Could that angry reporter be on the left, picking her nose?
Posted on 06/10/2006 10:43:07 AM PDT by wagglebee
He thought he would stump the preacher, but he was wrong.
"Why, sure, son," responded the minister. "Look in any dictionary in the world. You'll see the definition of marriage as a contract, a union, between a man and a woman. Nothin' else there. If you don't believe God, at least believe Webster's Dictionary!"
Perfect!
DISCUSSION ABOUT:
Pat Boone: Please, leave marriage alone
This is a wonderful commentary!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FReepMail wagglebee.
To be included in or removed from the HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PINGLIST, please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2K.
Enjoyed that so much. An excellent commentary. God help us ,I worry about the kind of country my grandchildren and great grandchildren will grow up in.
Oh, and by the way, you may also want to learn to distinguish liberties from rights.
Wow! What a great analogy! Brilliant. Perfect.
"Note to Pat: Please leave our Constitution alone!"
Note to gay liberals and activist judges: Please leave our Constitution intact and stop overthrowing the will/vote of the people.
Note to "historians". The BOR and the 14th Amendment are also part of the Constitution. So far, neither gay liberals nor activist judges have overthrown it.
Are you implying that no one is allowed the change the Constitution? That it must remain intact just as it was written 200+ years ago?
Why did the Founders give us the option of Constitutional Amendment?
Regardless, this law does not CHANGE the Constitution, it merely defines marriage for legal purposes.
What's your agenda?
Could that angry reporter be on the left, picking her nose?
Absolutely not. In fact it was Republicans who engineered and passed the 13th ,14th and 15th Amendments, all recognizing rights that much of the country seemed to ignore.
Why did the Founders give us the option of Constitutional Amendment?
The founders didn't give us anything. We the people created this Republic. And yes, we can amend the Constitution. Except for the prohibition fiasco, our Constitutional amendment process served two purposes. First to recognize the rights of all citizens. Second to improve the workings of the federal government and the election processes. Before we try to corrupt our federalism structure, we should think long and hard about it.
Regardless, this law does not CHANGE the Constitution, it merely defines marriage for legal purposes.
And that is fine for your state and for mine. But unless you can demonstrate some danger to the institution of marriage even worse than the 1 million divorces annually, I suggest you leave family law to the states.
What's your agenda?
Well, I'm going out jogging about 4. Then check back with FR around 5:30. After that, might go out to dinner. Yours?
No doubt the "please" will do it ;)
You mean the state courts, right? Otherwise you would be outraged at what the high court of Massachusetts did.
So you think the United States was wrong when it forced Utah to ban polygamy as a requirement for joining the union?
Does the definition of family affect federal law, taxes, and policies? If it does, then the federal government has an interest in the definition.
Actually no, I am not outraged. The good people of Massachusetts established three branches of government. If they are unhappy with a decision of the state supreme court, they have the power to cure it. That cure happens to be sitting in the legislature, not the courts. No where can I find anything in the definition of a republic that says if you don't like something a state does, the other 49 should step in and rectify it. Nor is there a need to. This issue will eventually be resolved by the voters of the state.
So you think the United States was wrong when it forced Utah to ban polygamy as a requirement for joining the union?
Actually polygamy was officially banned by the Church in Utah 6 years before statehood. But to answer your question, no. Territories were not states and while territorial governments existed, they did so completely under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Today, polygamy is still debated within the state and a recent federal court decision upheld the state supreme court rejecting claims of polygamists to "rights" under the 14th Amendment.
Does the definition of family affect federal law, taxes, and policies? If it does, then the federal government has an interest in the definition.
There's a substantial difference between the federal government's interest and in its ability to deny a state it's powers under the 10th Amendment. In any case, the federal government has no obligation to recognize any same sex marriage because of the Defense of Marriage Act. So it does not have to "provide" benefits under the tax laws or any other federal laws to same sex marriage partners.
A self-centered, sex-obsessed world and getting worse!
First, the people won. Second, there is no such thing as states' rights. Never has been, never will. Only persons have rights, and those rights all trump the powers of the state. So I'm not sure how the states lost. They lost the "right" to keep slaves. They lost the "right" to deny the most basic of rights to their citizens. They lost the "right" to prevent their citizens from voting. Were those the "states' rights" you were referring to?
Deep down inside, I do feel that was wrong but that game has been decided by the Civil War, a long time ago.
Just to make sure I'm reading you correctly, you would take us back to 1859? Women could not own property or vote, or in many places go out without their husbands. Blacks were slaves, and those who weren't had no voting rights. For almost a hundred years after the war blacks and whites could not marry. Blacks had to use their own drinking fountains and restrooms. Are these the "states' rights" you are sorry to see lost?
If you want to return to the days o the States being dominant again, you eould need the former USSR or Red China along with us in response to nuke the world back several hundred years through the use of atomic weapons.
Not at all. There is still a Tenth Amendment, and as long as states do not violate the rights of its citizens, it is free to legislate how it will. If it wants to take federal funds then of course it will come under laws it may not like. No one, especially me likes every law, or every court decision. In Colorado, you couldn't buy beer or wine in a market and could not buy a car on Sunday. That is within the powers of that state. If the people want to change such laws, they may.
Enough history aside, we really cannot have a hodge-podge of states out there to redefine marriage and others who do not.
Why not? Marriage will always be predominatly between a man and a woman. So Massachusetts legalizes same sex marriages. Doesn't harm my marriage in the least, nor anyone else's to my knowledge. Pat Boone wants to keep it the way it has always been. That is no reason everyone has to do that. Before considering a constitutional amendment, I'd think long and hard about what you are protecting.
Helen Thomas.
Ditto the odious Eleanor Clift right next to her.
Who are the two on the right?
Personal relationships don't belong in the Constitution. That is up to the states.
Bingo! A few conservatives left around here.
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.