Posted on 01/19/2016 12:29:19 PM PST by Engraved-on-His-hands
“....States don’t have the right to call squares circles.”
Agreed. Our Founders wrote the Constitution based on Natural Law, which is God’s law.
Same-sex “marriage” is certainly not natural, and THAT is self-evident.
I have to disagree. I know of nothing in the Constitution (other than the 18th amendment) that gives the Feds power to legislate morality, or in the case of your example, metaphysics.
What is right and what is constitutionally permissible are not always the same thing and that is on purpose.
Then go drive your car with square wheels if the “people” in your state want to defy reality.
The Federal Government does not have the right to determine moral issues for the States, under the Constitution. Whether a State can call a “square” a “circle,” is not the issue. The issue is who has the right to correct the mistake—and that right is not given to the Federal Bureaucracy, unless the State Government that calls the “square” a “circle,” has overthrown the republican Government in that State. In that situation, the Federal Government can restore the republican form, to the State; and the republican form of the State can deal, as it will, with the moral absurdity.
How about being against states’ rights when it is about something that defies sanity?
Oh, I’m in full agreement with you on HOW this should be handled. The fed government has no business monkeying in state affairs. But the fed CAN determine how it deals in its own realm: Military, federal departments, etc. And it HAS legislated that marriage is what it always has been.
I’m just saying that for workability and consistency sake, there SHOULD be a consistent definition of marriage throughout the country. I would be perfectly fine with relegating redefinitionist states to the fringes of society, as long as sane states could act as they will.
Santorum’s “Use by Date” has long ago expired.
NY State did NOT deal with morality too well. NY had legalized abortion even before Roe v. Wade.
Our Founders made it clear that some things are self evident. Many issues should go to the states, but not issues that are self evident like life, marriage, and other Natural Law situations.
I am completely against deviant sex of any kind.
But your understanding of the constitution and the separation of powers is deeply flawed sir.
Do you know that DOMA did NOT restrict the states from passing any law they wanted regarding marriage, but, rather, RESTRICTED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in imposing these definitions on the states this regard?
In other words, DOMA bolstered states' rights. I think that is all that Rick Santorum is getting at.
Santorum has always been an advocate of big government, albeit a big government that supports socially conservative causes.
[ Yep, the constitution and states rights are “dangerousâ€...
Those states may do something he doesn’t approve of...
What an idiot. ]
Big government Republicans (and I don’t mean by sheer size but by control over you life from a federal level as well) are just as bad as Big Government Democrats.
Any Republican from the Liberal areas of the country should just be ignored.
Well, doggone it, just think of all the legislators who have to be wooed, bribed, or threatened to get your way in all 50 states (not to mention governors). It is so much easier to just buy the Congress...
But expressly ordered for the States which had declared themselves to be in secession. That jurisdiction was at issue.
Santorum’s buddy trump’s multiple marriages and lack of support for kim davis is dismissed by him.
So over Santorum. He’s acting like Huckabee last time he was running
That's the way it seems to work with a lot of things. People are a lot less vocal about smaller government when those in power are pushing their agendas. That's why when Leftists are out of power they advocate "anarchism," while becoming totalitarian Stalinists and Maoists when in power. You see some of the same things on the Right: when conservatives are out of power, they want libertarianism to limit the amount of damage a leftist government can do. They're a lot less libertarian once "their" people are in power (not too many Republicans complained about the Patriot Act while GW Bush was President).
It’s dangerous giving the States the ability to make their own policy. But, the alternative is the Fed govt, and we know how that works out.
“But he’s got nothing to say about gay marriage being legal now”
Cruz has stated that fighting gay marriage is not a priority with him. How does that position separate him from San Francisco?
“Unfortunately, Rick is right on this one. States don’t have the right to call squares circles.”
I’m with you - we’re not kids any favors by putting gay marriage (or the option for states to have gay marriage) over the right of children to be raised by a mom and a dad.
Kids have the right to a normal childhood, even in blue states.
“The states nor federal government has a right to change God’s natural order of things.”
Nicely put. I’m all for the 10th Amendment, but not when it’s used to deprive kids of a normal childhood.
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.