Posted on 05/14/2006 12:28:06 PM PDT by notes2005
Someone tell the First Lady that if it wasn't for the Marriage Issue, her husband would be cutting cedar in Crawford, and John Kerry would be in the Oval Office.
Also, let her know that we had enough of presidential political twofers when her husband's predecessor was in office.
"And that is why we need an amendment to come to the floor of the United States Senate to define marriage as that union between one man and one woman."
Actually, we don't. Leave this as a States Rights issue where it should be. States can take care of themselves on issues such as protecting traditional marriage, abortion, gun rights, property rights, etc.
I don't want to see our Constitution amended in this manner.
Not any more than is required to discuss polygamy, polyandry, incest...
Just say no.
And where they were all intended to be.
Oh, no, don't do that. You might actually get some votes.
"Also, let her know that we had enough of presidential political twofers when her husband's predecessor was in office."
Oh come on. You can't compare Laura to Hillary. What's she supposed to do in an interview, just sit there and look pretty? Like she's not supposed to have her own opinions?
A bump for States Rights. We can't be for it one day and against it the next.
Tony Snow, where are you? Get the WH under control.
"And where they were all intended to be."
You and I must be reading the same Constitution, LOL! ;)
Actually, Wisconsin has a Protection of Marriage ammendment coming up for vote in our fall election. It's going to turn out a lot of conservative voters. Of course the libs in this state are already painting us with the 'Hate & Bigotry Paintbrush' but we're used to that. *Shrug*
We're also having a referendum on bringing back the Death Penalty for our state. The libs are all up in arms over that one as well. Goody! :)
And as soon as we get a new, Republican Governor out of that same election, we should FINALLY be able to get CC passed for our state, too.
Then, life will be good again here in Wisconsin. :)
The Bush family, like most contemporary elites in the Western world, are herd animals who value maintining comity above all else, even at the expense of tolerating evil.
Morality and republican politics require me to respect another's person, not their beliefs (Islam) nor their sexual appetites.
Who's "we"? You and that reparations-loving carpetbagger you worked for in 2004?
Do you mean protecting property rights through the Kelo decision?
Do you mean protecting gun rights, like making my pistol permit as valid in NYC as my marriage license?
Abortion???????? Don't even go there.
Yes, we need an amendment on marriage, and some common sense legislation on the other matters.
Good for Laura Bush - once again she show grace and common sense.
I've heard the Bushes called lots of names but "herd animal" is a new one.
Sheesh.
I'd say about 5 - 10 years (or less). Remember that some 'conservative' justices may decide that stare decisis takes precedence over the Constitution.
Exactly. Federal Consitutional amendments are largely exercises in pandering.
Was re-readining Nietzsche recently, but his complaints over the weak-willedness of contemporary Western culture (trends already visible in the 19th century) strike me as quite prescient.
Marriage has never been an exclusively states rights issue. Note the Federal involvement against polygamy in the 1800s, for example.
Also, because of the Full Faith & Credit clause of the USC, a couple married in one state is considered married in all 50 states. So indeed, what the consensus position is on marriage is a federal matter. So the people of Idaho have an interest in what the state of Massachusetts considers marriage, because a couple married in Mass are considered legally married in Idaho.
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.