Posted on 05/17/2004 12:11:17 PM PDT by george wythe
That is not the case.
I am planning to vote for John Kerry, because it is my belief that the Bush administration has repeatedly mislead the public, made bad decisions, and pandered to a few special interest groups to the detriment of America as a whole.
Arguing to convince others to vote for John Kerry would be out-of-bounds on this site.
I already pung you all to this thread, but check out post #38 by AnalogReigns - great analysis of why "gay" marriage is wrong, harmful and so on. I didn't read every word yet but it looks very thorough. Good for printing out and broadcasting.
My point was that marriage should not become a federal issue for no good reason. Voters in each state currently define marriage, do they not? Why should it be any different?
Not to mention a waste of perfectly good bandwidth.
I never tried to convince anyone, in my posts on this site, to vote for John Kerry. You are the one who brought up the election, not I. All of my posts were topical to the discussion; yours are the posts that are off-topic. I have no problems continuing this discussion with you, so long as you can keep it civil, but perhaps if we are going to deviate from the topic we ought to take it elsewhere.
You should read this statement by the founder and owner of Free Republic describing the purpose and guidelines of this site:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts
This site is for conservative discussion. Of course, there is wide latitude among conservative viewpoints or those who hold them. But you sound as though you hold no conservative viewpoints whatsoever.
You didn't answer all my questions, and thank you for the answers you presented so far.
Um, no. Judges want to REDEFINE marriage from what it has been for millennia to something appealing to perverts.
Er, sorry...george wythe brough up Kerry, not you. My fault.
Because marriage has always been between a man and a woman, with a few forays into polygamy. There has never been, in the history of the world, a stable civilization that was based on anything else.
Homosexual activists want to radically change the meaning of family and marriage. The burden is on you to prove that this is a good thing. Read post #38 and refute it with citations, since you like them very much and consider them necessary.
ah the defender of marriage and heterosexuality. Thanx for all you do.
It is a federal issue already. Marriages performed in Alabama are recognized in Florida.
I would support a constitutional amendment that prevents a state from forcing its definition of marriage on another state.
If Utah wants polygamy, that's Utah's problem.
If Massachusetts wants gay marriage, that's Massachusetts' problem.
Voters in each state currently define marriage, do they not? Why should it be any different?
If the status quo remains, everybody will be happy.
The reason we are talking about a constitutional amendment is because the status quo will be challenged in federal court shortly, and many legal experts expect DOMA to be found unconstitutional.
In short, to trump the decisions of a few rogue judges in a few states - and the Supreme Court of the United States - from foisting gay marriage on the whole nation. The dynamics in play are that states are bound to honor marriages performed in other states. There are puny legal structures in place now to try to prevent just that, but eventually the Supreme Court will decide. It may come down on the side of gay marriage and dictate to us all to comply.
That should be prevented by any means possible. The Constitutional amendment route would not normally be considered a good one, but the magnitude of judicial activism currently in play necessitates it.
Strange statement from a guy who won't tell us if he's heterosexual or married.
You might want to make your point in smaller bits, you'll have more people reading your thoughts, and less of them scrolling just to see where the bottom is.
Not according to the liberals .. they think we are too stupid to know what we want
"a Constitutional amendment would preclude voters and legislators from defining it as they wish."
They're precluding voters and legislators from defining it as they wish TODAY. Doesn't seem to bother you much.
"You want to make it a federal issue for no good reason"
No good reason? Okay, oh brilliant one, if gay marriage is legal in MA, and not legal in NH, does the federal government send a different tax form to each state? How about social security benefits? Can they just hop over the state line, get them, and come back? And what happens if the couple who was married in MA moves to NH in June? Can they file as a married couple or not?
Fact is, federal government interacts with married couples even -more- than States do, and that's why claiming there's "no good reason" for the federal government to have it's own position is simply ridiculous.
Qwinn
No problem. Actually, I did bring it up in response to your post. However, please note the phrase "would be" when I said: "Arguing to convince others to vote for John Kerry would be out-of-bounds on this site."
I was just trying to provide you with helpful information.
Here's Jim Robinson's words:
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc...
You don't like it, go post on another forum.
You ought to consider your motives for personally attacking me all over FR. I don't chase you around attacking you. I still think you should stay off the 'shrooms and maybe look up exorcists in the yellow pages.
I am not an anthropologist, but I took quite a few years of Latin back in the day. I'd point out that the Romans accepted and widely practiced homosexuality for centuries.
As for the burden being on me, no, it is not. If a law cannot be shown to be a good thing, there is no reason to have it. The default state must be freedom first, and laws restricting that freedom only when necessary. The default state is *not* to be allowed no freedoms with *exceptions* for those things which are proven *not* to be harmful.
``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.''
Will you lay off? I find your attacks on little jeremiah to be totally pointless.
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.