Replies

Exactly! The liberals are playing their little word games, and easily manipulating the libertarian types and the "moderate" types.

When someone suggests that we need a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman, the liberals oppose it with their usual dishonest tactics. First, they assure us that they oppose gay "marriage" just as much as we do (remember when Kerry & Edwards said that?). Then, they say they oppose the constitutional change on two grounds: 1) It would violate states rights and 2) It's unnecessary since the Supreme Court, as of today, hasn't ordered nationwide gay "marriage".

Those two reasons for opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment sound reasonable if you don't think about them too much. And liberals know that "moderate" Republicans won't think about them, since they're too busy pretending to be sophisticated ("Darling, I really don't think this amendment is necessary, and it just serves to pander to anti-gay sentiment instead of addressing the real issues such as lowering the tax rates on yachting facilities"). Libertarians won't think about them because they're too busy fantasizing about a world where the federal courts decree their every desire to be an "unenumerated right". So "moderates" and libertarians join with liberals to kill the Federal Marriage Amendment.

The result? In a few years, the Supreme Court orders nationwide gay "marriage", followed by gay adoption, gay school curricula, gay affirmative action, and a zillion other violations of states rights and property rights. Liberals will no longer be able to claim that the FMA is unnecessary, and their "fear" that it would violate states rights will be rendered a laughable joke.

But don't worry. They'll now have two brand new reasons for opposing the FMA. Now that the courts have made the entire gay "marriage" agenda the law of the land, it would "threaten the independence of the judiciary" to overturn the ruling. In addition, it would "take away a constitutional right" to pass the FMA.

So, you see how it works? We can't pass the FMA now because it's unnecessary since there has as of yet been no judicial decree ordering gay "marriage" nationwide. But once there is such a decree, we still can't pass the FMA, because it would threaten judicial "independence" to overturn their ruling. We can't pass the FMA now because it would violate states rights. But once the court crushes states rights by demanding gay "marriage" nationwide, we then can't pass the FMA because that would take away an "established" right.

As for liberal claims to oppose gay "marriage", once the Supreme Court orders such "marriages" nationwide, liberals will switch from dishonestly claiming to legally oppose gay "marriage" to dishonestly claiming to be "personally opposed but pro-choice" on the issue, even as they vote to boot the Boy Scouts out of our national parks.

Your post #15 has the lying leftists and cultural marxists like MACVSOG68 pegged. (I think he is here on FR with multiple user names.)

It's getting harder and harder for me to think that they're just stupid.

You're dead right on everything you said. Anyone who thinks a Democrat pappointed majority on the USSC won't hand down a decision nullifying all laws against homo marriage at some point in the relatively near future hasn't been paying attention to what the courts have been doing for the past 40-odd years or so. All the points some people are trying to make about the inability of the courts to ignore past rulings related to the issue don't take into account the fact that liberal judges and justices don't consider such things as precedent when they want to institutionalize radical liberalism and anti-Christian practices into our laws.

Before Roe was decided not many people thought that the court could find anything in the text of the Constitution or in precedent that would justify legalizing abortion. Well the court couldn't find anything there, so it just made up a mythical "penumbra" out of thin air and foisted it on the American people as irrevocable law. Homo marriage will be forced on the people the same exact way if an amendment isn't passed and ratified soon, watch and see.

Exactly! The liberals are playing their little word games, and easily manipulating the libertarian types and the "moderate" types.

When someone suggests that we need a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman, the liberals oppose it with their usual dishonest tactics. First, they assure us that they oppose gay "marriage" just as much as we do (remember when Kerry & Edwards said that?). Then, they say they oppose the constitutional change on two grounds: 1) It would violate states rights and 2) It's unnecessary since the Supreme Court, as of today, hasn't ordered nationwide gay "marriage".

Those two reasons for opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment sound reasonable if you don't think about them too much. And liberals know that "moderate" Republicans won't think about them, since they're too busy pretending to be sophisticated ("Darling, I really don't think this amendment is necessary, and it just serves to pander to anti-gay sentiment instead of addressing the real issues such as lowering the tax rates on yachting facilities"). Libertarians won't think about them because they're too busy fantasizing about a world where the federal courts decree their every desire to be an "unenumerated right". So "moderates" and libertarians join with liberals to kill the Federal Marriage Amendment.

The result? In a few years, the Supreme Court orders nationwide gay "marriage", followed by gay adoption, gay school curricula, gay affirmative action, and a zillion other violations of states rights and property rights. Liberals will no longer be able to claim that the FMA is unnecessary, and their "fear" that it would violate states rights will be rendered a laughable joke.

But don't worry. They'll now have two brand new reasons for opposing the FMA. Now that the courts have made the entire gay "marriage" agenda the law of the land, it would "threaten the independence of the judiciary" to overturn the ruling. In addition, it would "take away a constitutional right" to pass the FMA.

So, you see how it works? We can't pass the FMA now because it's unnecessary since there has as of yet been no judicial decree ordering gay "marriage" nationwide. But once there is such a decree, we still can't pass the FMA, because it would threaten judicial "independence" to overturn their ruling. We can't pass the FMA now because it would violate states rights. But once the court crushes states rights by demanding gay "marriage" nationwide, we then can't pass the FMA because that would take away an "established" right.

As for liberal claims to oppose gay "marriage", once the Supreme Court orders such "marriages" nationwide, liberals will switch from dishonestly claiming to legally oppose gay "marriage" to dishonestly claiming to be "personally opposed but pro-choice" on the issue, even as they vote to boot the Boy Scouts out of our national parks.

An

EXCELLENT

piece you've written. Everyone who comes to this website should read it. The question is, which RINOs are going to line up with the democrats after November to kill the FMA?