Posted on 07/12/2004 10:26:34 AM PDT by abnegation
And so it begins.....
Care to elucidate?
Or don't you have the courage or the brains to point out specifically how I am wrong?
The fact that this is so obviously not going to happen refutes the point you lamely try to make.
As I said, if the Democrats have a better alternative, they should put up or shut up. And if 75% of the states want to preserve traditional marriage, it seems to me they should be able to exercise the prerogative to do it.
Actually, the people aren't going to have to "handle" it, 'cause it ain't even going to get out of the Senate. And everyone pushing it knows that. It is theater, nothing more.
Wrong. the law that they stuck down does go against the DOMA. Case in point. A same sex couple is married in Mass. The move to California. California refuses to recognize the union and provide benefits. Can we say ACLU and 9th district? Let's understand a few things. 1st marriage as an institution as we know it is under attack. Since Liberals and GAYS cannot achieve the "right" outcome at the ballot box they will use activist judges to reach their goals. The only thing that can trump the courts are constitutional amendments. Finally Linclon once asks a person if you call a dogs tail a leg how many legs does the dog have? His answer 4. You can call a tail what you want but the dog still only has 4 legs. If Gays want civil unions fine no problem. All the rights no problems. Just don't call it marriage. One last thought if there is separation of church and state how does the state recognize marriage? Answer the constitution does not make a division such as that.
Simple. Just start with the Federalist Papers.
All the FMA says is judges won't get to make that decision. The elected representatives of the people will. I hardly call that controlling the outcome about marriage from Washington.
I was wondering when he would talk about that memo again
Not under FMA - it is not "no problem." What exactly do you think "legal incidents" means?
The Constitution puts no limits on when it can be used. It does not appear to be in any danger of being overused. You're absurd admonitions are out of step with reality.
Does it make no difference that we have standing Federal legislation on this topic?
Nope. It doesn't make a difference. I can't for the life of me figure out why this debate is bad for America.
Actually, the people aren't going to have to "handle" it, 'cause it ain't even going to get out of the Senate. And everyone pushing it knows that. It is theater, nothing more.
If that's what you believe, why are you wasting so much energy on it?
The same politicians who claim to trust the people and these several states won't allow them to decide it. Now THAT is surreal theater.
(just to make it clear:) I believe she must have said that in her dissent. She believed this issue is properly the domain of the legislature and the people, not the courts.
That is not what it says, and you know it. I tried to bring this to an end, with us simply disagreeing. It does no good for you to simply make things up in support of your position.
As I said, if the other side has an alternative, they can bring it up. Its a free country. Now I'm looking forward to the vote.
That makes you as one with the MA SJC -- the MA constitution specifies that issues of marriage are the province of the legislature, except as they assign any aspects to the courts.
I'm really hoping you meant to have a sarcasm tag on that one. If not, you are sorely lacking in recognition of irony.
Do you think it's ok to discriminate based on a person's age? There are many laws on the books that dictate what a person can or can't legally do based solely on the person's age. If we can discriminate based on a person's age, then I don't see why we can't discriminate based on whether or nor a person is a sexual deviant.
Right. Uhuh.
If U.S. Senators, generally speaking, are anything, it is cowards.
Time to shove this gay marriage cr*p right back down the throats of the degenerate Left.
This is the perfect way to do it.
I hope they whimper and moan right along with you and these NAMBLA-lovers who for some reason think they will get a warm reception amongst conservative FReepers.
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.