Posted on 03/11/2004 8:41:26 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:11:48 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
By the comment, "will it make a difference" I was referring to our form of government. The entire theory of our Constitution turns on the principle of consent of the governed. That's why our first president understood that religion and morality were the pillars of government, because they were essential to the self-government principle.
As John Adams said, our constitution was written only for a moral and religious people. He said it was wholly inadequate for any other type of people. Winthrop said that men will be controlled by a power within them or by a power without them. That's what I meant by "will it make a difference." If the people of a state (a majority) who value morality and immorality equally are to also retain a republican form of government, then their laws will necessarily reflect those values. At the point a majority wants to be ruled as though pleasure is the greatest human value, you either introduce authoritarian government or you let them degrade themselves as they wish -- in which case the resulting chaos will eventually lead to the need for authoritarian gov't.
So back to marriage....the federal gov't has an interest in its definition because it affects benefits and taxes. We can demand a uniform definition on that basis.
Since the Supreme Court began mandating secularism as the state religion, we have been heading for a collapse of this nature. Few see the threat from within -- human nature itself. Our Founders understood that freedom must be self-ordered by morality steming from religious conviction. That's why religion got a double protection in the Bill of Rights. Too bad it's been redefined.
They handed us a republic if we could keep it. I'm not too optimistic at this point. But keeping it a republic is the most vital principle. Second, we need to re-establish a respect for morality in the hearts of the people themselves.
oops!
I looked up his words, which were: "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage."
President Calls for Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage
I suppose the nit I am picking is "how" and the degree to which the institution of marriage is protected. Bush's statement certainly admits states to make legal arrangements other than marriage, and in my mind, that, on its own, results in something less than "fully protecting marriage." But that's just me.
Our Founders understood that freedom must be self-ordered by morality steming from religious conviction.
You and I see rather eye-to-eye on that. Law, on its own, will not sustain a society. Law is an important pillar, but reliance on law alone (be it Constitution, statute, regulation or common law), to provide social stability, will not endure. Blackstone's writings express this pretty well, but the point is lost on many (if not most) citizens.
Tucker's Blackstone <-- Link (check Section II for his general premise)
So back to marriage....the federal gov't has an interest in its definition because it affects benefits and taxes. We can demand a uniform definition on that basis.
Yes, the Federal government has an interest, and yes, we can define marriage for the purposes of federal benefits and federal taxes. But society includes the next generation, and normalizing homosexuality will impact "our" children, and theirs.
It's not just you. It's me too. But it only leaves us vulnerable. We can still win this fight as long as it is kept in the legislature. We can't battle the courts. The plantiffs have the advantage because they only need one win. We must win EVERY TIME or we lose the entire war.
Yes, the Federal government has an interest, and yes, we can define marriage for the purposes of federal benefits and federal taxes. But society includes the next generation, and normalizing homosexuality will impact "our" children, and theirs.
I agree 100% with the above statement. But we also must protect representative gov't for our children. Don't get me wrong, we MUST win this fight. But part of the battle will be ongoing, in the legislatures of each state. And we must take back the schools, end the liberal reign in the media and academia, etc.... Unless we change hearts we are only delaying the inevitable.
The left tries to say that an Amendment is somehow anti-democratic. That's so untrue. It must pass Congress by 2/3 and be ratified by 3/4 of the states. If we win, the people will have spoken. Again, if I thought we could win on that grand of a scale banning civil unions and all benefits associated with marriage, I would support it in a minute. No conflict with representative gov't in that for me. I just don't think we can sell it to the extreme majority necessary to pass it without leaving the benefit portion to the states.
Maybe that explains my position better. We can't go for everything and lose the vital thing -- getting the courts out of the equation.
Oh, the courts have got to get out of the activism jag. I advocate getting defective officials out of their positions of influence. That sends a message too. Unfortunately, our legislators are not promptly responsive to public pressure (legislators having the power to impeach judges), and are by nature averse to controversy (legislators are -- always trying to pass the buck and have it both ways), and the people tolerate it.
An amendment might get the judges out of the marriage business (I think not, because creating civil unions does not fully protect marriage), but defective judges can bring society down in other avenues. Are we going to keep chasing them around with Constitutional amendments? Or kick them the hell off the bench?
In a way, I see advocating the amendment as a way to dilute energy that would be better spent toward a more durable solution. But again, that's just me. Not that I'm against a FMA, just that settling for a FMA seems to accept defective judges in principle, as long as they don't attach "one-man-one-woman" to the label "marriage."
... just that settling for a FMA seems to accept defective judges in principle, as long as they don't attach anything but "one-man-one-woman" to the label "marriage."
The point being, the people are letting their legal system create a new institution, inimical to marriage, whereby same-sex partners can enter into civil unions, adopt and raise children, and ...
Winning this battle will be an ongoing process no matter where we start.
So do many other people.
I've (pretty clearly, I hope) expressed my various misgivings, and the reasons I hold them, so I won't rehash why I think that approach sets expectations low, and in a sense, does not confront the roots of the present social and legal decay. But that's just my opinion, which has been overlooked or dismissed by the majority. Which is fine by me =;-)
Massachusetts legislature is meeting right now on the hot potato dropped in their lap by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Dollars to donuts, gay marriage in Massachusetts before summer is over.
We agree on all the fundamental stuff; we just disagree on process. What worries me is that those of us who disagree on process will lose solely because we can't agree on a strategy.
LOL, this guy is stupider and possessed of more hubris than Al Gore.
Who'd a thunk that was possible?
Oh my, for this issue, it's a difference without distinction. I'm all for the FMA, so "we" won't lose the FMA on account of my opinion or vote.
My concern is that some people see the FMA as enough to solve the problem. I contend it's not.
Kerry: the bi-sexual/political a hole.
Remember, it was Kerry who said of Clinton in 1992, "[He] is an extraordinarily good liar." They didn't call him Slick Willie for nothing. Kerry, on the other hand, is a terrible liar.
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.