I think Sarah and I are on the same page. Here is the sign in front of our home:
/s
Sarah needs to keep her socially conservative views to herself. We don’t mind but swing voters are fiscally conservative and socially moderate to liberal.
She’s already solidified the base by being there, she’s simply turning off independents now which McCain desperately needs.
Oh crap! There goes the fudge-packer vote, handed to the rats on a silver platter.
Love it!
Good for Sarah to speak her mind...after all McC said he didn’t want a yes person..he wants her honest views..and here is one of them along with drilling in Alaska.
Good for her! She needs to challenge Juanito far more often!
Good for her!
I’m so glad my state passed a marriage amendment.
I think Sarah and I are on the same page. Here is the sign in front of our home:
They’re both right!
I support an Amendment banning it, but until there is one Constitutionally it is a States’ Rights issue.
Sidebar: Personally I don’t think the .gov should be involved in marriage at all as that is really a religious institution.
The article incorrectly states Senator McCain’s position.
McCain believes gay marriage is an issue that should be handled at the state level, unless a homosexual marriage that took place in a state that recognizes gay marriage is court ordered to be recognized in a state that otherwise doesn’t recognize gay marriage. Then he is for a Constitutional amendment.
Sarah! You ROCK!
Andrew Sullivan is having another meltdown..... this time he will end up in the psych ward....
Gasp! Republicans disagree?
The woman is honest about her views. She’ll never amount to anything!
LMBO
Thank you Sarah, for being yourself. With you, I know where I stand. Wish I could say that about three other people I could name.
If some states recognized homosexual marriage because the legislature enacted such a law, and if other states had the right not to recognize such marriages, I might not favor a federal amendment banning gay marriage. Unfortunately, the homosexual lobby is happy to use dishonest judges who *invent* a right to gay marriage, pretending that laws against sex discrimination require recognition of homosexual marriage. I support a federal amendment as a way of slapping down the lying judges and their allies.
I feel the same way about abortion. I’m pro-choice in the sense that I would not favor a state law banning all abortions, but I recognize that Roe vs. Wade was a big lie that ought to be overturned.
They’re BOTH wrong. There is no requirement for an Amendment to address this matter.
The problem I have with a Constitutional Amendment to ‘create’ a definition of marriage is Rove v. Wade. Wait for it ...
Elevating abortion to be a Federal-level constitutional ‘rights’ issue is why we have such a hopeless situation, nationally, with respect to abortion. Except for rules governing the licensing and conduct of medical practioners, even the States wouldn’t even vaguely be concerned with the sanctioning of a ‘right’ to an abortion.
The issue ( and choices ) should properly be relegated to the parties — parents and the doctor — and the State could not assert an interest in the practice or the outcome.
That is as it should be. The Framers were content to leave out countless specific cases while defining the role, functions and scope of action of the Federal Government, which IS the subject of the Constitution. All powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government were reserved to the States ( Amendment #10 ). Certain ‘rights’ were explicitly reserved to the citizens ( Amendments #1 .. #10, the so-called Bill of Rights ) and each State — AND the Federal Government — were required to respect these rights.
All this ignores, quite properly, my own personal beliefs about the matter of abortion which, quite properly, have no place in the this discussion. Similarly, the ‘personal beliefs’ of ANYONE else — judges, politicians, ‘activists’, any private citizen — are outside the scope of the Constitution AND the purview of ANY court.
Similarly, there is NO assertion whatsover in the Constitution which addresses the definition of marriage, just as there is no definition of countless other ‘topics’ that someone may want to assert as being in need of ‘creation’ or protection.
For example, the Constitution is utterly silent on the notion of privacy, except as noted in the Amendment #4: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
In so far as the State ( including the Federal government ) has any proper ‘interest’ in the institution of marriage, it is limited to a ‘civil’ interest in the effect of the union or the disposition of property or custody of minor children upon dissolution or divorce. As a matter of law, a marriage creates certain property rights between the parties and certain responsibilities for the care of each party may required judicial ruling to protect the rights of each party.
There does not appear to be any benefit to society to create a template — IN the Constitution — defining ANY of these issues, including who may or may not properly marry.
Well, that is, until you tumble on Article 4 which defines the concept of ‘reciprocity’ between the States.
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”
Essentially, ANY State can impose a definition of marriage on ALL the others states simply by doing it. For example, Massechusetts allows same-sex couples to marry. These marriages are more or less automagically ‘created’ in ALL the other States — see Article 4.
Well, the Framers weren’t THAT stupid. Article 4 ALSO addresses that concern in the very next sentence.
“And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
And THAT, you might notice, simply demolishes the apparent ‘need’ for a Constitutional Amendment defining Marriage. The Congress may simply pass a ‘general law prescribing the manner in which’ the specific action of a single state may not be imposed on ANY other State.
Then, each individual state may merrily ( and properly ) define what is a marriage to suit it own citizens and no other citizens of any other state need be helplessly affected. AND we don’t create another Roe v. Wade-ish nightmare to bother us all as the current one does.
So. THAT’s why I think both McCain and Palin are wrong on this’n ...
God Bless Her.
Millions more agree with you, Sarah.
Way to go, keep telling the truth. We’re tired of perverse politicians who think homosexuality is normal.