 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
srmorton
PO2
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 383
Location: Jacksonville, NC
|
 Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 2:33 pm Post subject: Another Judicial Outrage |
 |
|
Judges like this is why the "constitutional option" is so necessary. A
law passed by the overwhelming majority of the people of Nebraska
has just been declared unconstitutional by an unelected, activist judge.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=675&u_sid=1409820
_________________
Susan R. Morton |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This guy is another Clintonoid, appt. 1997
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhantomSgt
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 972
Location: GUAM, USA
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is why a Constitutional Amendment must be put forth to establish that marriage is between a man and a woman ONLY!
_________________
Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I disagree, this is why we need Judges that rule on law and not their own personal bias. This Clintonista appointee is out of his jurisdiction and out of order.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhD candidate
Former Member
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| just curious, does anyone here support civil unions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoophyDog
PO1
Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 480
Location: Washington - The Evergreen State
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PhD candidate wrote: | | just curious, does anyone here support civil unions? |
While I can't say I support a civil union in the current context, I do support the concept driving it - in part. Estate management, medical decisions and division of property do deserve protection under law since the government really doesn't have any business countering it once agreed upon. If treated as a simple contract between two individuals, that contract should be honored.
BUT - call it what it is. A civil contract between two homosexuals to define and declare their intentions and desires regarding those mentioned areas. If two homosexuals make this choice then it is incumbant upon them to outline exactly what is agreed upon and lay that out in a contract. No "rights", no mandated "guarantees", just a mutually agreed upon contract.
_________________
Why ask? Because it needs asking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
USAFE5
PO2
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 362
Location: Reno Nevada
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that all couples should be granted the same treatment, why should only heterosexuals get to enjoy the misery of marriage and price of divorce?
Now if they wish a religious union then the rules of the church should apply. If a couple is just that, a couple, treat them as such.
_________________
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I’m here to help." Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excuse me, but when you start redefining marriage as something other than the union of a man and a woman, I will take issue. Regardless of the fact some couples do not have children for what ever reason, the purpose of marriage for thousands of years has been the raising of children in a family. You want to change it to define an economic contract? Then call it something else, but don't call it marriage.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wpage
Lieutenant
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 213
|
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Strongly disagree with civil unions!!! To me they are still "Queers" and always will be. Part of the VN anti-war coalition was this bunch who is still pushing the agenda. Remember all the NVA/VC flags at the the protest in the 60's & 70's? Weren't they Communist? And the agenda of the communist was what? Infiltrate and take our country without firing a shot.
Wasn't that Nikita Kruchev that said that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just a reminder, folks. We are heading down the path of a very emotive subject that has resulted in severe flame wars elsewhere. While Gay Marriage is what this Judge ruled on, maybe we should direct this thread more towards Judicial Activism.
Incivilities will be swiftly dealt with on this subject and the thread will be locked.
_________________
Clark County Conservative
Last edited by LewWaters on Mon May 16, 2005 7:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wpage
Lieutenant
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 213
|
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
This article is somewhat relavent to the topic. From "Powerline Blog today.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010469.php
| Quote: | Strange Bedfellows
The New York Times' Frank Rich isn't the country's worst columnist--that distinction belongs to Paul Krugman--but he may be the weirdest. Rich is a former drama critic who, for reasons no one remembers, was given a political column by the Times some years ago. I'm sure Rich has many interests, but the only one I've ever seen mentioned in his columns is homosexuality.
Today's is a classic: "Just How Gay is the Right?". Rich describes homosexuality as "the ticking time bomb within the conservative movement that no one can defuse," apparently because he thinks many conservatives are gay. But that isn't the point of his column. What he really wants to talk about is Advise and Consent, the great 1959 novel by Allen Drury which we wrote about here and here. Rich recalls the most memorable event in that novel, the attempted blackmailing of Senator Brigham Anderson of Utah:
In "Advise and Consent," the handsome young senator with a gay secret...is from Utah - a striking antecedent of the closeted conservative Mormon lawyer in Tony Kushner's "Angels in America." For a public official to be identified as gay in the Washington of the 50's and 60's meant not only career suicide but also potentially actual suicide. Yet Drury, a staunchly anti-Communist conservative of his time, regarded the character as sympathetic, not a villain. The senator's gay affair, he wrote, was "purely personal and harmed no one else." As the historian David K. Johnson observes in "The Lavender Scare," his 2004 account of Washington's anti-gay witch hunts during the cold war era, it's the gay-baiters in Drury's novel who "are the unprincipled menace to the country, using every available tool for partisan advantage."
