Posted on 07/12/2004 10:26:34 AM PDT by abnegation
And so it begins.....
Unless, of course, you're a living constituionalist who thinks it needs a shot of viagra every once in a while to "grow."
Start with the federalist and anti-federalist papers. That'll keep you out of trouble for a bit.
To: hunter112The Federal government isn't "intertwined inextricably with marriage," any more than it is intertwined with a specific business's purchase order.
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.
# 512 by jwalsh07
***********************
The many States are required to recognize the legal contracts made within any other State, but that doesn't give the Federal government any power over the exercise of any contract.
You're dreaming. The federal government issues benefits based on marital status. The notion they will suspend those benefits when two guys move from Mass to Alabama is ridiculous on its face and so is your comment. Equal protection will spread homoseuxal "marriage" countrywide and you'll still be mumbling about libertarian dogma on contracts.
Maybe. Then again, maybe not. Civil marriage is a matter of public policy and record.
By their signatures, everyone who signed that document testified that their Lord was Jesus Christ.
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.I also define "sin" as doing what you believe to be wrong.
***********************
I believe it is my duty to teach others the truth, and to help them live their life correctly.
I do not believe that to reach Heaven I need to put my needs last.
I'm in full agreement. But so was Dred Scott. To gays and liberals, Bowers vs. Hardwick was their Dred Scott decision, and it was only a matter of time before the SCOTUS saw it differently. By denying the full humanity of unborn children, black people and homosexuals, these three decisions have had something in common, if you choose to look at them that way.
The point is that marriage can not be a state issue because the federal government is intertwined inextricably with marriage.
Only because of tax law (think joint filing) and entitlement programs (like Social Security). The entwinement began with state socialism, and the conferring of benefits. That might be the reason the Constitution is silent on the question of marriage. An FMA would no longer make it so.
I'd like to point out something you stated in an earlier post, about the moral basis of the Constitution. Those same Framers claimed the rights to "life, liberty and property" for themselves without extending those rights to blacks, women, and non-property owners. In short, their "moral vision" was somewhat limited. It's easy for the gays to make the argument that while it was indisputable that gay marriage was not forseen by the Framers, neither was a society without slavery, where women could own property rather than be property, or that a non-property owning class would become a major part of this country.
exodus - Yes eiffel , by all means, let's ignore the context of the Constitution, and just make things up as we go. eiffel - 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.This isn't 1788, so why not ban guns?
***********************
I'm sure that if the Founders were living in our time, they would understand how dangerous weapons are in the hands of people who have no reason to carry them.
That's what the police and military are for, ordinary People have no need of guns.
Ok, make 6 candles, kiss 7 Marys and commit 2 acts of selfserving contrition and you're absolved.
However, the debating point with the Frenchie is thus:
There is no moral basis for anything contained in the Constitution.
You can answer that....
Or not.
Right which is why I mentioned it.
To gays and liberals, Bowers vs. Hardwick was their Dred Scott decision, and it was only a matter of time before the SCOTUS saw it differently.
Garbage. There is no comparison between the two. Homosexuals are the wealthiest demographic in America and have the same rights as anybody else. Almost every state in the union had removed private consensual sodomy laws from the books and Texas never enforced them until Lawrence, a setup if ever there was one. But thats neither here nor there. It is simply a case where SCOTUS exceeded its mandate by deriving an "transcendent liberty" right where equal protection was all that was called for.
By denying the full humanity of unborn children, black people and homosexuals, these three decisions have had something in common, if you choose to look at them that way.
More garbage. Nobody denies humanity to homosexuals the way it is denied to the unborn and the way it was denied to blacks. Again, homosexuals pervade society, they have the right to life ,liberty and property just like you and I. And just like you and I they can marry if they marry somebody of the opposite sex. Equal protection under the law.
You simply are endorsing newspeak where the courts decide that marriage no longer means what it has meant since the founding of this country. No difference from redefining life to mean whatever one wants it to mean to satisfy his utilitarian needs.
