Posted on 12/20/2012 10:19:31 AM PST by kreitzer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act: "Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state." (emphasis added)
That clause is exactly a forswearing of power not an exercise of power.
"Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns."
You can argue that the federal government shouldn't provide any employee insurance or Social Security survivors' benefits, or regulate immigration, or collect income taxes - but if you grant that any of those are as a whole within their powers, you can't then argue that setting specific policies in those areas is outside their powers.
and them trying to get gay marriage is also out of it.
How exactly (apart from DOMA) are they "trying to get gay marriage"?
As for abortion it also is not a federal issue it is not covered by the Constitution it was made up by the USSC.
And since the federal court made it up and is unwilling to unmake it, only action by the other federal branches can rectify that - those actions are in defense of the Constitution not in violation of it.
Well I guess neither of us is being coherent then.
You're half right.
I wonder how Swanky feels about DOMA. Here we had a federal law protecting traditional marriage and yet did not violate any state’s laws. How about the Healthy Marriage Initiatives from the 90’s that benefitted us AND our government?
Then you add in the fact that for centuries all goverments have benefitted from healthy marriages and ask yourself how can anyone say the government should remain neutral? Or worse - as swanky did - claim they don’t care if two homo’s marry? That is political/economic/cultural suicide.
I guess the fact that libs are screwing up marriage laws now gives them the right to say the government should not ever have been involved.
I have often wondered what brought you to this site other than perceived opportunities for trolling among conservatives.
So you want me to accept two parties that are identical on social issues, but one will give me a bigger tax break than the other? Ahhh ok.
Do we spike their methods and attacks (which is called progressivism) and educate people on proper role of govt (which we will always have to do if you want to keep the Constitution) or do we climb into their boat and talk about fidelity to the constitution sometimes and then be just as progressive sometimes?
If you say it's the latter by fighting at all levels of govt WITH The govt (DOMA, War on Drugs, etc), then how are you going to differentiate conservatism with liberalism when you educate people?
Thinking people will see right thru you that you're just as big govt as a liberal, you just use it differently than they do and in the end, the results are this election. Fewer people showed up to vote against the communist Obama vs a moderately maybe possibly pro-constitution republican Romney.
As for me, the answer is the former. On this issue, on the war on drugs, on all of it. The founder's libertarianism was right then and it's right now. Progressivism is progressivism and we've lost already if we fight against their agenda to destroy the constitution by destroying it ourselves.
Deport Sean Hannity
Illegal Alien Amnesty is Anti-American Bigotry.
Lets see the GOP win elections with a coalition of Illegal Aliens and “Fiscal Conservatives”. Good Luck
So work on it and then get back to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act: "Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state." (emphasis added)
That clause is exactly a forswearing of power not an exercise of power.
"Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns."
You can argue that the federal government shouldn't provide any employee insurance or Social Security survivors' benefits, or regulate immigration, or collect income taxes - but if you grant that any of those are as a whole within their powers, you can't then argue that setting specific policies in those areas is outside their powers.
Gee, you may as well have said, 'we had this here federal law that violated the US Constitution but that's ok because we did it'.
But in response, See 26, 50 and 66 at your leisure and then feel free to move on because you dont even have the slightest clue that you're the liberal democrat in this argument and I dont know how to get past your jack boot. No, you dont believe the same things they do, but you certainly agree to their methods and THAT makes the Const just as dead. You're the one that sees no problem violating the consitution to impose your version of America on other people. Do you even get it that 'using the govt to impose your view' on another is not conservative?
But, on the chance that you cant come to grips, please cite how the country is any more suicided than it already was given that several states have already given the nod to let two homos call each other spouse.
Expand upon whatever feable rationalization you come up with to tell me how those homos are picking your pocket or breaking your leg.
Further expand upon that and explain how your progressivism vs liberal progressivism isn't ACTUALLY suiciding this country.
A federal law is not an exercise of power? It may reject applying one states law to another but that in and of itself is exercising federal powers.
Now, Why did that have to get passed in the first place? Ostensibly, under this whole 50 different nation states and a small constitutional federal govt, that wasnt needed in the first place. Dont agree? Why do we have state constitutions and govts then?
We will fight at all levels of government. And yes we are conservatives fighting to conserve our unalienable rights, one of which is to be free of unwelcome, unconstitutional federal intervention into our lives. If libertarians have a problem fitting that into their libertarian viewpoints, that’s their problem not mine.
What the hell are you afraid of? Just what is it that scares you so about conservatism?
Lets expand on your fears and phobias for a minute, shall we? Lets say the idiot liberal courts did not rule against DOMA. Lets further theorize that a new Constitutional Amendment was ratified, passed by a majority of states, and enacted as law that defines marriage as one man - one woman.
Why does that scare you? Face it - your entire posting history on this thread has been an attack on conservatism, but especially same sex marriage as a fundamental conservative value. JR has been more than tolerant with you, perhaps based on your 1999 sign up date, but you should have been zotted by now. But you keep sticking that fork in the electric socket - you just ain’t all there.
But back to my question as to why you are afraid of a SoCon majority. Is it because we have seen in the past excesses and abuses by do-gooders and Christians?
Nope.
So even if we conservatives were to obtain a leadership majority, there would not be a re-enactment of Nazi Germany or whatever your fevered brain might imagine.
Look. What you really need to fear is reality. And the reality is that liberalism and socialism is the key enemy here. Look at the Communist Goals of 1963 and check, check, check, check and check some more of the goals that have been attained. And you DARE infer - on this conservative site - that Socons are the enemy?
You say you want to fix the economic mess we’re in as a nation? I say unless we have real moral leadership, there will be no recovery. Am I wrong? You and the Republican Party think so. But a socially liberal ideology results in an economically liberal idealogy. Am I wrong? Show me one of your socially liberal heroes who is right on economic matters.
You just don’t get it. You ask for evidence that homosexuals are damaging our country? Really? You really deny the social and economic benefits of traditional marriage. I suppose you think the billions of dollars paid annualy to welfare recipients are all to them damn married people who raise healthy happy kids and pay their taxes.
Finally - keep insulting conservatism as being “progressivism”. Keep flapping your lips and exposing the truth of what you believe. Class of ‘99 or no.... I will not miss you when you get the zot.
Gingrich: Conservatives Will Have to Accept Marriage 'Equality'
Newsmax ^ | 12/20/2012 | Stephen Feller
Newt is getting beat up pretty bad by us conservatives. Perhaps you could post a few replies in support of Newt, since you feel gay marriage is not a conservative issue anyway.
I thought this was a good article by Selwyn Duke. He says much the same things you say on FR.
Sorry, that made me laugh.
This is a “good” article SIL. It’s hard to stomach, but he’s right on the mark.
Yes, I am sure you think that of me frequently, whatever.
I love it when someone posts their opinion that differs, it automatically makes them a troll.
conservatism is not about consistency with any principle except that of preserving the truly valuable that’s we’ve inherited from those who preceded us.
“Choice” or “Natural Law” appears to be where you are hung up.
Natural law says unnatural relations and unnatural marriage is unhealthy for both individuals and society.
A society should have an investment in the procreation and rearing of its next generation. A society has no investment in how you get your jollies and who you have warm fuzzy feelings for.
What have we learned that has been handed down to us from preceding generations? That the biological parents of any child are the ones best to rear that child in the best possible way they know how. Therefore, we have learned to value the union of male and female (the potentially procreative union) as crucial for our culture.
Natural marriage is far more important than someone choosing a butt-buddy for today’s orgasmic delight.
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.