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?
####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.####
Nothing in the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) has anything whatsoever to do with who spends their life with whom.
Here's a question I've asked proponents of gay "marriage" ever since I began debating this topic: How would state sanctioning of gay "marriage" DECREASE the size of government? By any possible measure, it would INCREASE government's size and intrusiveness. At the very least, it would add a whole new category of beneficiaries to social security and other government programs. But it wouldn't stop there. Courts and federal education agencies would order gay curricula into the schools. Own a private business? Well, if you offer a discount night for couples and don't include gays, expect to be hauled into federal court. Belong to a church that doesn't perform gay "marriages"? Then you'd better increase your tithes, because the government will likely strip your church of its tax exemption, while allowing those churches obedient to government policy on gays to retain theirs. And you'd better not complain, unless you want to be charged with hate speech.
####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'?####
That's true. But we know that the Supreme Court in 1967 ordered the states to sanction interracial marriage. We have every expectation that they'll eventually (within the decade) do so with gay "marriage" as well. We're thus seeking a legitimately ratified constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage. Such an amendment, authorized by Article III of the U.S. Constitution, requires 38 states for approval. The coming judicial fiat mandating nationwide gay "marriage", however, will be different. It will come from outside the Constitution, and will simply be forced on the states via raw federal power. In case you haven't noticed, not a single state in the union wants gay "marriage". The one state which has it (Massachusetts) had it forced upon them by an arrogant state court. The FMA would simply codify the desires of the states and their citizens in the U.S. Constitution. That's hardly a federal power grab. And it's most certainly NOT social engineering.
####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.####
Social engineering is using government power to reshape society. The institution of marriage has been heterosexual since its creation. It's been monogamous since early in the history of the Western world, and throughout the history of the United States. The FMA merely reaffirms the societal definition of marriage that we've always had, and which the voters of every state want. How is that using government power to alter society?
The opponents of the FMA, however, are blocking it in order to clear the way for true social engineering: A federal judicial fiat redefining marriage and forcing society to go along with that redefinition. This will be followed by speech codes, new regulations on churches, and other revolutionary social engineering policies imposed on us from the top down.
####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.####
Has the federal government EVER sanctioned gay "marriages"? No. Has any state ever sanctioned gay "marriages", other than one state which was forced to by the courts (which, by the way, was an act of social engineering)? The FMA merely says that we will keep the social policy which A) we've always had and B) the people have repeatedly said on referenda that they want to keep. In what topsy-turvy universe can that be called 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.####
True. But that isn't social engineering if it's the type of relationship society has always preferred on its own, which it is. Social engineering is when government tries to force something on society against its will. The pro-gay "marriage" forces are thus the quintessential example of social engineers in action.
####How much more obvious can that be?####
I think you have social engineering and anti-social engineering confused.