Only because of tax law (think joint filing) and entitlement programs (like Social Security).
Thats correct and that is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. If you want to be magnanimous and extend that pot of gold to homosexuals then be consistent and extend it to any "marriage" of convenience or any sexual marriage involving more than two people. Otherwise, you are simply drawing a line a little further down the path. My line is firm, marriage has meaning, the Ministry of Truth can not change its meaning.
The entwinement began with state socialism, and the conferring of benefits. That might be the reason the Constitution is silent on the question of marriage. An FMA would no longer make it so.
SO?
I'd like to point out something you stated in an earlier post, about the moral basis of the Constitution. Those same Framers claimed the rights to "life, liberty and property" for themselves without extending those rights to blacks, women, and non-property owners. In short, their "moral vision" was somewhat limited. It's easy for the gays to make the argument that while it was indisputable that gay marriage was not forseen by the Framers, neither was a society without slavery, where women could own property rather than be property, or that a non-property owning class would become a major part of this country.
Certainly they were hypocrites in the practice of their stated goals and beliefs but men are not perfect. But whats the argument here? Throw away the document because the men who wrote it were flawed? I think not because they were wise enough to include an Amendment process. That is the process going on and it is good for the country no matter how it turns out.
When judicial activists issue edicts from on high, they poison the well of public trust, sow discontent and distrust amongst those who lost and had no voice in the debate and breed contempt for the rule of law and the Constitution.
Much better to have the debate and lose than never have it at all. Think Roe.
Does the sound of the rocks disrupt your thought process?
I'm sitting here shaking my head, walsh.
Sure, the founders decided that the right to life, liberty and property were inalienable rights. -- And all of us who support our Constitution agree with that to this day.
-- However, back then, and to this day, -- we have NEVER all agreed upon a 'Creator', nor did we include that in the BOR's.
You are simply dreaming, making up what you think should be true.
The truth is simple;
Our rights are self evident, and regardless of how they came to be, they are unalienable.
530
You're missing the point we are debating Paine.
No, I'm not. -- You can't rebut the point I made to counter yours, -- so you're denying that its applies.
But I'd be happy to debate whether or not the founders were informed by their religious beliefs. However, the debating point with the Frenchie is thus: There is no moral basis for anything contained in the Constitution.
How could that be debatable? Can we debate that the our RKBA's is not "moral"? What idiot would take that position?
You can answer that....Or not.
Paine, you are almost unintelligible. Nothing I said is not historical fact. But the debate is on the FMA and whether or not the Constitution has a moral basis. If you have something to add on that I'll respond, if not you and the rocks can keep each other company.
exodus - The many States are required to recognize the legal contracts made within any other State, but that doesn't give the Federal government any power over the exercise of any contract.Yes, jwalsh07, the Federal government issues benefits based upon legally recognized marital status, and the Federal government must, just as the many States must, recognize the contracts legally-binding within any specific State.
jwalsh07 - You're dreaming. The federal government issues benefits based on marital status. The notion they will suspend those benefits when two guys move from Mass to Alabama is ridiculous on its face and so is your comment. Equal protection will spread homosexual "marriage" countrywide and you'll still be mumbling about libertarian dogma on contracts.
***********************
The requirement to recognize a contract does not give the Federal government the Power to define that contract.
It's bad enough that the States want to define marriage. We don't need the Federal government interfering in our private lives too.
"... libertarian dogma on contracts."I don't understand that comment.
***********************
How is a libertarian's understanding of a contract any different than anyone else's understanding of a contract?
To: hunter112Civil marriage is plain common sense, too.
"... Civil marriage is a matter of public policy and record."
***********************
Government has no business being involved in marriage at all.
No we don't but we sure the hell don't need unelected judges interfering in our lives and if I have to choose my poison it will be from democratically elected representatives.
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.