Defense of Marriage Amendment debate on CSPAN2 LIVE THREAD

CSPAN

[abnegation]

And so it begins.....

[jwalsh07]

That's fine. But he and I will be laughing at you when the amendment fails to get the 2/3 it needs, and the issue ends up going nowhere.

I'm getting on in years and since marriage is an "evolving paradigm"(Justice Margaret Marshall, SJCOM)and I have "transcendent liberty rights" (Justice Anthony Kennedy, SCOTUS, Lawrence v Texas), I plan on marrying one of my grandkids before I go to the Lord so they can have SS survivors benefits and hopefully you and Glenn will get the bill.

Perhaps its true that he who laughs last laughs best after all.

[exodus]

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

Written by men "directed by God??"

Says who, the men who wrote the Books?

If that's all you need, I tell you now, bluecollarman, I am a man inspired by God, and my views are not mine alone, but God's direct word as given to me.

If you still doubt me, notice that everything I've said is not just word of mouth, not hearsay, but actually the written Word of God, as given to me.

[unspun]

And by signing (a very important act, I think) the Constitution "...in the Year of our Lord (1787)" The People make reference to our Creator being sovereign over The People and thereby also base our Constitution upon the Declaration of Independence, which declares that "we are endowed by our Creator with... the Right to Life...."

Clearly, I should have also referred to the Declaration's focus upon "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." Pardon the omission.

[eiffel]

granted by the Creator
Why is this not in the Constitution? Where is it in the language?

Try reading the Constitution free of its historical context, free of what you know about the authors, as it applies to America today.

I see rights guranteed to us, but no appeal to a belief system to secure or bestow these rights.

[exodus]

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

God did not create terrorists. God did not create rapists. Committing crimes of violence is an exercise of Free Will, not an Act of God.

God did not create convicted felons. Man created convicted felons, through judicial action.

Pedophiles, paranoids, and manic depressives? Maybe.

Goatlovers? Maybe, but goatloving seems to be a choice driven by desperation; if given a choice between a woman or a goat, very few will chose the goat.

As to multiple wives, there's nothing wrong with that; God seems to approve of multiple wives.

[jwalsh07]

Well hell, don't take my word for it. Here's is what one of the signaturees had to say about it:

"[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue." John Adams.

[hunter112]

So you support the majority in Lawrence v Texas even though they ignored stare decisis and the 10th Amendment?

While I just said that my reading of Lawrence, particularly the wording, "The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons." seems to go along with the idea of gay marriage, yes, I figured that the Bowers decision of 1986 might indeed fall some day, and we got to that day last year.

As for stare decisis, when a court wants to keep something the same, it argues stare decisis, when it wants to do something different, it says that stare decisis did not apply in this case. Again, language from Lawrence,"Stare decisis is not an inexorable command." To a judge, especially a high court justice, words mean whatever they want them to mean on a given day. I guess the same is true of the 10th Amendment.

I hope for the day when stare decisis is set aside to reverse Roe vs. Wade, don't you?

[exodus]

To: johnfrink
"... I plan on marrying one of my grandkids before I go to the Lord so they can have SS survivors benefits and hopefully you and Glenn will get the bill ..."
# 501 by jwalsh07
***********************

That's a great plan, jwalsh07.

I support anything that gets back some of the money they confiscate from us.

[eiffel]

And by signing (a very important act, I think) the Constitution "...in the Year of our Lord (1787)" The People make reference to our Creator being sovereign over The People...

This is laughable.
Don't you think if it was so important to establish the United States as a Christian nation, they would have taken care to include this somewhere else besides what basically amounts to a date stamp?

[unspun]

"[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue." John Adams.

And Jefferson agreed (as did nearly all of them). "See here...."

I suggest looking into the foundational writings of Algernon Sidney, on exactly this topic. That is what Adams did, along with other resources, including his own sense.

[unspun]

This is laughable. Don't you think if it was so important to establish the United States as a Christian nation, they would have taken care to include this somewhere else besides what basically amounts to a date stamp?

At that particular time, it was perceived as being important to understate the fact.

Good evening, leaving the office to see a man about a car.

[jwalsh07]

Roe v Wade is an abomination. It is bad law, horrible public policy and a powr grab of unprecedented proportion. That is until Margaret Marshall ordered the Mass Legislature to encode homosexual marriage in law and remove references to husbands and wives.

Stare decisis does not apply to Roe any more than it would to Dred Scott. But I am not arguing the states rights opinion. You are.

I don't find the right to life a matter that can be left up to individual states any more than I think they can decide to kill the babies of conservatives.

The point is that marriage can not be a state issue because the federal government is intertwined inextricably with marriage.

The notion that a couple of guys wed in Mass and then move to Alabama not having SCOTUS backing based on equal protection is one I find ridiculous on its face.

[jwalsh07]

:-}

My family thinks I'm joking as do you.

I'm not. :-}}}.

[exodus]

jwalsh07 - granted by the Creator
eiffel - Why is this not in the Constitution? Where is it in the language? Try reading the Constitution free of its historical context, free of what you know about the authors, as it applies to America today. I see rights guaranteed to us, but no appeal to a belief system to secure or bestow these rights.
***********************

"As it applies to America today," what a great concept.

Yes eiffel , by all means, let's ignore the context of the Constitution, and just make things up as we go.

[exodus]

Really, I see nothing wrong with marrying relatives.

You have my full support.

[johnfrink]

There's a compelling state interest in preventing incest--idiot inbred kids, mostly.

I know you were just joking, but still wanted to point out that your attempt to construct an "incest will be next!" argument was flawed.

[jwalsh07]

Eiffels not a serious player. After reading that comment I have decided that I was wasting my time. Eiffel is not salvageable.

[bluecollarman]

All of those people were born with pre dispositions and genetics causing them to be pulled in one way or the other.

Homosexuals are no different than any other person with a specific genetic predisposition or a brain disorder.

Just because you are born that way does not mean it is not a sin to give in to those temptations. That is what our religion is for. To help us overcome sin. To defeat Sin and reach Heaven. To help others find the way. To put our needs last.

[eiffel]

Yes eiffel , by all means, let's ignore the context of the Constitution, and just make things up as we go.

Do you live in 1788?
I was suggesting that he reads the writings of Adams, Madison, etc. on their religious beliefs into the Constitution when they are not there.

[jwalsh07]

There's a compelling state interest in preventing incest--idiot inbred kids, mostly.

I know you were just joking, but still wanted to point out that your attempt to construct an "incest will be next!" argument was flawed

I wasn't making an "incest will be next" argument and I wasn't joking.

I was making a marriage of convenience argument that has passed you and Glenn right by.

Oh and one other thing, I'm deadly serious about it and I truly do hope you pay part of the bill for a good many years. I want you to remember me on tax day. :-}