Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nosofar
Regulate marriage?! The FMA does not regulate marriage. It defines marriage. Since when does defining a term constitute regulation? It prevents same-sex marriage from being forced on states that don't want to recognize it. Where to you get 'regulate' out of that? Let's force same-sex marriage on states that don't want it, but that's not 'regulation'?!

Government already regulates marriage. That gave it the power to foist same sex "marriage" on the US when, constitutionally, they never had that power in the first place. You are suggesting giving more regulatory power government to correct a problem created by government...that doesn't make any sense. And yes the power to define a term that has nothing to do with government amounts to regulatory power. What would happen if this was passed is that the communists running the homosexual agenda movement would pass another amendment changing the wording of the marriage amendment...and that will give even more power to government. It's not to hard to imagine that this will all lead to government having the power to tell you whom you can't marry and who you must marry. What if government decides that our population is growing at an unsustainable rate...do you find it difficult to imagine that they would suddenly decide that heterosexual marriage should be banned and that only homosexual relationships will be valid?
295 posted on 06/08/2006 5:54:36 AM PDT by Durus ("Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies ]


To: Durus
Government already regulates marriage.

Yes, government already regulates marriage. I never said it didn't. The horses are out of the barn and it's too late to close the doors. If the federal government wants to in the future, it can continue to regulate it and declare that all states must accept same-sex marriage; all with only a majority to pass any other legislation. All that's needed now to force all states to accept same-sex marriage is a decision by the federal government (a majority decision by the Supreme Court or legislation from Congress) to further regulate it. The FMA protects states from imposing a radical new regime of marriage on them by the federal government. To change this afterward would require a new amendment instead of mere legislation. Basically all the FMA does is say what 'marriage' is. If you use a different label, you can give same-sex marriage all the benefits of anyone who is considered married, but only in that state. If another state *chooses* (is not force to) it can recognize that 'marriage'.

What would happen if this was passed is that the communists running the homosexual agenda movement would pass another amendment changing the wording of the marriage amendment...and that will give even more power to government. It's not to hard to imagine that this will all lead to government having the power to tell you whom you can't marry and who you must marry.

In the end, government will do what it can get away with. An amendment merely makes it more difficult to get away with it. You are concerned about things which are already a possibility, but are unwilling to do anything to mitigate these possibilities for fear they will make them a possible. If you think this sounds a little bizarre, that's the point.

301 posted on 06/08/2006 8:15:54 AM PDT by nosofar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson