Defense of Marriage Amendment debate on CSPAN2 LIVE THREAD

CSPAN

[abnegation]

And so it begins.....

[EternalVigilance]

It makes no sense politically, because it has no chance of passing, as it is, it's a political parlor game.

Care to wager?

It makes no sense constitutionally, the founding document of our country is not the place to codify our morals.

Hahahaha...that doesn't even merit a response on a conservative site like FR. No one here is going to buy that line of silliness.

I don't see how it makes sense historically, because the only parallel I can think of is the Eighteenth amendment.

It makes sense historically, because its passage will help preserve the foundations of our civilization that were laid down by the founders of this republic.

And it may make sense to you morally, and perhaps a slim majority of Americans (from the polls I can find) but luckily, we don't legislate morality based on popular opinion.

BS.

[goldstategop]

We cannot change the electoral college either even though a lot of Americans feel it is obsolete. The traditional family is far from obsolete and is more deserving of constitutional protection than an antique machinery for the election of the President and Vice President.

[carenot]

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.

Agreed.

[EternalVigilance]

If my marriage and your marriage and every other good and strong marriage can keep the forces of evil at bay, how exactly are we at risk?

The corruption of the young and the weak.

And the judgment of the Almighty...

[lugsoul]

Actually, we can - using the exact same process. Can is not the same as should.

[goldstategop]

I guess its all in what we consider important. The debate now before the Senate will help to clarify it for the country.

[lugsoul]

I don't need the state to teach my children. I'm sorry you do.

As far as Judgment, I sincerely doubt that I am going to be judged based upon the legal definition of civil unions in Vermont. Perhaps you are. Is there something you aren't telling us, EV?

[usastandsunited]

I'm secure enough in my marriage to not be threatened by gays getting married. I'm sorry that you are not similiarly secure. That must be tough for you.

That's nice to know, and I am too. But this isn't about you nor is it about me. Its about redefining marriage. Period. What's next ? I can marry my poodle ? Sex education in schools can teach about good ole harmless sex with my new poodle ? While we are at it, can my poodle and I adopt a child ? You have been led to believe this issue is harmless, but its far from it.

[lugsoul]

Hopefully.

[eiffel]

Where do you people get this stuff? From the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[lugsoul]

Not everything we consider important is a matter for government action.

Conservatives used to know that.

[jwalsh07]

Read it again. When you get to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness part, stop and think whether or not there is a moral basis for including it.

When you are done there, pick up the US Code and find a law not based in morality. There are millions of laws, it should be easy to find one.

[carenot]

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.

I thought I was a conservative Freeper.
Guess not.

[EternalVigilance]

I don't need the state to teach my children. I'm sorry you do.

But the state is. And it is teaching them that not only is homosexual behavior acceptable, but that it is a net good.

Many of us are tired of it, and will strike back using every legal means at our disposal. This looks to be the most effective means we have at this point in history.

As far as Judgment, I sincerely doubt that I am going to be judged based upon the legal definition of civil unions in Vermont.

You are obviously ignorant of history. God judges nations in the same way he judges individuals.

Perhaps you are. Is there something you aren't telling us, EV?

You're an ass.

[exodus]

To: tjwmason
"... All three branches interpret the Constitution ..."

***********

We all judge the law, if we are good citizens.

Even policemen performing their duty should judge whether a specific Law is good or bad, and either arrest or refuse to arrest, based upon their own judgment.

[goldstategop]

We're not talking about entitlements or the usual nonsense that passes for enlightened thought in Washington. The matter for action is if we consider the family worthy of protecting in our nation's highest law. I consider that important and and a good in itself. Conservatives appreciate the difference between paying reverence to the tried and true and to dismiss the failed and false. And we know here exactly how to distinguish between them.

[Zeroisanumber]

Why are we wasting our time debating an amendment that will never be passed? Oh... yeah. Election year, duh.

[bluecollarman]

So God hates women adulterers more than he hates the men who are also involved in the fornication? God created "homos," just as he created straight guys, and God loves all his children.

I love all my children..some of them do things I do not approve of. You logic in invalid.

You must remember that the Bible was written by men, not by God. Just as straight men have the Right to associate with who they will, so do "homos" have the Right of association.

Men directed by God there is a difference. Sure...homos can associate with homos but if they homo around, then that is wrong.

Since God saw fit to create "homos," neither you nor I have any business telling them who they can hang around with.

He also created terrorist, pedophiles, rapist, and convicted felons, paranoids, manic depressives, Mormons that want to marry multiple wifes, goatlovers. I do not understand your point. Some of these people we prosecute and control their freedom of association.

[eiffel]

Care to wager?
The last time I checked, this had 29 votes in the Senate.

Hahahaha...that doesn't even merit a response on a conservative site like FR. No one here is going to buy that line of silliness.
Then some people here read the Constitution differently than I do. That's one of the reasons I like it here.

It makes sense historically, because its passage will help preserve the foundations of our civilization that were laid down by the founders of this republic. Where has this been done before?

As far as the bs comment, are you saying the polls I can find are inaccurate (certainly a possibility) or that historically, we don't change the Constitution to fit in with public sentiment?

[bluecollarman]

Personally, I could care less if Jane and Jill next door are married

Well, me and up to 70% of the folks that will vote next year do care.