With new bill, US elitists plotting to weaponize gay ‘marriage’ and stamp out dissent

[[Where in the Constitution is there any authority to alter the moral values of any State?]]

You misunderstand- That is not what I was implying- The moral values valued by our founders are what constituted state’s rights to assert moral values when determining things like marriage laws- marriage laws have always been based o n the universal moral truth that marriage is between a man and woman

Your original astatement wasn’t about the federal government delegating- but whether our federal govnermkent was basedo n moral laws or not- you implied the federal laws should not include moral precepts- that is what I was replying to, not whether states have a right to (Or SHOULD have a right to) regulate marriage laws-

Here’s your oringianl statement

[[Frankly, if more people would simply read our foundational documents in context, it would be very clear that social values & moral issues were never supposed to involve the Federal Government. ]]

and that just isn’t true- social values and moral issues are protected by our constitution (or at least they were before the corrupt SC decision)

[[Those advocating the abomination that you denounce, have not been reasoning with anyone.]]

Again you post was not clear- it looked like you were telling people of morals we needed to reason with the other side- not that the other side refused ot reason- You are correct, they are no longer just refusing to reason- they are now demanding our government stop reasoning, and stop obeying the LAW, in order to trample our goventrent protected rights to freedom of religion

[[My point is that the “same sex” marriage oxymoron will simply not bear reasoned analysis. It bears no rational relationship to the immemorial purpose or function of marriage.]]

That is correct- but your original post was confusing to say the least- you misstated, and I misunderstood some issues- hence the confusion

The Federal Government is but an Agency, intended to carry out the purposes--the specific moral, cultural & political purposes, actually entrusted to it. It was never intended to have the right to redefine the moral or cultural purposes of the people who formed the body politic of any State.

But, of course, the Founders recognized that it would only function properly, including recognizing its inherent limitations, ass well as duties, if it was Administered by men who had the moral compass to recognize & accept both their duties & limitations.

Sorry, if you found my points confusing.

What we have witnessed for the past three generation, is an increasing dereliction of their moral duties, by officials usurping power for a variety of very unholy purposes.

Rick Santorum was correct in the last presidential campaign when he said that some people's idea of liberty and freedom owes more to the French Revolution than to the American Revolution.

Conservative republicans need to understand that. We are not monarchists. We do believe some things which in the late 1700s were truly radical. We do believe in “We the People,” not some sort of hereditary nobility or educated aristocracy or monied business elite, being the root of government. And for that reason we can and should reject the idea of a majority of nine black-robed unelected judges being able to make fundamental changes in our nation's laws. That kind of system is not a republic but a system of unelected “philosopher kings,” and conservatives need to reject it as contrary to our values.

But we can't go to the other extreme and follow the model of the French Revolution. We believe in a republic, not a pure democracy, and there are important differences between the two.

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.