Defense of Marriage Amendment debate on CSPAN2 LIVE THREAD

CSPAN

[abnegation]

And so it begins.....

[goldstategop]

So what's the problem with the FMA? If marriage is between a man and a woman in the law, its not an act of bigotry against any one else. I defy any one to show me how centuries of heterosexual couples being happily married have made gays and lesbians feel excluded.

[lugsoul]

Only if the legislatures do it in the way the Federal government tells them to do it.

[Hat-Trick]

Homosexuality is an orientation, not a "behavior" or a "choice." They choose to be gay to the same degree that you choose to be black.

Oh. So it's God's fault? Should we not consider His opinion, or does He not exist, and the "orientation" is part of mankind's evolution?

[goldstategop]

Exactly. I want to make sure no liberal judge ever decides otherwise.

[EternalVigilance]

But you obviously would rather have the Federal government dominating over the states.

You see white, and call it black.

The Federal Government dominating is not the issue here. The issue is the majority of Americans, the vast majority, being dominated by a bare handful of Leftwing fringers who happened to have gotten their cohorts into positions of power in the judiciary of several of the states.

It is their domination, a tyranny of a tiny minority, that must be dealt with.

Thank God someone in the legislative and executive branches are finally realizing the threat and finding the courage to deal directly with this insidious threat to our republic.

[lugsoul]

No. It wouldn't. And what is the point of limiting it to sub-constitutional state legislation?

[tjwmason]

Since you are all hot and bothered to pass a Federal constitutional amendment, you probably haven't even stopped to think about this: If a state chose to amend its own constitution to provide all the legal benefits of marriage to gay couples, this amendment would prevent it from being construed in that way. Directly thwarting the legislative and constitutional process.

It seems to me that the one most concerned with constitutional amendments is yourself; you have this belief that the governments of the 50 states are itching to pass constitutional amendments adding civil partnerships with legal incidents of marriage to their constitutions.

I see the higher moral position about the nature of marriage as more important than legislative or constitutional processes. As a conservative, I do not worship processes; rather I live in the real world.

[carenot]

Just the way abortion was legalized by the US Supreme Court, of course.

Maybe I misread the Constitution, I think murder is up to the States.

[lugsoul]

Really, EV? Since when do the majority of Americans live in Massachusetts and Vermont?

As usual, you are long on rhetoric and woefully short of fact, reason, or logic.

[Mo1]

Did ya just hear Dashole??? LOL .. they REALLY don't want to go on record with this vote

[goldstategop]

If traditional marriage is part of the law of the land, how exactly does that impinge on state freedom? I don't recall a big demand for gay marriage in our state legislatures.

[bluecollarman]

"There is nothing in the US Constitution saying anything about the Feds having any say about marriage."

Sheesh...they couldn't think of every little perverted thing. Certainly there was no thought at the time that this would ever be a serious issue. They did assume if and when such a whacko problem arose, we could handle it. Thus, they provided a mechanism to address it. Amending the Constitution.

[MEGoody]

"Right, so let's focus on the reason that so many actual marriages fail, rather than trying to stop people who want to be married from getting married."

Yes, lets strengthen marriages instead of opening it up so any type of relationship can be given the rights and priviledges of a marriage covenant. Allowing any type of relationship to be called marriage isn't going to strengthen it.

"We need an amendment to our Constitution! This is a cheap political stunt, and it makes the GOP look petty."

Perhaps in your view. But it's clear to me that the homosexual activists have launched an all out assault on the foundation of our society. Maybe it's not a big deal to you, but it is a huge deal to me.

[tjwmason]

Then you can dictate to the states how they can define it. Some conservative.

It is not me telling anybody how to define marriage. It is not the Federal Government. Rather it is the constant and unchanging reality. This is why I am a conservative, because I could not care less what a bunch of jack-booted judges say; marriage is for one man and one woman.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Little Tommy Dashole just said;

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Don't look at this. Go after other more important issues that we Democrats will also gridlock."

That was it in a nutshell. Not exact quotes.

[goldstategop]

They don't. At the same time the judges of VT and MASS have no business telling the rest of the country what passes for marriage, period.

[lugsoul]

"I see the higher moral position about the nature of marriage as more important than legislative or constitutional processes."

That's really the point. You don't care how it is done, as long as you ban what you view as the evil.

That may be conservative morality, but it ain't conservative politics.

[carenot]

This BEHAVIOR is a CHOICE... a bad one.

So it is a bad choice for men and women to get divorces and remarry however many times they want.

[jwalsh07]

The threat from "homosexual marriage" to the family comes through the children. In a state or country where the government implicitly endorses such a notion, children will be indoctrinated in public institutions to believe that A=B, which is of course nonsense.

But that will not stop the state from teaching children in public school that A truly does equal B despite the teachings of the parents.

A short jump from that position will be the state imposing its will on religious institutions through hate laws which are already working their way through the Senate.

These aren't slippery slopes, they are reality.

[lugsoul]

"At the same time the judges of VT and MASS have no business telling the rest of the country what passes for marriage, period."

They aren't. This is worthless hyperbole. Nothing those judges have said has any impact on what marriage is to me, or what marriage is here in Georgia, or in your state. To the contrary, you want the Federal government to tell THEM what marriage is.