Posted on 06/06/2006 1:49:22 AM PDT by Jeff Fuller
Pence '08
Just an elaborative springboard off of your posting...
If debating the issue politically regarding legislation, THEN procreation MUST be in there. Those that wish to remove procreation from the debate are those that wish to reframe the issue and debate it illegitimately premised.
What is at issue here is what society wishes to accommodate and merit privileged. The rational basis underlying legislative bodies enacting laws to encourage, support, accommodate, and privilege marriage is PROCREATION. It is not love. Government can not legislate love (divorce laws prove this) and as such can not legislate anything premised in love...
Marriage has not been rewarded by society to promote love or promote monogamous sexual endeavors (both of which are private and as such NOT subject to legislative intrusion or verification). Marriage has always been rewarded by society to promote the BEST procreative environment -one proved historically, one observed by tradition, conventional wisdom, common law, and enacted law...
Romney? - Now, this I would say may be the closest thing I have seen to approaching pandering... LOL
Note: I stated closest, not actual. Comments?
Precisely.
The male/female union is the only known procreative unit.
The state has an interest in it.
It has no interest in whether 2 people of any sexual combination "love" one another.
They are in trouble because they have lost the 'Contract with America' political conservatives who gave Rs the majority in the first place. The folks who want govt accountability, smaller govt, strong defense and border security, etc.
The whole problem is, the R party has become 'Socially conservative, politically liberal'.
Like this issue.
Lower spending? Nope. Strong border security? Nope. Social engineering to discriminate against people we don't like?
Yep.
This issue is chasing the political Cs away even faster. Yet these idiots are convinced it's what will give them support.
*Sigh*.
I can't vote R this fall, now. After immigration and now this???
The party I voted for in '94 has become the party I voted *against* in '94.
While he has it right, he didn't and still hasn't stood up for it in MA. He could easily have just ignored the judges imposing of law they have no legal position to impose. He could have made this statement many many times in MA, yet he buckles to the SC in MA, and the homosexual activists every time.
How can you say he won't buckle?? He has many many times in MA!
Complete and utter pandering!
Not on this issue
Yep.
I have noted you running around pooping on this topic.
You are an enigma here. This issue has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with social engineering to discriminate against people we don't like...
Go back to DU!
Good day...
Well, I'm sorry, but that is just clear, obviously untrue.
You want the fed govt to pass laws preventing gays from getting some rights that some states are granting them.
That is social engineering, use of the fed gov's power to do things you feel are "for the good of society".
Psssst . . . I've been a FReeper years longer than you have.
But hey, if attacking the messenger is all you got, and it makes you happy, I don't mind.
Enjoy yourself.
FIRST, the issue is marriage NOT rights.
SECOND, as well the issue is not about banning or preventing states granting anything they deem those choosing to engage in homosexual activity may merit.
The Amendment ONLY bans activist judges...
A legitimate understanding of the Amendment hinges principally on one word, "construe", which one should assume was chosen specifically and intentionally I would disagree with any assessment suggesting a banning when the freedom of the legislature is maintained.
ARTICLESECTION 1. This article may be cited as the ‘Marriage Protection Amendment’.
SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’’.
CONSTRUE: To adduce or explain the meaning of; interpret...
The Amendment simply removes a judicial ability to construe a marital construct and leaves open the question legislatively at both federal and state levels...
The hyperbole and propaganda coming from the enraged leftists opposed to this amendment is becoming frenzied and tin foil hatted -no doubt, WHEN it passes, be it now or later, leftist heads will explode scattering tin foil everywhere authentic freedom reins over social engineering leftists.
IF you stick with the REAL issues, employ only facts, and avoid the absurd claims e.g. that of hate mongering as I pointed out earlier THEN I would suggest you would have nothing substantive to post in opposition to this legitimate democrat legislative check on the judiciary AND as such be left with only posting such nonsense on DU, no matter how long you have been on FR...
Being a queer is about sex not about kids.. sometimes queering is about haveing sex WITH kids.. Queer marriage is about insurance..
