1 posted on
01/08/2004 1:12:31 PM PST by
RJCogburn
To: RJCogburn
It is kind of funny, isn't it? I've noticed for a while that many conservatives don't mind trampling on several of the first 10 Amendments when it comes to their pet causes. Are these conservatives just the flip side of the liberal coin?
To: All
These Guys Don't Want You To Donate!
|
|
Tick them off! Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!
|
3 posted on
01/08/2004 1:20:02 PM PST by
Support Free Republic
(I'd rather be sleeping. Let's get this over with so I can go back to sleep!)
To: RJCogburn
bttt
4 posted on
01/08/2004 1:23:29 PM PST by
ellery
To: RJCogburn
Hogwash. The FMA will secure federalism on this issue by banning Judges from legislating from the bench. Other than protecting the word "marriage," which is already taken, everything else is up for grabs by state legislatures.
But why should the truth get in the way of a good argument?
10 posted on
01/08/2004 1:32:54 PM PST by
King Black Robe
(With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
To: RJCogburn
bump
To: RJCogburn
The problem, as I see it, is not the Feds overrunning states rights, but states like Massachusetts being used to over rule the rights of all the other states to define marriage. If Mass. has a law recognizing homosexual marriage, then every other state that the couple goes to will be forced to recognize it too, undermining every other state's right to define marriage. In this situation it is right for the Federal Gov. to step in and resolve the differences.
To: RJCogburn
conservatives are increasingly attempting to curtail states' rights
That's a fact, Jack. Ashcroft doesn't know the difference
between Commandments and Amendments.
30 posted on
01/08/2004 7:03:24 PM PST by
gcruse
(http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
To: RJCogburn
Cries in defense of "states' rights" were historically associated with efforts to maintain segregation, and echoed by Republican presidential candidates from Barry Goldwater in 1964 to Bush in 2000Funny, I don't remember the President supporting segregation in 2000.
36 posted on
01/09/2004 6:21:58 AM PST by
j_tull
(created by God and endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights which no civil authority may usurp)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson