Posted on 02/27/2011 6:29:40 AM PST by Kaslin
President Barack Obama has been denounced by Republicans for asserting federal power at the expense of state sovereignty. But last week, he was denounced by Republicans for ... not asserting federal power at the expense of state sovereignty.
It happened after the Justice Department announced it would not litigate to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The president thinks one section of the law is unconstitutional -- a section that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.
In practice, that means married homosexuals lack all sorts of privileges extended to married heterosexuals. They may not file their federal taxes jointly, claim various tax breaks, collect Social Security survivor benefits if their partners die, or take advantage of spousal benefits granted to military personnel and veterans.
Ozzie and Harry may be lawfully wedded in Iowa, but to the federal government they are the legal equivalent of Colin Powell and Charlie Sheen: holding nothing in common.
Obama would like to change that. If DOMA were to be struck down, the federal government would no longer insist that some marriages transacted under state laws are valid and some are not. It would tell states: You decide who can get married, and we'll abide by your judgment.
You want to let gays walk down the aisle? Knock yourself out. You want to deny them the joys of matrimony? Be our guest.
Such deference has always been the norm. There's a range of matrimonial policies between Hartford and Honolulu. Some states allow 14-year-olds to wed with parental and judicial consent, and others don't allow marriage until age 17 no matter what. Some states let first cousins get married, and some don't. Some states used to forbid a black person from marrying a white person
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
No marriage for queers.
Civil unions, yes, marriage, no.
Listen Obaheretic you claim to be a Christian, yet you fail to uphold its truths. The Bible is clear on what the marital relationship what God ordains and you prove to be an enemy of God everyday.
Correct
Word from RiNO Central: Back away from this Loser Issue (our Loggie friends told us to).
[Article] Such deference has always been the norm. There's a range of matrimonial policies between Hartford and Honolulu.
Wrong, and wittingly so. The Full Faith and Credit Clause insists that the transactions held legal in one State must be recognized in every other State.
Gays have attacked marriage by insisting on getting "gay marriage" </canty b.s.> recognized in just one State of the Union. They will then launch their long-awaited federal court attack on the majority of people in the U.S. who have insisted since the founding of the Republic that marriage is a heterosexual institution for the legitimate propagation of humanity.
The homosexual activists' end objective is the abolition of marriage, because it is "heteronormal", i.e. it draws attention to the deranged and deviant nature of their own sexual perversion.
This article is cynically disinformative.
No "civil unions". (Rhetorical question: what is so "civil" about a man screwing a horse? About a pederast screwing a kid? Zippo.)
No truces, no halfway, no nothing. These people are objectively evil, as is their politics.
So you bought the load. Well then explain to me why they need civil "unions". They can get a power of attorney and leave anything to anyone in a will. Why should they get government perks meant for married couples when they can't "mate" and have children?
I morally object to homosexuality but if it means having to choose between the lesser of two evils, I say allow civil unions rather than allow these fairies to coopt the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Homosexual propaganda on the march. Their plea for "rights" is based on nothing more than the deviant manner in which they have sex. The author lists age, race and genetic relationships as a measure. None of it is behavior based. Sexual activity is behavior. Behavior doesn't merit special rights. The author also misrepresents Doma.
You totally misunderstand. Do you remember when they claimed all they wanted was to be left alone? I do. They want a LOT more than that.
I am so tired of this.
Lesser of two evils .... lesser of two evils .... lesser of two evils ..... the mating cry of the RiNO Wing of the GOP.
It's like the fork move in chess. Make the other guy give up something valuable at no cost to yourself -- and Republican homosexuals are the ones doing this, from inside the RNC.
It's about time conservatives realized they have a RiNO problem of the first order, and that the "economic conservatives" mean to throw every baby ever born out with the bath water. They will capitulate every moral issue, every social-conservative issue of any dimensions at all, in order to generate more tax compromises with the Democrats, and to drive conservatives out of politics.
That is what is going on here: while conservatives fight to defend marriage, the Log Cabins and GOProud crowd are trying to undermine conservatism fatally until there's nothing left to fight for, and conservatives drop out of politics altogether.
I say none of it...
No marriage, no “civil unions.”
The evolution of mammals is only possible with heterosexual relationships.
I’m beginning to think Uganda is more civilized about the issue.
Ostensibly, being federalist-minded, I shouldn’t care too much if some other state legalizes gay marriage, but with that full faith and credit clause, it will result in the courts quickly forcing it onto the whole country.
And, if that happens, forcing legalization on ‘my’ state (Texas), I will become an immediate supporter of seccession. It’s my line in the sand.
There is no such thng as sodomite “marriage”, and civil unions are a dishonest evasion.
Sodomites are destroyers, and any society that doesn’t repress them will be ruined. It has been going on here already for quite a while.
It’s more than disagreement: it’s a violation of religious
belief!
“a section that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.”
I don’t see how this makes the federal government more powerful at the expense of the states.
What about lack of border control and the gulf oil drilling ban? The writer sticks his finger in a poop pie, pulls out brown digit and calls it gold, stick it in his mouth and tastes it and calls it sweet. The only thing he proves is he is at best another useful idiot. The states can very well decide what the states feel of import -they have the Senate, their own legislatures, and the courts.
What we see is an out of control Executive not a constitutional patriot fighting for the great cause of a homosexual sex nation.
Homosexual activists over the years have stated that the main reason they want “gay marriage” is to destroy the meaning of marriage and family and change society.
I have a bunch of quotes that I have to find today and post on this thread.
Their goal is utter dominance and utter destruction.
As conservatives, we cannot frame this as a religious or moral issue. Homosexual marriage/civil unions can be easily and logically dismissed by noting that such arrangements DENY CHILDREN THE BENEFIT OF BEING RAISED BY EITHER THEIR MOTHER OR FATHER.
Empirical evidence tells us that children raised in the ‘hood without a father suffer far greater incarceration rates, etc. Why would we purposely advocate marriage/civil unions where one of the two biologically designed nurturers was specifically required to be absent??
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.