I do not bother anyone for what or who they are. I never have. When you cross the line and tell me that I have to accept your behavior or else, that's where we cannot go. This is America. Matrimony has been the rule for millennia, and you are not going to change it now.
In the first place, this is the first step in the destruction of a whole society. Don't believe me? Look at Rome! Many empires, countries, etc have fallen eventually due the fact that there were no more children. No children, no legacy; no legacy, no future.
That is, however, not the reason I bring this to your attention. They are at it again (still) in Washington, just as they are here in California. Please read below to see how 'nice' some of these homosexuals truly are.
Protect Marriage Washington Files Supreme Court Brief to Protect Privacy of Petition Signers.It is indefensible to me that someone would send a death threat for ALLOWING YOU TO LIVE YOUR LIFE, yet that's not good enough for you. I know for a fact that isn't everyone. I am angry over this. Take that whichever way you want. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Then again, you have forgotten what shame is a long time ago, eh? Yeah, I said it, I meant it, and I'm here to represent it. Now what?
Protect Marriage Washington filed its opening brief today in the United States Supreme Court case of Doe #1 v. Reed. Protect Marriage Washington sponsored a referendum in Washington and is asking the Supreme Court to prevent the state from releasing the names, addresses, and other personal information of more than 138,000 individuals that signed the petition.
The effort to place the names of the petition signers on the internet is the latest example of the campaign to harass and intimidate anyone supporting traditional marriage by making personal information available on the internet. Their efforts have resulted in death threats, physical violence, and property damage directed at individuals supporting a traditional definition of marriage.
James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for Protect Marriage Washington, stated that “Public disclosure laws have been used to harass and intimidate voters. The First Amendment protects citizens engaged in political speech from being forced to reveal their identity to ensure that intimidation does not makes its way into the campaign toolbox. No one should have to endure death threats in order to stand up for what they believe in.”
On September 10, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order preventing the release of the names of the petition signers. On October 15, 2009, the Ninth Circuit issued a single page order allowing the release of the names. On October 20, 2009, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order preventing the release of the names until the appeal is decided.
The case is Doe #1 v. Reed. It will be argued before the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday, April 28, 2010. Protect Marriage Washington’s opening brief, along with the prior orders in the case, are available on the website of the James Madison Center for Free Speech, under the “Washington Referendum 71 Petition Suit” heading.
James Bopp, Jr. has a national federal and state election law practice. He is General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech and former Co-Chairman of the Election Law Subcommittee of the Federalist Society.
Some people you just shouldn't ever make angry. Especially sweet little ladies. It isn't nice. Have a day.
Digg!
The Kings of Europe may have had wives, but they also had consorts. Lots of them. They slept around. There's nothing "sacred" about that sort of union. I can't see where you could possibly disagree with me on that point.
ReplyDeleteFor millennia, marrying off your daughter to a man wasn't to honor her love or her freedom in choosing her soulmate, but to fulfill social bonds between families and sometimes even business and land contracts. It was even used as a tool to end wars or to unite two nations together under treaty. Is there anything "sacred" there?
I only have to mention the concept of dowries for you to understand that men were persuaded by rich women's families to take them as their bride.
Love often had no role in these marriages. And neither did any holy or "sacred" connotation.
To suggest that the Roman Empire crumbled because their citizens stopped producing children negates the fact that the Empire reign lasted hundreds of years and that its decline was relatively sudden - and happened at the Empire's maximum reach and influence.
The Empire split because it was too big to be managed and thus outlying areas rebelled and consumed resources that would have otherwise been able to repel other military dangers (read: Gauls and Visigoths).
IF you want to suggest that the Romans simply failed to produce child soldiers in great enough quantity, be my guest. I suppose that might have been able to stem the tide of barbarian invaders.
But it still doesn't account for the fact that the Empire was just too big to be managed.
On another note, while I will die to defend your beliefs, you have to understand that should you be elected into office, you're not just representing the people who voted for you, but the well-being of ALL of your constituents. Even the ones who ran against you.
Failure to realize that only helps illustrate the TRUE problem with American politics today.
Weird. Marriage has been that way for millenia in the U.S.? I always assumed we were founded in 1776, with those pesky Injuns having those blasted "counterfeit" marriages.. between two consenting adults regardless of sex! They truly were a barbaric people, weren't they?
ReplyDeleteby the way, you have an extremely skewed and irrational view of what is liberty.
ReplyDeletegood luck in 2010, but if you're as competent as you come across on here....
EPIC FAIL
In your first comment, I agree. There was nothing 'holy' about men having sordid affairs. (Many wives, too.) But those wives were at least female. (j/k).
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of the points you make, because they are facts. Boy, I prefer facts so more than opinions. (Even my own, sometimes.)
I also agree that it will be responsibility to serve as a servant and not as a tyrant. It will be my solemn duty serve everyone in District 37, not just the people who vote for me. I am so tired of that. I have not been represented in many years!
We agree on many of the details of responsibility and history. Maybe one day you would like to do lunch? Just a thought.