####Yes, in fact -- if such a place existed, they would certainly not have the govt tell people who they can spend their life with.####
Such a place will never exist. It's why every place you can think of where there's strong support for gay "marriage" (Holland, Sweden, Canada...) is also very socialistic, has lots of gun control, speech codes, etc.
BTW, how does opposing gay "marriage" have anything to do with who someone spends their life with?
####But I don't think I know of a place that is actually 'fiscally conservative' anymore. Do you?####
I'll have to agree with you on that one, though the places that are socially liberal tend to be the most socialistic.
####I'm a political C. That means I don't believe in social engineering by the federal govt.####
That's why I oppose judges changing the 5,000 year old definition of marriage. It's social engineering. And once we have gay "marriage", we'll have gay adoption, gay school curricula, hate speech laws, churches being punished by government for refusing to marry gays, more anti-discrimination laws telling people who they can hire or who they can rent their upstairs bedroom to. We'll have laws forcing restaurant owners to allow gay kissing on their property (they just passed this in England, where pubs are now required by law to permit this). We'll have private clubs membership practices being reviewed by government. We'll have to spend more taxpayers' money to provide benefits to gay couples. It'll be an explosion of government power and social engineering.
Such a place (a 'fiscally conservative' place) may never exist again because of folks like the ones pushing this.
Because everyone seems to want smaller, less intrusive govt until it comes to their own biases and predjudices. And then ya'll turn 'Liberal', asking for social engineering laws to regulate who spends their life together.
That's why I oppose judges changing the 5,000 year old definition of marriage.
Um -- I thought the issue here was, the current letter of the law allows states to make up their own mind? And ya'll are pushing for the federal govt to take power over this? Hence the 'constitutional ammendment'?
Fascinating. In arguing *for* social engineering changes, you claim the other side is doing the social engineering. You guys want to change the law, cuz the letter of the law doesn't favor your social biases.
BTW, how does opposing gay "marriage" have anything to do with who someone spends their life with?
You're kidding, right? This law would have the fed gov saying, "This sort of life's union we will offically sanction, That sort of life's union we do not." Pure social engineering.
You are pushing for a law guaranteeing that the federal govt will favor a certain type of 'personal relationship' for the good of socieity.
How much more obvious can that be?