Posted on 10/23/2008 12:22:02 PM PDT by TheFourthMagi
VIDEO HERE.
Cool. Does the “great” Duncan Hunter agree with Palin? Or with McCain?
I have never heard of Duncan Hunter.
Should the fed govt really be involved in marriage?
If the people want a marriage amendment, it is not unconstitutional. Based on your logic, "should the fed govt be involved in slavery?"
That’s foolish to say that.
The fed govt is not currently involved in marriage is it? Since most here want smaller govt, why not leave it up to the states.
Yes. I would welcome a constitutional ammendment defining marriage between ONE man and ONE woman. Might solve a lot of problems.
Of course it should. Marriage too. Either marriage is protected by Constitutional Amendment or marriage will be continually attacked by federal courts.
OK, myself, I don’t want the fed govt to get any bigger, or more into our lives than absolutely necessary.
I don’t remember anything in this thread about free speech. I’m for less intervention into our private lives by the fed govt.
That's exactly what a Federal Marriage Amendment would do - fortify the existing DOM into an airtight (judgetight) amendment which does exactly what the DOMA does now. It would not affect state's rights to define marriage in their jurisdiction as anything they want, within their own state. It would inoculate any unwilling state from being dragged into the debauchery.
If California performs a marriage between Bob and Steve, is Wyoming required to acknowledge it? If the federal government ignores the issue, things could get very messy (e.g. a business in Wyoming refuses to honor the marriage, and so Bob and Steve sue the business in California court; the business refuses to acknowledge the lawsuit claiming lack of jurisdiction. The Court finds in Bob and Steve's favor, but the business refuses to pay. What happens then?)
While one man and one woman has been an almost universal throughout human existence, I believe the 'one man' part is universal throughout all societies of non-trivial size (say, over 1,000 people) that have lasted for non-trivial duration (say, over 100 years). Are there any known exceptions, from any time in human history?
IMHO, a 'defense of marriage amendment' should focus on what's absolutely universal. There's no need to bring in god, or religion, or ethics, or morality, or anything else that should be controversial. The fact that every society which has deviated from the 'one husband' principle has either returned to it or gone extinct is pretty clear evidence that there is something unique about one-husband marriages which is essential to societies' functioning.
Protecting babies, including those who are between conception and birth, is a good thing.
OK, thanks
That too.
OK, thanks.
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.