Throughout his long column, Rich associates Allen Drury's point of view with his own, and he suggests that Drury--a fan of the "the constitutional checks and balances that 'Advise and Consent' so powerfully extols"--would have been on the Democrats' side in the current battle over the filibuster.
This perspective is so strange that it requires a moment to untangle. First, for those unfamiliar with Drury's novel, its villains are liberals, and its heroes conservatives. At the height of the cold war, the President, a supreme politician in declining health, nominates as Secretary of State an an appeaser named Robert Leffingwell. A bipartisan coalition favoring a strong defense against Soviet expansionism forms against Leffingwell in the Senate, and ultimately defeats his nomination. Along the way, the liberals learn that Brig Anderson, a rising star in what is clearly the Republican Party, had a brief homosexual experience while in the Army during World War II. The liberals use this fact to blackmail Anderson, trying to force him to vote for Leffingwell. Anderson commits suicide instead, and his death galvanizes the conservatives' opposition to the far-left nominee and his unprincipled liberal allies.
So Advise and Consent really does continue to resonate, but not in the way that Rich suggests. There is no "gay-baiting" in the book. There is, rather, "outing." The liberals threaten to out Senator Anderson, by then married and a father, as a method of blackmail. Today, as in Drury's book, only liberals out their enemies.
This is particularly relevant, perhaps, to Frank Rich, because Rich himself is a famous "outer." It was Rich who outed David Brock, a formerly conservative journalist. Brock didn't kill himself, thankfully, but he couldn't take the heat, and became a strident left-winger, which pretty much ended his career. So the liberals in Advise and Consent tried, unsuccessfully, to do what Rich did successfully--turn a conservative to their side by threatening to expose his homosexuality. This is a screamingly obvious parallel which Rich mysteriously fails to acknowledge.
Rich concludes by suggesting that Advise and Consent supports the Democrats' filibustering of President Bush's judicial nominees. He writes, apparently with the appalling Kleagle Byrd in mind:
[W]e now have a wider war on gay people, thinly disguised as a debate over the filibuster, cloaked in religion.... Check out the good old days in "Advise and Consent," not to mention Charles Laughton's valedictory performance as a Bible Belt senator who ultimately puts patriotism over partisanship, and weep.
Once again, Advise and Consent is an odd place for Rich to seek support for today's Democrats. The conservatives (patriots, really) who are the heroes of Drury's book didn't filibuster Leffingwell's nomination. They defeated it, by a vote of 74 to 24. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wpage
Lieutenant
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 213
|
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
This quote gives a lot of supporting evidence to the New World Order scenario and the cooperation of MSM:
http://batr.org/gulag/index.html
| Quote: |
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
David Rockefeller Baden-Baden, Germany 1991 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob51
Seaman
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 156
Location: Belfast
|
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GM Strong wrote: | | Excuse me, but when you start redefining marriage as something other than the union of a man and a woman, I will take issue. Regardless of the fact some couples do not have children for what ever reason, the purpose of marriage for thousands of years has been the raising of children in a family. You want to change it to define an economic contract? Then call it something else, but don't call it marriage. |
Lew previously cited Article 52 on Freedom of Religious Expression in the USSR. Here is Article 53:
| Quote: | Article 53 [Family, Marriage]
...
(2) Marriage is based on the free consent of the woman and the man; the spouses are completely equal in their family relations. |
Wonder when the USSR will reword Article 53 to a more politically correct modern form? Or am I reading on old version?
Bob51 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
