Posted on 06/05/2006 10:00:29 AM PDT by kellynla
'That's true. But we know that the Supreme Court in 1967 ordered the states to sanction interracial marriage. We have every expectation that they'll eventually (within the decade) do so with gay "marriage" as well. '
This is the problem social conservatives face. The feds are not going to pass an ammendment on the basis of Biblical scripture. There has to be an empirical and clearly defined reason for why it is acceptable to allow one couple to marry (male/female, black/white) and not another. That means proving that gay marriage is a threat to the liberty and personal safety of the majority. Unfortunately, no one can make that case. All they can argue is that it isn't traditional and it goes against what they believe. Precisely the same arguments used against interacial marriage (although not even scriptue was available to the opposition in that case). Such arguments have no weight unless someone repeals the 1st Ammendment any time soon.
If widely credited statistics accumulated proving that married gays were more likely to turn into suicide bombers, and/or molest little children than straights and unmarried gays, then there might be a case that would stick. As of now, even if an ammendment was passed now through clever political manoevring, it would certainly be repealed within 10 yrs. The interacial marriage issue has already placed a firm precedent against banning marriage between any other consenting human beings.
Ultimately, the fight against it is in vain and prolonging the inevitable. And also distracting conservatives from far more important issues IMHO.
Actually, it was; see e.g. Ezra 9:1-4.
It has nothing to do with Biblical scripture, unless you assume that gay "marriage" is the norm in Buddhist, Hindu, Shintoist, and Islamic societies.
The fact that homosexuality is unnatural is enough reason to not sanction homosexual "marriage" (and I put marriage in quotes because two people of the same sex can't marry).
Homosexual "marriage" does indeed lead to a loss of liberty for the majority population. It will lead to additional federal and judicial control of education. It will lead to loss of tax exempt status for churches which don't obey government dictates on this issue. It will lead to more laws telling people who they can hire and who they can sell or rent their own property to. It will lead to more government control of private organizations. It will lead to more regulation of speech. It will outright override religious liberty for many business owners. And so forth.
It will also lure more children into the gay subculture as these unnatural pairings are prddled to kids in the public schools.
It's as ludicrous to sanction a "marriage" between two men as it is to sanction a "marriage" between a man and a Toyota, or a man and a water buffalo. Marriage **IS** the bonding of male and female. Gay "marriages" are simply play-acting.
Assuming you're a caucasian male, do you find other men equally as sexually attractive as you find Japanese women? If not, then you should be able to see the difference between same-sex "marriage" and interracial marriage.
I'll ask the question one more time:
How will legally sanctioned homosexual "marriage" reduce the size of government?
I've stated my position on the allegation that the FMA is a federal power grab and an act of social engineering, so there's need to repeat it.
TYPO: prddled should be peddled. (I need glasses)!
####how can a chicken give consent?####
Chickens don't have to consent to anything we currently do to them. We can kill and eat them without their consent. We can take their eggs without their consent. We can keep them in chicken coops without their consent.
So if a demand arises for human-animal "marriage", why would the animal have to consent? How would the inability of an animal to consent have any significance on this issue? It has no significance regarding anything else we do with animals.
And I'll repeat the obvious answer one more time -- You're playing the straw man game, while ignoring my obviously winning point.
I never said it would "reduce the size of govt". I said that this is an increase in the power of the fed govt.
Which it clearly was.
I've stated my position on the allegation that the FMA is a federal power grab and an act of social engineering, so there's need to repeat it.
You offered blanket denials of obvious truths, but didn't in any way discuss the points at all, beyond denial.
It would have taken a power away from the states, and handed it to the fed govt. For "the good of society".
Slam dunk. That's a Liberal thing to do.
####And I'll repeat the obvious answer one more time -- You're playing the straw man game, while ignoring my obviously winning point.
I never said it would "reduce the size of govt".####
Finally, a straight answer! Sanctioning gay "marriage" will not reduce the size of government. It will increase it.
####I said that this is an increase in the power of the fed govt.####
I don't think anyone would disagree. It's unfortunate that we've allowed federal judicial aggression to go on for so long unchecked. But we're now in a position where the federal courts will make a REAL power grab on this issue, and impose REAL social engineering, if we don't throw a constitutional block in their way. Remember, the purpose of this amendment is to protect the states from judicial aggression.
#####You offered blanket denials of obvious truths, but didn't in any way discuss the points at all, beyond denial.#####
I think any reasonable person would disagree with you. I noted that a legitimately ratified constitutional amendment requires the support of 38 states. Thus, it is a constitutional delegation of authority to the federal government, not a federal power grab. Was the female suffrage amendment a federal power grab?
It would be a federal power grab if the federal courts were to decree into existence a "right" to sam-sex "marriage", which is the likely consequence of following your advice and not passing the FMA.
####It would have taken a power away from the states, and handed it to the fed govt. For "the good of society".####
Yes, the states would be giving a power to the federal government. The federal government wouldn't just be taking it.
As for your definition of social engineering, it's absurd on its face. By your definition, it's impossible for government to not be engaged in social engineering at any time. If they fund abortions, they're promoting abortion and thus engaging in social engineering. If they don't fund abortions, they're discouraging abortion and thus engaging in social engineering.
Social engineering is when government decides on its own that the traditional layout of society is wrong, and seeks to use raw government power to change it. There's nothing in the FMA which even remotely falls into that category. Traditional marriage, meaning one man and one woman, is the norm in society. It's been the norm for a very long time. The huge majority of the population doesn't want to change this. Yet, by your reckoning, government is engaging in social engineering if it chooses NOT to war with the people over this issue.
####Slam dunk. That's a Liberal thing to do.####
Well, Hillary, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, NOW, NARAL, Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore, Chuck Schumer, Howard Dean, and DU all are on your side on this, so I don't think you have much rhetorical credibility accusing me of being a liberal.
Finally, a straw man conquered!
Neat -- you make a statement I never said, you disprove that statement, then you declare victory!
Very classic faux pas, my friend!
And I don't agree it will increase the size of govt at all. It does have the potential to add some size to the budget, a bit, tho. Maybe *that* is what you meant???
I don't think anyone would disagree.
You have been disagreeing, up until now. My, you are slippery, aren't you?
But fine, since you now agree -- then you are arguing to use a Liberal tactic (taking power away from the states and giving it to the fed govt) to try and achieve your social goals.
Remember, the purpose of this amendment is to protect the states from judicial aggression.
Using a liberal method, exactly. Instead of a 'conservative' solution, you choose a 'liberal' one. When faced with an issue, you cry for a central power to fix what could and should be done by the states.
The states can and do defend themselves. If a state doesn't want gay marriage, they are suppose to write it into their own constitution. Which 20 or so states already have. This would have required the states to vote on it anyway, so why not just do it in a 'conservative' manner instead of this liberal power grab?
Was the female suffrage amendment a federal power grab?
Of course, yes.
In that case, because of federal elections, it made perfect sense for the fed govt to set the rules on who can participate in fed elections.
In this case, the fed govt has no business at all. Hence, a political conservative would oppose this approach.
Social engineering is when government decides on its own that the traditional layout of society is wrong, and seeks to use raw government power to change it.
Ah, making up your own definitions, too? You're using every mental backflip in the book!
M-W.com says:
Main Entry: social engineering
Function: noun
: management of human beings in accordance with their place
and function in society : applied social science - social engineer noun
The fed govt doing it on it's own, the states granting the power socially engineer to the fed govt, the people voting for it, all would be instances of social engineering. At least according to the definitions the rest of the world uses.
If they fund abortions, they're promoting abortion and thus engaging in social engineering. If they don't fund abortions, they're discouraging abortion and thus engaging in social engineering.
It's only called social engineering if they are attempting the management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society.
Clearly abortions do not belong in that definition. Of course, since you're making up new definitions to suit your needs . . .
Well, Hillary, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, NOW, NARAL, Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore, Chuck Schumer, Howard Dean, and DU all are on your side on this, so I don't think you have much rhetorical credibility accusing me of being a liberal.
And they probably all drink milk, too.
Besides, the free-spending, open-border, big govt Rs in the senate are on your side -- the Rs who have proven politially they're about as liberal as they get.
So that's not a point you're likely to win on.
There are liberals on both sides of this. :-)
####Finally, a straw man conquered!
Neat -- you make a statement I never said, you disprove that statement, then you declare victory!
Very classic faux pas, my friend!####
No. I asked a question and you tried every way on earth to keep from answering it. Though I'll give you credit for finally answering it, and doing so correctly.
####And I don't agree it will increase the size of govt at all. It does have the potential to add some size to the budget, a bit, tho. Maybe *that* is what you meant???####
That's the very minimum that state sanctioned gay "marriage" would accomplish, and that WOULD increase the size of government. However, it would do much more. Once gay "marriage" is the official policy of government, it will have to be accommodated in many ways. School textbooks will be required to feature gay couples and to display them to our kids as perfectly normal and appropriate. Churches that refuse to perform gay "marriages" will come under IRS scrutiny. The IRS currently strips churches of their tax exemption if they don't perform interracial marriages. Once gay "marriage" becomes the law, what will happen to churches that don't perform them? In Europe, they're now passing laws to force pub and restaurant owners to permit gay kissing in their establishments. In Canada, a Christian print shop owner is being sued for not accepting a print job that involved promoting the gay lifestyle. There are now strict hate speech laws in many of these places, restricting what people can say about homosexuality. All of these things are part of the gay agenda, and sanctioning gay "marriage" will be an enormous boost to these massive expansions of government power.
####You have been disagreeing, up until now. My, you are slippery, aren't you?####
When did I disagree? All I disagreed with was your patently absurd contention that a legitimately ratified constitutional amendment is a power grab. It isn't. It's a concession of authority from the states to the federal government. In this case a very mild one (designed to block a much bigger one).
####The states can and do defend themselves. If a state doesn't want gay marriage, they are suppose to write it into their own constitution. Which 20 or so states already have. This would have required the states to vote on it anyway, so why not just do it in a 'conservative' manner instead of this liberal power grab?####
Here's why. Suppose three or four states end up with gay "marriage", thanks to judicial imperialism by their state courts (as in Massachusetts). Gays "married" in those states will eventually start wanting to move to other states. In some cases, it will be to accept job or educational opportunities. A federal lawsuit will be filed under the 14th Amendment, asserting that it violates the Equal Protection Clause for any state to refuse to sanction gay "marriage". It'll be a twofold argument. First, we'll be told that it's discriminatory to not allow gay couples to marry in the first place. Then, we'll be told that it discriminates against gay "married" couples in (for example) Massachusetts to not allow them to move to other states and retain their marital status. This will be called a form of "aparthied" in the media, the law journals, and elsewhere. We'll hear about John, who wanted to move to Missouri to accept a great job offer, but couldn't go because his "marriage" to Jim would be void if he moved to another state. We'll hear about Sally & Sue, who want to move to Ohio because of a great veterinary program at one of the colleges there, but they can't take advantage of that educational opportunity without voiding their "marriage". Under such a scenario, I simply don't trust the federal courts, given their track record, to not mow down the marriage laws of the 46 or 47 states that don't sanction gay "marriage", and to forcibly federalize the issue in a true power grab.
BTW, the formula for the federal courts doing this is already in place. In Loving, the Supreme Court declared that interracial marriage bans violate the 14th Amendment. In Romer, they declared homosexuals to be a 14th Amendment protected class. In Lawrence, they declared gay sex acts to be constitutionally protected activities. Put all this stuff together and how long do you think it will be before the federal courts crush states' rights completely on this issue?
####Was the female suffrage amendment a federal power grab?
Of course, yes.
In that case, because of federal elections, it made perfect sense for the fed govt to set the rules on who can participate in fed elections.####
It was a concession of authority by the states to the federal government, not a federal power grab. The three cases I mentioned above (Loving, Romer, and Lawrence) were federal power grabs. BTW, the female suffrage amendment doesn't just set the rules for federal elections, but for all elections.
####In this case, the fed govt has no business at all. Hence, a political conservative would oppose this approach.####
I would agree that it SHOULDN'T have any business messing in this issue, but the reality is that it already has. We're now faced with either rolling over and letting the feds expand their power even more, or using legitimate constitutional processes to add a legitimate amendment to the Constitution to keep the federal government from unilaterally dictating marriage policy to the states. The states and their voters have made it clear that they don't want gay "marriage". They want marriage to be between one man and one woman. So it's been proposed that we add an amendment to the federal Constitution to codify the existing policies of the states. Is it a transfer of authority to the federal government? Yes, but a small one. On a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being the biggest transfer of power possible on this issue, it's about a 0.3, but it we don't pass it we'll get hit with a tsunami sized federal power grab in a few years of 100.
#####(I WROTE):Social engineering is when government decides on its own that the traditional layout of society is wrong, and seeks to use raw government power to change it.
(YOU WROTE): Ah, making up your own definitions, too? You're using every mental backflip in the book!
M-W.com says:
Main Entry: social engineering
Function: noun
: management of human beings in accordance with their place
and function in society : applied social science - social engineer noun####
Uh, no, my definition is in perfect accordance with the one you provided.
####The fed govt doing it on it's own, the states granting the power socially engineer to the fed govt, the people voting for it, all would be instances of social engineering. At least according to the definitions the rest of the world uses.####
So is it social engineering to sanction gay "marriage", or not to sanction gay "marriage", or is either one social engineering in your opinion?
####It's only called social engineering if they are attempting the management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society.####
Alright, think of it this way. There are two island nations. Both have very old cultures. Neither of them permits gay "marriage". The people of these islands have always considered such a thing to be disgusting. One day, a liberal judge on one of the islands issues an order to legalize and sanction gay "marriage". He does this despite the fact that the people have repeatedly voted by huge margins to not sanction gay "marriages". The people on the other island see this, become fearful that their own judges might do the same thing, and quickly add an amendment to their constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Are the people of this second island engaging in social engineering? Are they "just as bad" as the judge on the first island?
####Besides, the free-spending, open-border, big govt Rs in the senate are on your side -- the Rs who have proven politially they're about as liberal as they get.####
While there's some crossover on any two issues, the senators who voted against the FMA are mostly the ones who voted for amnesty for illegals, and vice-versa. Right down to RINO McCain! :-)
I really don't think we're that far apart. I think you're just badly underestimating the threat that the federal courts pose to the states on this issue. I can appreciate your desire to completely keep the feds out of marriage issues, but they've already breached states rights on marriage issues. It's now a matter of trying to contain the damage, and the FMA does that by placing the definition of marriage that the states themselves want in the federal Constitution.
BTW, I appreciate the time you've taken with your posts, but we could round and round on this forever. I've stated my view enough times already, so I won't post again on this thread, unless you have a question you wish to ask me. In which case, I'll respond! :-)
Yeah, agreed, this is going nowhere.
Most of your statements again in that response were incorrect, using straw men and you rephrasing what you clearly said above when it was proven you were incorrect.
I could post another long, detailed list of your errors, twists and mis-statements, but clearly that would only be ignored by you, again.
I do thank you for the discussion, you have been polite and I do appreciate that.
Take care.
We've already lost True Freedom of Religion.
When the Supreme Court ruled in 1889 (approx) that Mormons couldn't practice polygamy, the government's right to control marriage trumped the First Amendment. This issue alone points out the total hypocricy of the left on gay marriage.
The lunatic left views Stare Decisis as sacrosanct when it comes to Roes vs Wade, but are willing to throw it out the window with the Edmunds-Tucker Act.
Say what you want about the biblical practice of polygamy, but if a religion can't practice a religious aspect of marriage, (but Indians can smoke peyote?), this country has already thrown the 1st Amendment into the trash.
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.