Replies

"Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson wrote.

OMG, homos running around in the streets!! We need a federal amendment...hey wait a minute...

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.--Federalist 45

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.--10th Amendment

Not that I believe Freddy is that much of a federalist but Dobson needs to come with some actual arguments instead of this tired old federalize every moral issue. Of course I hear the Protectionist wing of the Whig, I mean Republican, party is for such nonsense. An issue clearly intended by the Framers to be handled by the separate and sovereign states.

Marriage is only a moral issue as long as it stayed a covenant. Marriage is protected because it is the foundation of our country and our culture, as is family. That protection makes it a legal issue.

Not having a Federal Marriage Amendment leaves rogue state citizens at the states mercy, and mercy they will not get. When families are broken down, so is society and the country. Government has a vested interest in preventing that from happening. It also has a vested interest in seeing to it that each state remains a Representative Government, as the Constitution dictates. When States or courts determine these issues, the public is not represented, thus such action is unconstitutional. That is when the Fed. govt should step in and tell that state there actions are unconstitutional.

I am a strong believer in federalism. I go so far as to want a return of the state legislatures election of the U.S. Senators for thier states. That said, marriage is too fundamental to mess with. Protect it within the Federal Constitution. It’s wrong to see that protection as a “violation” of Federalism. By amending the Constitution, you amend what federalism means under the Constitution. Homosexual marriage is a Sodom and Gommorrah level corruption of the society. We are rushing right past late Roman levels of sin to Old Testament, fire and brimstone, unleash the flood types of societies. It’s worth an Amendment to stop homosexual marriage.