The *real* issue, quite clearly, is that currently states are allowed to define what 'marriage' means to them.
You are pushing for a FEDERAL GOVT definition that will over-ride that.
To try and dis-incentivize a behavior you do not like.
Seems to be social engineering, pretty clearly.
I don't believe this will *ever* pass. At this point, social conservatives are temporarily in the majority, and even now it doesn't stand a chance.
And that majority is in great jeapordy, because these social conservatives are only in power because of the political conservatives who believed in the 'Contract with America'. The CoA said nothing about gay marriage, or gays in the military, or abortion, or the rest. It was about political conservatism -- govt accountability, lower spending, strong defense and security, etc.
The current R party has abandoned the CoA 'political conservatives', and will lose their majority status unless they reverse their focus. And by pushing these issues, they are only pushing the political conservatives away even more.
The Washington, D.C. conservative weekly Human Events included Romney in its Top Ten list of RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), ranking him at number 8 in the nation with the following entry:
"Has said, 'I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country." Supports (homosexual) civil unions and stringent gun laws. After visiting Houston, he criticized the city's aesthetics, saying, "This is what happens when you don't have zoning.'"
Romney should have ranked even higher on the list of RINOs. He famously likes to tell conservative audiences in Iowa and South Carolina that being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention.
I attended last fall's GOP conference in Michigan, where Romney continued his masquerade as a "conservative," even daring to tell the assembled activists: "I am pro-life" -- knowing full well that he does not mean by that term what those listening would think he meant.
Romney's ten-year political career has occurred from his late 40s to his late 50s, yet he asks conservatives to naively believe that he's just now in the "formative" years when he's still figuring out his core beliefs.
During that decade, he has insistently supported legal abortion-on-demand: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice."
Not surprisingly, this clear pro-abortion position earned him the endorsement of the pro-abortion Republican Majority for Choice PAC.
He was also endorsed by the homosexual "Log Cabin Republicans," twice.
He believes the Boy Scouts should allow openly homosexual Scoutmasters: "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."
He endorsed Ted Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation. He endorses taxpayer-financed same-sex benefits for the homosexual partners of state employees, even attacking some Democratic legislators for not supporting such benefits.
According to the Associated Press, he has appointed at least two openly homosexual lawyers to state judgeships, one a board member of the Lesbian & Gay Bar Association. Imagine how that will fly in Republican presidential primaries in the South, the prospect of a president with a record of appointing homosexual activists to the court.
In 2002, he denounced a proposed state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions, or same-sex public employee benefits as "too extreme," after being advised by the media that his own wife and son had just signed a petition to place it on the ballot.
These days, Romney travels to Iowa and Michigan and South Carolina to claim he's "pro-life" and brag about fighting homosexual marriage, saying that at age 58, his position on such issues has suddenly "evolved."
It's my experience that pro-family voters reject the theory of evolution. Especially when the evolution is conveniently timed to produce political benefit.
Social conservatives won't vote against Romney because of his faith. Social conservatives -- including, and perhaps especially, his fellow Mormons -- will vote against him because of his pro-abortion, pro-homosexual record.
Gov. Romney can tell all the cattle-rancher-at-a-vegetarian-convention jokes he wants about Massachusetts. But they're going to fall flat when social conservatives learn -- and they will -- that his record on abortion and homosexual activists' political agenda is that of Vegetarian in Chief.
Your post mirrors my thoughts on Romney and why he has no chance to get the nomination let alone the presidency...
I am not in 'opposition' to social conservatives. I am in opposition to this ammendment, on this issue.
I am *disgusted* with our Congress. They can't find the time to cut spending, control the borders, reform education, etc.
Then, when they realize this has pushed the 'political conservatives' away cuz they see their popularity ratings tank, they abandon us completely and push for social engineering changes that only appeal to the social conservatives, who are in that 30% or so who are still loyal Republicans.
Political conservatives gave them the majority.
And Congress is making it clear that political conservatives no longer are welcome in the R party.
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.