Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NutCrackerBoy
OK, I buy that for starters as a conflict. I would have said virtually all social conservatives would vehemently believe in preserving the existing definition of marriage, and some political conservatives would not.

Some political conservatives might not, but no political conservative would support changing it by decree of the federal government.

60 posted on 09/24/2004 1:59:28 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]


To: tacticalogic
No political conservative would support changing [the definition of marriage] by decree of the federal government.

But the belief that state judiciaries and the US Supreme Court are way overstepping their bounds, forcing new definition down everyone's throat, seems to be more fervently held by social conservatives than political ones.

By the way, I support the Federal Marriage Amendment as a political solution that gets the federal government more into the marriage business, only because impeachment is deemed overly nuclear at the moment.

I suppose a political conservative might believe in the concept that marriage was never legally defined (only assumed) to be between a man and a woman. Since the definition of a word is changing, the political conservative seeks to keep government out of it either way.

69 posted on 09/24/2004 2:10:18 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson