1 posted on
12/29/2003 12:42:15 PM PST by
RogerFGay
To: JimKalb; Free the USA; EdReform; realwoman; Orangedog; Lorianne; Outlaw76; balrog666; DNA Rules; ...
ping
2 posted on
12/29/2003 12:42:52 PM PST by
RogerFGay
Read later bump...
3 posted on
12/29/2003 1:14:35 PM PST by
69ConvertibleFirebird
(Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
To: Carry_Okie
ping
4 posted on
12/29/2003 1:23:43 PM PST by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: RogerFGay
Some so-called conservatives are looking for an alternative to the marriage amendment.These people are just weaklings and worried about a few votes from an overblown(pun intended)minority.We have to stop listening to people like this and have the amendment anyway to lock this crap up once and for all.The amendment should be worded so strictly that their will be NO OTHER INTERPRETATION!!
To: RogerFGay
core problem = the fact that marriage and family has already been ripped from its natural and cultural roots by CongressOne of the reasons there is a legal institution of marriage at all is that families needed the enforcement of government to hold fathers (and mothers and husbands and wives) to their responsibilities. I believe this was appropriate: the church and social disapproval would be ineffectual by themselves. This is a legitimate interest of society that should not fall only to vigilante justice.
The plight of fathers under today's social policies is very real, but I do not agree with the notion that this sort of thing should be placed fundamentally out of the reach of government.
To: RogerFGay
Folks talk a lot about "Defending Marriage" by banning same-sex marriage. This author points out that the greatest harm to marriage comes from the current divorce and custody laws. That is where reform is most urgently needed and it requires no constitutional amendments.
To: Americana Belle
Ping
28 posted on
12/29/2003 7:28:34 PM PST by
EdReform
To: RogerFGay
There is no reason not to attack on all fronts.
The issue has become federal because of Full Faith and Credit. The 1996 Fed. DOMA will not stand against any number of agenda judges. It only take one back room judge to deal the blow. What happens when the next family court judge, who is a closet homosexual, decides to "take a stand." (Do you know which judge was the homosexual during the 2000 race?)
Putting it in black letter law shuts the judges down. It defines the debate to those who only worship the state.
I do agree that Fatherhood MUST be emphasised. The only way for that to happen is to have divorce be a real negative consequece for mothers. No more divorce as the cash out value of a marriage. Infidelity should be a factor. Give them the no fault divorce, just put a penalty.
How about abolishing permanent alimony? No rehabilitative alimony beyond five years.
Does anyone know what happened in the state that adopted the "enhanced" harder to get a divorce type marriage?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson