”
Distasteful but correct
Very well said. The left (and Boies and Olson) are seeking to use the Court to define right and wrong in regards to an issue of sexuality. They do not want the people to have any right to represenation on the issue. This goes beyond even homosexuality. They are setting the precedent for all sexual expression to be Constitutionally protected.
As you said earlier in the thread the left wants expressions of sexual identity to be sacred and protected by the Constitution and for expression of one’s religion to be driven from public life and hidden as if shameful. We even saw today whereas buried in the “government takover of our health” bill they want to make the terms “male” and “female” obsolete and to redefine them.
It is hard to believe that we have come to this but here we are. Strange New World.
http://newslite.tv/2008/10/31/man-wants-to-marry-comicbook-c.html
This actually passed in Japan.
You may now marry “2D” characters.
Much more palatable than marrying another guy.
The other criteria is “as long as they are consenting adults” and “they aren’t hurting anyone”.
This is similiar to the Wiccan creed “Do As Thou Wilt but Do No Harm” - It is NOT in the U.S. Constitution but the left believe it is.
Also of course the term “cosenting adults” is currently defined by “We the People” and by the arguments made by the left they would have us lose the right to representation on that issue as well.
And of course you would believe that we should have reresentation on what is harmful or not as well. But as usual the left says the debate is over and the science is settled.
Does she cook?
We aren’t supposed to care what they do in their bedroom.
However they want to control every aspect of our lives.
I wouldn’t be suprised if Boies and Olson are doing this for money making purposes. Consider all of the lawsuits they may get suing businesses and people for not wanting to accept thier belief that homosexuality is natural and deserves special rights.
I think all Japanese women can make miso soup and sashimi.
However, they would be just 2D.
You could always get a talented dog and a hire a great cook
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDuQOgItebM
Absolutely.
She gave $300 to Obama's election campaign in first quarter 2008
The key word here is enforce, as in "compel."
Once homosexual "marriage" is declared the law of the land, the government will come down hard on those groups or individuals who are found to discriminate against homosexual couples.
The results will be predictable.
1. Religious service organizations such as Catholic Social Services and LDS Family Services will be given a choice: offer adoptions to homosexual couples or lose your license to offer any adoption services.
2. Religious colleges and universities (such as my alma mater, BYU) will face the loss of their accreditation and tax-exempt status.
3. Individuals who have moral objections to homosexuality will be subject to fines for discriminating against homosexuals in housing, employment, or other services.
4. The public schools will be used to indoctrinate children into accepting homosexuality.
Some might argue that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is their business, affecting no one else. That may be true in a pure libertarian society. However, the power and reach of the state have increased to the point that we cannot afford to budge on this issue.
“You could always get a talented dog and a hire a great cook”
Or I could get a real woman. Might make my wife mad though.
Olson and Boise will sin this case based on the Equal Protection Clause and because the State of California will not diligently defend Prop 8.
Your thesis is incorrect since there is no way on earth that the State of California is going to walk into the SCOTUS and argue that homosexuality is a chosen behavior.
Ted can stick it where the Gays do.
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.