Therein lies the false brass ring. I am against same sex marriage, I am not gay or lesbian, so what the hey, why not. Ain't gonna hurt me any.
Well in fact, I am against same sex marriage, but even more I will challenge any illegitimate attempt to impose federal power on that of the individual states. Almost every supporter on these boards has for years screamed loudly at the growing power of the federal government, claiming a strong central government is the basis of liberal thought. But here in this issue, where it is easy to despise homosexuality itself, why not? Why should a state be permitted to legalize something I disagree with so vehemently? That's fair weather conservatism at its best.
The real opposition to FMA are from those who wouldnt mind at all if gay marriage snuck in the back door somehow.
I oppose the FMA, yet I will oppose same sex marriages in my state if the issue comes up. But Massachusetts and every other state are part of a constitutional Republic, not a democracy and certainly not a theocracy. As such each of those states has the right to do what it will with respect to same sex marriage.
Yes, many who are opposed to FMA are liberals and those with a homosexual agenda. There are however, many conservatives who support our republican form of government far more than any emotional and personal biases.
"Yes, many who are opposed to FMA are liberals and those with a homosexual agenda. There are however, many conservatives who support our republican form of government far more than any emotional and personal biases."
I'd believe you were sincere if you werent also approving Lawrence v Texas and other similar rulings, which clearly tramples on state's right. Federal power over states is in every nook and cranny of our governmental system.
FMA is far less of an intrusion than the other 95% of what Federal Govt does to states, including family law.
"Almost every supporter on these boards has for years screamed loudly at the growing power of the federal government, claiming a strong central government is the basis of liberal thought."
FMA doesnt increase the power of the Govt at all, at any level. It doesnt raise taxes, increase spending or force any citizen to do something they wouldnt otherwise do. There is no coercion. There is merely the matter of what Govt recognizes as marriage. This is a matter of declaring self-evident points to support an important concept - the family.
FMA is not more dangerous than the words "We the people ... " in the preamble.
Bear in mind that "federal power" not only covers federal laws made by Congress but also includes rulings by the USSC. Abortion, sodomy, eminent domain, free speech issues (nude dancing), religious displays, etc., were all USSC decisions imposed on the states. Congress had nothing to do with it.
So, it's possible that same-sex marriage will come about because of some "rights" issue decided by the USSC, not necessarily a law. Rather than an amendment, I'd like to see Congress pass a law stripping courts of jurisdiction to rule on same-sex marriage cases.