Posted on 07/12/2004 10:26:34 AM PDT by abnegation
And so it begins.....
What a festering pile of CRAP this amendment is!
Coprophagia is a limp-wristed disease.
I know a liberal like every square inch of my naked body. When they descend to name-calling, they've been flushed out. LOL!
Yup and Feinstein would make any sane person ill.
A quick lesson in conservatism and responses to judicial activism - a constitutional amendment intended as a "preemptive strike" against judges who may find problems with mere Congressional legislation is NOT a conservative approach. It is a premature application of the pre-emption doctrine to domestic politics.
No one doubts that Congress could pass legislation with the same terms as the DOM Amendment. The argument against this legislation is that some judges will strike it down. Well, it is not very difficult to see the flaws in arguing in favor of an Amendment due to what some judge may do with legislation in the future.
This is theater, nothing more. A waste of your time and money. If the Republicans in Congress were really interested in the issue, they would forget this Amendment stuff and pass a statute. Then, when and if that statute is stricken by a judge and the appeals are taken, it can establish a NEED for a constitutional amendment. As of now, there is no need for an amendment. And it goes to the very nature of conservatism to recognize that we shouldn't do it if we don't need to do it.
Write, e-mail, fax and phone your Senators. Make your voice count.
"Swinestine up..."
We don't need this amendment. The states are doing just fine. (According to fineswine).
My senators are Bond and Talent, but I encourage others of you to call.
She sounds like a Left and Further Left campaign speech...I'm for it and I'm against it....Nothing like taking both sides of the issue.
I do. It refers to something that is, at present, under control of the several states.
Well...and they're right sad to say. Democrats use the truth only when its convienent for them. This is a waste of time and taxpayer money. You put this amendment in and it'll set a nasty precedent, wherein any group that can muster enough clout can use the Constitution as a blunt object with which to bludgeon their opponents.
I believe all the emotion and fervor over this issue is futile in todays America. I think it starts at the beginnings of this country. We began this thing we called America and drafted a Constitution as a Protestant Christian nation, not only that, but sola Scriptura and faith alone Protestants. It is even stated in the writings of our founding fathers that (paraphrase) "our republic will fail without the basic Christian morality of men". Bottom line...we don't have that anymore...we just don't. Sola Scriptura and faith alone Christians (really all Christians) are not the same now as they were in the 1700's, and the standard of morality in this country is not the same as it was in the 17th, 18th, or 19th centuries. Its just fact...over time our republic (if we even have one anymore) has morphed into more of a secular, liberal democracy. Thank the New Deal socialists for that, but it may have started earlier.
Christians and CINO's are to blame as well. IMHO I believe it started with the general acceptance (in most churches) of birth control. I mean, OTC birth control, easy divorce, abortion, and homosexuality are all things (from a Christian point of view) where people disrespect life, play God, or pervert/misuse sex. The "acceptance" of homosexual behavior is only a result of past compromises of what we traditionally knew as morality.
We should pretty much take a "pro-Constitutional" view of homosexuality. Simply because there is not a damn thing we can do to legislate human behavior in the bedroom. People will continue to call evil good and good evil; people will go on breaking God's law (whatever brand or flavor of God you adhere to). People will continue to sin, whether its drugs, cheating on your wife, engaging in homosexual behavior, lying, cheating; sin is sin. We have the power as citizens of this country to change that with our vote, but I don't think that we want government legislating morality...its too late for that. I think we've fallen too low down that slippery slope, plus not counting conservatives here on FR and generally-average Joe Americans; there's not enough people that give-a-$hit to make a un-Constitutional difference anyway. I resigned myself to raising my children up to the best of my ability, and to try to shelter them from the things that my wife and I know are not good for them...that and trying to live a Christ-like life is all I can do, and, IMHO is all anyone can do.
We need a constitutional amendment precisely on account of judicial activism. All takes to declare the DOMA unconstitutional is ONE federal judge. What the FMA does is it leaves the decision about whether or not to allow civil unions in the hands of elected officials. That used to be considered the democratic thing to do.
Fortunately, this is not the standard for determining the wisdom of provisions in the U.S. Constitution.
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for it, and I think it should be debated. But the likelyhood of is passing is nil.
Democrats just hate being put on the spot don't they? Its fun to see them squirm.
Feinswine is an embarrassment, isn't she?
Just turned it on ..
Yep .. they don't want this vote *L*
Just because britney spears does something wrong, doesn't mean we need to further destroy marriage and redefine out of existance.
Marriage is an institution, NOT a civil right. Further, the very fact that you want activist judges to redefine marriage despite the will of the people shows your agenda.
Go back to DU.
Fineswine says it is just political and is meant to drive a wedge in the voters.
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.