Posted on 07/12/2004 10:26:34 AM PDT by abnegation
And so it begins.....
The namecalling really bolsters your argument, though. You should try it a little more.
I agree but what about all the married men and women that poo-poo on their marraige vows?
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer.
We are deabting this amendment because the issue was thrust upon the rest of the country by a plurality of one in an activist court in Massachusetts.
The Chief Justice stated, "marriage is an evolving paradigm".
We don't like the way its evolving and intend to do something about it.
You don't like it?
Too bad.
Have you considered the peril of claiming that the very existence of the family is founded in the definition and blessing of the state?
Then explain to me the difference. Gays want the name becuase they want to force it on us nationwide.
The family is not a creature of the state. The state simply extends to the family its recognition as it does to individuals. There is nothing here about either one being subordinate to the state.
*shrug* Congress should have better things to do with their time. However you feel about it, gay marriage is all but inevitable at this point.
You are simply speaking to examples of individual failures in an institution. The institution is not the problem and doesn't require more bad public policy to fix it. Indeed, bad public policy over the past 40 years has harmed the institution.
To argue for more bad public policy becuase of bad public policy or poor practice by individuals in that institution is not a good argument. IMHO at any rate.
Gays don't see civil unions/domestic partnerships on the same par as marriage. They want the full name of marriage in order to be accorded legal recognition and moral equality. Which is of course, precisely what most of us reject.
Yes. Freedom.
Let's just have the liberals turn this country into a giant version of Canada. Forget about American exceptionalism.
LOL, the way I feel about it is quite simple. The Ministry of Truth can legislate all the newspeak they want. It changes nothing. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
They can tell me that black is white and the government is here to help me as well. Same ole balogna, different bread.
You have urged that without the state's exclusive sanction, the traditional family is doomed. That would make the family subordinate to the state, no matter how you slice it.
goldstategop - There was nothing in their Constitution about gay marriage being a right up until now.True carenot, there is nothing in the Constitution giving the Federal government the power to regulate marriage.
carenot - There is nothing in the US Constitution saying anything about the Feds having any say about marriage.
***********************
There is, however, something in the Constitution that proscribes Federal interference in private matters - the 10th Amendment.
Which liberals have long read out of the Constitution.
Right, like abortion.
The 10th no longer applies. Roe killed it. Lawrence v Texas buried it.
.
Regardless of what they think or say they think....what do YOU see as the difference. If the only perceivable difference is the name, then they are the same. Calling them civil unions would allow states to make distinctions, and it would allow the federal gov't to not recognize them (unless the courts play word games). Once several states call it marriage, it is going to get increasingly complicated, as citizens move to and from different states, to just functionally keept track of who is obeying the laws. Furthermore, federal forms and taxes will grow complicated as some who are "married" have to mark "single" and so on. It will be a legal mess. But the damage to our culture will be the same.
If the Left agreed to take gay marriage off the table, then I'm willing to withdraw the FMA. I don't think they'll accept the offer.
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.