Which Candidates Signed the “Contract From America.”

by lewwaters

15 Comments to “Which Candidates Signed the “Contract From America.””

  1. So, in this “Contract from America”, does “supporting the Constitution” include the 14th amendment, and the rights of ALL individuals, including homosexuals?



  2. Well, Greg, if you are thinking of turning this into an argument over same-sex marriage, don’t even try.

    The contract clearly states what it says.


  3. No, really. I’m asking. Because, you know, if you are going to support and protect the constitution, it is the entire constitution, not just the sections that support your ideas.

    I am a conservative, but I am also in favor of rights for every person. And, the law defines those that are able to enter into contracts. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a contract. Homosexuals are included in those that are able to enter into a contract. Denying the contract of marriage to those that are able, in the eyes of the state, to legally enter into any other contract, is DENYING rights, which is unconstitutional according to the 14th amendment.

    Have you read Judge Warner’s findings of fact in his judgement? Quite sturdy….

    So, if the “Contract from America” is to protect the US Constitution, it should protect it for ALL Americans.

    “Well, Greg” LOL…maybe you should let Jon (judy/alexis) know that I am not Kelly Hinton…


  4. Very clever, Greg, but I’m not taking the bait.

    As I said, the Contract from America clearly states what it does.

    Believe it or not, same-sex marriage isn’t exactly the most pressing issue of the day.


  5. Correction: Judge Walker….sorry.


  6. I propose to you that those that are signing the “Contract from America” are not doing so in full faith and support of the entire Constitution, and may therefore be misleading those that may be voting for them because of this. Voters should educate themselves the candidates’ stances on all issues, and not just because they signed this document. They may find that there will be many contradictions.

    I am somewhat surprised that you would support such a directed advertisement as this, that suggests that one should vote on this basis without further research on the candidates, regardless of one’s political leanings. That’s one of the reasons that I push so hard on Jon Russell. He talks a good game, but without learning more about him, a vote for him would be mis-guided.

    So, it is not so much the same-sex marriage issue, as it is that when politicians make statements, whether in action or word, it is best to educate one’s self as to what they are really saying. And, when a politician states they support the Constitution by signing this document, what does it really mean?


  7. If Jon Russell supports same sex marriage now, that’s his business.

    Further efforts to pervert this will be deleted. I don’t have the time to play your and Jon Russell’s anal games.


  8. Apparently our entire nation failed to understand the 14th Amendment applied to homosexual marriage until now. Silly forefathers thought that a marriage between one man and one woman applied equally to all. Wait, it does apply equally to all. Regardless of your persuasion, you can still be married to a person of the opposite sex but you are not forced to be.

    If marriage is no longer one man and one woman, and to deny a different definition becomes discriminatory, then marriage can be between a brother and a sister (or 2 brothers), between a child and an adult, etc. etc. Bad idea. The “injured” group of tomorrow can become anything and our crazy courts will probably support it.


  9. I agree with you, dem2gop, a great majority of people in the US do fail to understand the laws under which they abide. Thanks for being a prime example of the slippery-slope group of people that fail to understand their own Constitution. Please feel free to sign the “Contract from America”.

    Your examples do not fly for a number of reasons. Let me address a couple of them.

    1. Brother/Sister Brother/Brother, etc.: Incest is illegal, therefore, a consumated marriage is a moot point. Argument dismissed.

    2. Child and adult marriages happen all the time, although not so much anymore, as the age of consent has been addressed in most states. In addition, children under the age of majority (minors) may not enter into binding contracts. So if the age of consent has not been reached and the child is a minor, again, marriage is a moot point. Argument dismissed.

    These types of arguments are exactly why the the proponents of Proposition 8 lost in court. They cannot be legally supported.

    insults deleted


  10. Greg Owen, you may dispense with any illusion of having a first amendment right to speak here.


  11. That’s Owens, with an “s”. Your way or the highway…I get it. Take your toys and go home, etc. Very nice. I thought of all people, you would be willing to discuss issues.


  12. Give you an inch and you demand a mile.

    If you and Jon Russell wish to promote same sex marriage, do it elsewhere or find one of my older posts on same sex marriage.

    If that is unacceptable, don’t let the door hit you (you know the rest).


  13. Obvious….when you can’t make an intellectual argument, threaten to ban the poster. Makes perfect sense. I wouldn’t want someone making a fool of me on my own blog either.


  14. Greggy boy, get this straight. I choose what to discuss when I wish to discuss it. No one, least of all you, comes in demanding or trying to goad me into discussing anything.

    I have more pressing issues than you and your butt buddies trying to be married at t his time.

    If I chose to discuss this with you, it is highly doubtful you could make a fool of anyone, but yourself.

    You don’t make the rules here, I do and as I see fit.

    The nature of blogs, Greggy.

    When I post my next post of gays getting married, please stop by and make a total ass of yourself.

    Get over yoruself, Greggy, you ain’t that important, least of all to me.


  15. Striker991
    Remember we used to have sodomy laws? Then the Supreme Court decided it violated first amendment rights to privacy? That shoots holes in your argument that it is currently against the law. At one time homosexuality was against the law.

    You have made my point. Once you redefine marriage, the door is wide open to every possible combination, including polygamy, to be argued that their love interest should be allowed or it’s discriminatory. It won’t happen tomorrow because the public consensus is against it, but over time, mores evolve as minority groups successfully argue for ‘equal rights’. It is a slippery slope.


Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: