####You can't be serious . . . you're talking about forcing the fed govt to define which life partners get what benefits. Having the fed govt encourage some partnerships, while discouraging others via the use of incentives.####
You've moved the goal posts here. First, you said supporters of the FMA were trying "regulate who spends their life together" (which we aren't). Now it's that we encourage some and discourage others via incentives. How is that any different than current law? Current law is that the federal government DOESN'T recognize gay "marriage", nor does any state except for one which was forced to do so via social engineering (a judicial fiat). So gay couples don't currently get any benefits, while married couples do. That's the way it is. That's the way it's always been since there were federal benefits.
####This dishonesty surprises me, most folks on your side of the debate don't deny this obvious truth.####
We've never denied that we favor traditional marriage over gay "marriage". But that's not social engineering. Codifying the norm **isn't** social engineering.
####*I ASKED*: How would state sanctioning of gay "marriage" DECREASE the size of government?
*YOU RESPONDED* :Currently, the States define what a 'marriage' is. You're advocating a power grab for the fed govt to take over this power, "for the good of society".####
I shouldn't have to point out to you that you didn't answer the question.
Nor did you address my contention that the legalization of gay "marriage", via social engineering judicial fiat, will INCREASE the size of government by increasing the number of people eligible for taxpayer financed benefits. It will also lead to more laws telling property owners who they can rent to, telling private clubs who they can have as members and what beliefs they can hold, telling businesses who they can hire or serve, telling churches what their beliefs can be, and so forth.
Regarding the FMA, you wrote:
####The 'politically conservative' approach then would be to push for a law saying that the fed govt has no power over the state's marriage laws. I'd back you on that. A law saying that states set their own rules as to which marriages they recognize.####
Well, I can't argue with you too much on this. I could POSSIBLY support a states' rights approach as well. But it does have a problem. It allows states such as Massachusetts to continue to be abused by their local courts. And it would still leave open the possibility that federal courts might impose gay "civil unions" on the nation via judicial fiat. Thus, a states' rights amendment would have to guarantee that the feds stayed out of every aspect of this issue, not just "marriage".
####Which would make more sense, period, and you'd have majority support for it. That would be returning power *back* to the states. Instead of the federal power grab you're pushing, which is a 'Politically Liberal' thing to do.####
I'm not pushing a federal power grab. A constitutional amendment, by definition, can't be a federal power grab because it requires the consent of 38 states to be ratified. It's thus a concession of authority to the federal government by the states on a given issue, assuming that's the effect of the amendment. Take female suffrage as an example. An amendment (the 19th) was legitimately ratified by the states, making female suffrage a federal matter. That wasn't a federal power grab, but a concession of authority to the federal government by the states. A federal power grab is something like Roe vs. Wade, where the federal courts forcibly seize an issue from the states, or the impending judicial fiat on gay "marriage", which the opponents of the FMA are wishing to engineer.
####In other words, the 'letter of the law' currently lets states do this, but you want your your unwritten "societal definition" (cultural bias) written into federal law.####
No, I want to restrain the federal courts from redefining marriage, which would be social engineering if they did so.
####Oh, btw, you're mistaken if you think marriage has always and only been 'between 1 man and 1 woman'. I'm sure you already know that . . .####
In American history, it always has been. Utah wasn't allowed to maintain polygamy. I suppose you could say that polygamy was grudgingly tolerated for a while in Utah territory, but it didn't last. And we've never had gay "marriage" except for one state where the social engineers engineered it.
####The federal govt has NEVER HAD A POLICY ON IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. And you are pushing for a fed govt takeover of this, pushing for the fed govt to take power away from the states.####
Actually, it does have a policy. It doesn't recognize the gay "marriages" in Massachusetts for benefits purposes. Nor did it allow Utah to become a state until they banned polygamy in their state constitution.
####Social Engineering is when the govt provides incentives and disincentives to specific social groups and social behaviors.####
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Government recognition, protection, and encouragement of social institutions which the people themselves created and wish to maintain isn't social engineering. If the people in overwhelming numbers say, "Our historical tradition is that marriage is limited to one man and one woman, and that's how we want it to stay", then it isn't social engineering for government to concur. It would be social engineering for government to thumb its nose at the public, declare war on them, and order the people to accept other forms of marriage, such as gay "marriage".
####Main Entry: social engineering
Function: noun
: management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society : applied social science####
The FMA is about managing and controlling the government, not vice-versa. It's about restraining out-of-control judges from engaging in social engineering.
####You are pushing for the fed govt to define who has a place in marriage and who doesn't. Political conservatives believe this is a state function.####
See above.
####Now, I understand you believe it's "defensive" social engineering, to stop a change in society you don't like.####
It would be defensive social engineering, as you call it, if the people wanted to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, and we were trying to use government to block it. But it's the other way around. We're trying to protect the people (who have voted over and over, in state after state, to retain marriage as being between one man and one woman) from being ordered by government to change their cherished traditions.
####But that's what *all* social engineering is about. Marxists don't like the rich/poor divide. That's the whole point.####
You lost me on that one.
####In fighting for what you believe, you've become what we're fighting against.####
Then the Founding Fathers must have been social engineers when they empowered the states with the ability to amend the constitution.
Fascinating bit of double-speak.
That is the point -- you are trying to regulate who spends their life together at the federal level by providing disincentives for certain people.
And once again, the difference is that currently it's a state's choice. You want to take the power away from the states, and federalize it. Which is a liberal thing to do.
We've never denied that we favor traditional marriage over gay "marriage". But that's not social engineering.
My friend, this conversation is pointless if all you are going to do is double-speak. You want the fed govt to put into place a law favoring "traditional marriage" over gay marriage. That is, clearly, social engineering.
How would state sanctioning of gay "marriage" DECREASE the size of government?
I *did* answer the question, you just didn't like the answer. I did not say that this would increase the SIZE of govt. I am pointing out this clearly would increase the *reach* and *scope* of the fed govt.
Come on -- this would give the fed govt power that currently belongs to the states. And you can't even admit that's a power grab in the Liberal mold???
I could POSSIBLY support a states' rights approach as well.
Obviously this is the right answer . . . and the 'Conservative' answer. What you are currently pushing is clearly a liberal expansion of the fed govt's power. If you wish to be a political 'conservative', then you need to oppose this ammendment and push for a states-rights solution.
I'm not pushing a federal power grab. A constitutional amendment, by definition, can't be a federal power grab because it requires the consent of 38 states to be ratified.
My gosh, you are twisting your words in the wind. This is flat-out wrong, and I have to believe you know it. When you find yourself saying non-sensical things like this in defense of an idea, well . . . you get the idea.
Then the Founding Fathers must have been social engineers when they empowered the states with the ability to amend the constitution.
Again, just flat-out silly. I'm sorry, but again that is a nonsensical statement.
Put in simplest terms that you can deny only at the risk of invalidating your credibility:
All your blanket denials and twisting of words not-withstanding.