Would that be a defeat for liberalism? The amendment assumes the government has the authority to define marriage, not merely recognize it, and assumes the role that is God's. That is the epitome of liberal activism.
Consider public schools. In the old days (speaking from my family's experience), communities on the prairie would pool their resources and hire a teacher for the children. What was taught in these schools was controlled by the local community who hired and paid the teacher. Parents were allowed to educate their children in any manner they desired.
Then the state and federal government, at the behest of powerful interests, decided they needed to regulate education. Now *all* children have to conform to federal rules, where prayer is replaced by militant atheism, patriotism by relativism, and freedom by conformism.
Do "conservatives" support the end of the machine that is producing all of these abominations? Very few. Instead of arguing whether or not the government should be controlling education, they argue about which books to teach. They've lost before they even started because they accept the premise that governments do a better job of making educational choices for our children. Fight the battle once. Get the government out of education.
If you win, your victory would be a Pyrrhic one. Eventually your amendment would be nullified by another that is completely opposite of your beliefs. Your amendment presumes the government and the people should, or even have the authority to, define a sacrament. You've lost the war before you started the battle.
As with education, get the government out of the marriage business, and fight the battle once.
The answer is not more federal regulations, laws or, God forbid, a constitutional amendment. The answer is *less* government and *more* individual control of our children's destinies. If we had done that in the first place, I doubt we would even need to debate this issue.
Concerning DADT, that *is* a federal role tasked by the Constitution (a concept other libertarians find strangely difficult to grasp - national defense *is* about conformism to complete a single task, i.e. national defense, not individualism). Most enlisted will tell you how great DADT is. A few officers may agree. It's a nightmare to enforce and was designed by the Clinton administration to protect homos, not soldiers. Homo predators in the military have used DADT to rape. The homos threaten victims that they will receive an OTH discharge for violating DADT because they'll tell everyone it was consensual. It *has* happened, and with officers raping 18-year-old privates and airmen. DADT was a bad idea, IMHO. Let them serve openly and let them be subjected to the same crap of "harassment is in the eye of the harassed" or don't let them in at all. If they deny an athletic kid for benign hemorrhoids, they ought to deny them for being homos. If they can't conform to the standard, they can't join. If they do join and get caught, failure to adapt.
To clarify, I didn’t say that a marraige Amendment would be the defeat of the left-wing but claimed that an Amendment(s) would be nessecary to defeat the left.
The previous marraige Amendment would of been the defeat of left-wing attempts to redefine marraige though but certainly would not have all out defeated the left in pushing for socialist, fascist style government or in pushing perversion upon our children and all of society.
The Amendment in no way claims that the government has any such right as you claim. It only defiines what it is that the government recognizes.
Your push to make it seem as if we should keep our views behind closed doors and never seek federal legislation or Amendments while the leftists run wild is a poor stradegy.
Much of what you post sounds like pro=homosexual agenda propaganda.
Let the perverts serve openly? And if a soldier feels morally opposed to being forced to bunk and shower with these perverts then what do you suggest should happen to that soldier?
Your state solution isn’t practical given that 41 states have passed marriage resolutions and liberal courts have struck them down. The people spoke and the libs did an end run around them.
Actually my post #90 is off being that you also suggest going back to an all out ban on homosexuality in the military which I would support.
I also would hope that you support the ‘right to association’ and that before anything else in regards to homosexuality the government must get out of the business of telling privately owned businesses how they need to treat this issue. Companies should not be punished simply because they oppose having perverts in their privately owned business.