Defense of Marriage Amendment debate on CSPAN2 LIVE THREAD

CSPAN

[abnegation]

And so it begins.....

[carenot]

When our founding fathers used the phrase, "we hold these truths to be self-evident", never in their wildest dreams were they imagining the depths of depravity that we would be debating as "rights" less than 250 years later.

Yeah, like divorce and re-marriage however many times you want. :)

[Salvation]

Our Church and our values are under attack today. These values which include; Life, Marriage and the Family are fundamental institutions from which our country gains its strength and character. The main question now is, will we get involved and fight for faith and what we believe is best for the Common Good?

This could be the end game.

The week of July 12, the U.S. Senate will vote on a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

Support the Federal Marriage Amendment
Please sign the official Catholic petition to support the Federal Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution (FMA). Unelected judges are overturning the will of the voters across the country and are changing marriage to something that was not intended. The only way to preserve and protect marriage as a union of a man and a woman is the FMA Federal Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution.

Go to: http://www.yourcatholicvoice.org/index.php?id=petition&petition=2

[abnegation]

Last I heard Idaho judges were trying to force Georgian judges to "legislate from the bench" the potato as the official State of Georgia veggie. (g)

[goldstategop]

Its the full faith and credit clause. The Left's strategy is to obtain favorable rulings in a few states and then go back to the other states and then challenge the constitutionality of the ban under DOMA. They can't challenge it until they have standing to do so. Which is what they are trying to set up, a federal test case. Its just a matter of time til that happens.

[lugsoul]

Now you are just playing misdirection. You know, 1st of all, that there is a major difference between the criminal laws in Lawrence and sanctioning marriage. 2nd, you didn't have a Federal statute banning sodomy.

You have a Federal statute that does exactly what you want. The only reason you have expressed for an amendment is that the statute MIGHT get stricken down by a court. It hasn't yet.

Back to my original premise - Having legislators pass laws that ARE NOT PRESENTLY NEEDED FOR ANY REASON is not, by any stretch, conservative.

[carenot]

This is a cheap political stunt, and it makes the GOP look petty.

I agree.

[lugsoul]

You are missing the point. No judge has gotten THIS one wrong, yet.

[goldstategop]

The funny thing is they read a right into the Mass Constitution that doesn't exist there. Hence the problem with an activist judiciary. They go to lengths previous generations of people never conceived of and the state of the world is turned on its head.

[lugsoul]

Yep. They may do that. And they may win, and they may lose.

Again, back to my original premise, which you are avoiding like the plague. How is it conservative to amend the constitution to address something that is a mere speculative possibility which is presently covered by a Federal statute?

[reagandemo]

Are you serious? What they ruled on was in direct defiance of the Defense of Marriage Amendment. They specifically stated that the Mass law did not state that marriage was between a man and a woman and unconstitutional. Oh and did you not hear the openly Lesbian judge state that the ruling was to knock down the Defense of Marriage Amendment? A small oversight on your part I am sure. Glad to correct it.

[goldstategop]

And if there's smoke, we wait til it becomes a fire and burns down the house? Or do we snuff out the smoke before it becomes the fire that consumes the building?

[goldstategop]

Give them time. The ACLU will find a judge who will agree with them. We can either pre-empt it now or we can wait until the damage to the family is done.

[lugsoul]

Maybe. I really don't know. Because I don't really care about the Mass. Constitution, except to the extent that Congress shouldn't be the one interpreting if for them

Now that I got you to agree with a few basic conservative principles, let me try one more: When it comes to interpreting the mass. constitution, it is better that it be done incorrectly by an activist mass. judge than that it be done correctly by a few hundred members of Congress who answer to not a single voter in Mass.

[lugsoul]

There is absolutely nothing in DOMA that is contradicted by the Mass. ruling.

[EternalVigilance]

Exactly.

Time to preempt these cultural terorists before more innocents get hurt.

[ken5050]

Question...has any conservative research group, like Dobson's, ever pulled up the speeches from the Dem senators who were in favor of the ERA..and compared them to what they are saying now?..it'd be interesting, to say the least..

[lugsoul]

Sure. And maybe we can start prosecuting crime when people are merely thinking about breaking the law.

It is obvious that you are willing to subvert conservative principles when doing so suits your agenda. And that is not conservatism.

[goldstategop]

It is not speculative. Gay marriage is already law in Massachusetts. And the Left will not rest until it is law everywhere else in this country. Regardless of what the American people want. Don't forget, in my native California, local officials disobeyed our state's ban on gay marriage by issuing licenses to same sex couples. The Left could care less about the Constitution and all that and they will do whatever they can to get what they ultimately want. Speculative, my ass.

[StriperSniper]

Kyl on the floor ping! :)

[goldstategop]

Those few hundred members of Congress answer to the voters. To whom may I ask, do the unelected Mass Supremes answer to?