Replies

I do not interpret Bush's remarks as supporting CVs [CUs] in any way.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Some clarification: If I thought we could get an amendment that also banned all the benefits of marriage I would support it in a minute. I do think the issue is that vital. But the whole consent of the government thing also comes into play in the Amendment process. I am aiming for what I think we can win. We will just have to continue the fight in each and every state.

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.