Posted on 07/17/2013 1:54:59 PM PDT by BillyBoy
You seem to think that the legislators in the states with anti-homosexual marriage constitutional amendments are going to just roll over. When the sodomites sue the first state to try to force reciprocity, they will find over 35 other states joining in on the side of the defendant state.
Marriage isn’t a state issue today, there is no way that states will be allowed to ignore families that relocate or get transferred there by the federal govt, and military, pretending that ‘gay marriage’ is a state issue is a way to “get r done” for gay marriage nationally.
Besides the feds have to decide on many millions of marriages itself, such as in widow benefits and immigration policy and in the military and federal employment.
Gay marriage has already been recognized by the federal government, the military, and in immigration and several states, no state is going to be able to stop those families at their borders or with a separate set of family laws.
” That ironic thing, Liz Cheney fans keep telling us she’s better because she’s willing to “Stand up and fight and against liberals”, but that if WERE true, she’d be running for a Senate where she actually has to fight a liberal to get it, and face a real contest in November. She’s not, she’s carpetbagging in Wyoming because it’s easier to run for a seat in a “safe state” with her daddy’s name, even if that means having to run against a solid conservative. “
Good post.
First we need an immaculate Republican virgin
Thank you for referencing that article BillyBoy. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed against Mr. Mark, the author of the article, and not you.
For the record, I support only traditional one man, one woman marriage.
The problem with article is the following. What pro-gay activist justices and Obama guard dog Fx News don’t want citizens like Mr. Mark to know is that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate marriage. In fact, the Founding States made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitutution’s silence about such issues means that government power to regulate such things are automatically reserved uniquely to the states.
So Mr. Mark’s article wrongly implies, imo, that the idea of the states regulating marriage is nothing more than a matter of opinion when it is actually 10A-protected state power.
The federal government has had to be involved in it’s own definition of marriage since the Continental congress first legislated on it in 1780.
I’d support states rights for the 2A just as the left supports states rights for homo marriage. I’d appreciate having my gun carry as portable as they want a homo marriage to be.
You talk like it is a done deal. If so, why fight it?
See post 43, the “states” argument is an argument for gay marriage.
It sounds like you will take any approach to get to gay marriage.
I’m generally in favor of the whole notion of getting “new blood” into Congress. But, there’s no way I’ll ever support or vote for any Republican who is wobbly on either gay-marriage or amnesty. Those are issues I won’t budge on. Not an inch. I’d stay home rather than vote.
What the hell are you talking about? You are the one saying it is inevitable. I am saying that expressing support for an amendment that will never be passed a futile.
her sister is an alternative deathstyle advocate.
NO THANKS.
” But, there’s no way I’ll ever support or vote for any Republican who is wobbly on either gay-marriage or amnesty.”
BUMP
In your defense of this new candidate's support for gay marriage, your argument is don't fight, accept her position.
See post 43.
What pre-Constitutional legislation regarding/referencing “marriage” was that, back in 1780?
As I mentioned elsewhere, state power to regulate marriage is not a matter of opinion. State power to regulate marriage is protected by the 10th Amendment, plain and simple.
Regarding the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Constitution's Section 1 of Article IV which I think you are basing your opinion on, please note the following. Before Congress established the constitutionally indefensible federal drinking age law for example, a 19-year old living in a state where drinking age was 19 couldn't go to a state where drinking age was 21 and buy booze on the basis of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
What's going on is that pro-gay supporters, which maybe includes you but certainly activist justices, are pushing the gay agenda on PC interpretations of both the Equal Protections Clause of Section 1 of 14A and the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
I’m not interested in any Cheyney or any other damn republican for that matter.
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.