####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.
You can't be serious . . . you're talking about forcing the fed govt to define which life partners get what benefits. Having the fed govt encourage some partnerships, while discouraging others via the use of incentives.
This dishonesty surprises me, most folks on your side of the debate don't deny this obvious truth.
How would state sanctioning of gay "marriage" DECREASE the size of government?
Currently, the States define what a 'marriage' is. You're advocating a power grab for the fed govt to take over this power, "for the good of society".
Political Conservatives are *against* such social engineering.
That's a pretty simple slam-dunk.
We have every expectation that they'll eventually (within the decade) do so with gay "marriage" as well.
The 'politically conservative' approach then would be to push for a law saying that the fed govt has no power over the state's marriage laws. I'd back you on that. A law saying that states set their own rules as to which marriages they recognize.
Which would make more sense, period, and you'd have majority support for it. That would be returning power *back* to the states. Instead of the federal power grab you're pushing, which is a 'Politically Liberal' thing to do.
The FMA merely reaffirms the societal definition of marriage that we've always had, and which the voters of every state want.
In other words, the 'letter of the law' currently lets states do this, but you want your your unwritten "societal definition" (cultural bias) written into federal law.
Oh, btw, you're mistaken if you think marriage has always and only been 'between 1 man and 1 woman'. I'm sure you already know that . . .
Has the federal government EVER sanctioned gay "marriages"?
The federal govt has NEVER HAD A POLICY ON IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. And you are pushing for a fed govt takeover of this, pushing for the fed govt to take power away from the states.
That is a liberal thing to do.
Social engineering is when government tries to force something on society against its will.
No. Social Engineering is when the govt provides incentives and disincentives to specific social groups and social behaviors.
And this is clearly social engineering.
Main Entry: social engineering
Function: noun
: management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society : applied social science
You are pushing for the fed govt to define who has a place in marriage and who doesn't. Political conservatives believe this is a state function.
Now, I understand you believe it's "defensive" social engineering, to stop a change in society you don't like. But that's what *all* social engineering is about. Marxists don't like the rich/poor divide. That's the whole point.
In fighting for what you believe, you've become what we're fighting against.
'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. '
This is the problem social conservatives face. The feds are not going to pass an ammendment on the basis of Biblical scripture. There has to be an empirical and clearly defined reason for why it is acceptable to allow one couple to marry (male/female, black/white) and not another. That means proving that gay marriage is a threat to the liberty and personal safety of the majority. Unfortunately, no one can make that case. All they can argue is that it isn't traditional and it goes against what they believe. Precisely the same arguments used against interacial marriage (although not even scriptue was available to the opposition in that case). Such arguments have no weight unless someone repeals the 1st Ammendment any time soon.
If widely credited statistics accumulated proving that married gays were more likely to turn into suicide bombers, and/or molest little children than straights and unmarried gays, then there might be a case that would stick. As of now, even if an ammendment was passed now through clever political manoevring, it would certainly be repealed within 10 yrs. The interacial marriage issue has already placed a firm precedent against banning marriage between any other consenting human beings.
Ultimately, the fight against it is in vain and prolonging the inevitable. And also distracting conservatives from far more important issues IMHO.