Skip to comments.
Obama White House Calls for Repealing Defense of Marriage Act
CNSNews ^
| 1/21/2009
| Matt Cover
Posted on 01/21/2009 8:33:32 AM PST by Pyro7480
President Barack H. Obama is poised to be the most pro-homosexual chief executive in history.
Unveiling his agenda Tuesday on the newly refurbished version of the White House Web site, Obama called for the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as well as the extension of more than 1,000 federal marriage benefits and of adoption rights to homosexual couples.
The new administration laid out its plans on the Web site--whitehouse.gov--at 12:01 p.m. EST, during Obamas swearing-in ceremony.
The sites Civil Rights section lists a number of items long on the homosexual agenda, including expanding federal hate-crimes laws, repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military and extending the definition of workplace discrimination to include sexual orientation.
In the section entitled Support for the LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered) Community, the Web site says Obama wants full inclusion of homosexual couples under federal law.
President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples, the Web site says.
Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100-plus federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples. the Web site says....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: agenda; bho44; bo; culturewar; culturewars; democrat; democrats; doma; firsthundreddays; gayvote; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexuals; marriage; obama; ocreep; samesexmarriage; sexpositiveagenda; smashmonogamy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-219 last
To: frogjerk
This is exactly the reason why government needs to recognize it.
Im not certain what you mean by recognize. The government recognizes the existence of religion, which predates and exists independent of government, but pretty much stays out of it. The government recognizes the existence of personnel combat as a response to injustice, which predates and exists independent of government, but pretty much bans it. Should the government stay out of marriage or ban it?
I think it might be OK if the government recognized marriage in the same way it recognizes religion. I think it wouldnt be OK if it banned it.
The answer is a very simple one, nothing.
People who disagree with that are sufficient in number to get the government to act on their behalf. That cant happen if we get the government out of marriage.
201
posted on
01/21/2009 9:20:44 PM PST
by
KrisKrinkle
(Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
To: manc
w
ell then you are now getting rid of a law about marriage thus now any kind of whack job thinks and they will mark my words think they can marry their daughter, son, pet dog, horse, grandmother etc.
To what point if there is no legal advantage? And why would you care if you didnt have to legally recognize it as valid? The way its going now all that may still happen and you will have to legally recognize it as valid because the government you want involved will force you to.
do you not see that at all?
No.
202
posted on
01/21/2009 9:33:03 PM PST
by
KrisKrinkle
(Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
To: rollo tomasi
Public square? Yes, Public square. A metaphor for a place where people assemble to discuss public issues. And your (Research my first sentence above) wont prevail there. You will convince no one of anything with that.
Church and government are separate in our country. Let the religious practice of marriage go with the Church and government stay out. Or make a coherent case for something else.
Bwahahahaaaaa!!!
What a persuasive response. You should try that in a letter to the editor or your congresscritter or your mayor. Call Rush or Sean or Neal and try that with them. Im sure theyll find it as persuasive and complementary to your intelligence as I do.
203
posted on
01/21/2009 9:59:57 PM PST
by
KrisKrinkle
(Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
To: KrisKrinkle
204
posted on
01/22/2009 4:03:12 AM PST
by
ConservativeStLouisGuy
(11th FReeper Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Unnecessarily Excerpt)
To: ConservativeStLouisGuy
Obama White House Calls for Repealing Defense of Marriage Act
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
By Matt Cover
President Barack H. Obama is poised to be the most pro-homosexual chief executive in history.
Unveiling his agenda Tuesday on the newly refurbished version of the White House Web site, Obama called for the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as well as the extension of more than 1,000 federal marriage benefits and of adoption rights to homosexual couples.
The new administration laid out its plans on the Web site--whitehouse.gov--at 12:01 p.m. EST, during Obamas swearing-in ceremony.
The sites Civil Rights section lists a number of items long on the homosexual agenda, including expanding federal hate-crimes laws, repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military and extending the definition of workplace discrimination to include sexual orientation.
In the section entitled Support for the LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered) Community, the Web site says Obama wants full inclusion of homosexual couples under federal law.
President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples, the Web site says.
Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100-plus federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples. the Web site says.
Among those federal legal rights are the ability to file joint tax returns, own property, and buy health insurance together.
Obama also favors granting adoption rights to homosexual couples, saying that children benefit from a healthy home, regardless of whether the parents are homosexual or not.
President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, the site said. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not, the website reads.
Obama further promises to distribute contraceptives through the nations public health system, saying the move is vital to combating HIV and AIDS and the new president wants contraceptives to be distributed in federal prisons.
The president will support common-sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system.
Obama renewed his pledge to expand federal hate-crimes laws to include sexual orientation an effort he spearheaded as a freshman U.S. senator. The bill that Obama introduced in the Senate, the Matthew Shepard Act, would make it a federal hate-crime to commit violence against someone because of their sexual orientation.
President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, (and) expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, the site says.
Obama also wants to lift the federal ban on needle exchanges, which provides intravenous drug addicts with free, clean needles in an effort to ensure they abuse illegal drugs safely.
The president also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users.
The new White House site confirms that Obama plans to work towards his desire to repeal a federal law that prevents homosexuals from serving in the military. Obama says that the only test for military service should be patriotism.
The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited, the site says.
The president will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
Whether homosexuals are ever allowed to serve in the military wont be Obamas call, however. Only Congress can enact such a policy affecting the military.
205
posted on
01/22/2009 4:03:43 AM PST
by
ConservativeStLouisGuy
(11th FReeper Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Unnecessarily Excerpt)
To: KrisKrinkle
Was Bwahahaha!!! my only response? You seem to skip over the rest of the words, typical, pick and choose your cut and paste arguments. What a grand subterfuge you are.
Church and State became separate and when the split happened the State took the marriage licensees with them, duh! Good grief you are not that historically astute.
I won't convince anyone? I got a couple of responses saying how dense you are, maybe you are the one failing to convince “anyone” here.
As for the rest of the public square a good portion would agree that marriage is important in society due to the fact common sense trumps their sexual impulses and lack of responsibility. There are several “enlightened” perverted beings that would of course agree with you, some of those types I have run across before, seems they like to get married to for some unknown and strange reason, kind of hypocritical if you ask me. Strive for your brave new world, be my guest but some people hold God, tradition and common sense more highly than your social experimentations.
206
posted on
01/22/2009 4:08:24 AM PST
by
rollo tomasi
(Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
To: ConservativeStLouisGuy
207
posted on
01/22/2009 4:37:05 AM PST
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: KrisKrinkle
And for the record I don't believe the Federal government should be involved with marriage so I agree with you there. To me it is a 10th Amendment issue left up to the States and the local government within.
But in this day and age, marriages without some sort of public code is asking for trouble. Churches could sanction some dude marrying his dog, cow, or horse, siblings getting married creating interesting offspring, divorce becoming one big cluster f* than it is now in regards to property and offspring. All this should be left with the locals to ORGANIZE, hence anyone calling their home a church could seriously screw up the community and unleash unregulated hell (Contrary to libertine belief, government regulation can be productive to society).
This isn't the time of George and Martha Washington, showing some restraint as they act responsible within their own marriage, no we live in the age of Jerry Springer where people are looking into the gutter to get off and every lawyer that has enough start up money to run a commercial is looking to pervert the law and squeeze $$$ out of any case they can. Completely privatizing marriage would create one big pain not only for the pocket book but for the society as a whole.
208
posted on
01/22/2009 5:01:42 AM PST
by
rollo tomasi
(Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
To: CapnJack
209
posted on
01/22/2009 5:59:12 AM PST
by
Badeye
(There are no 'great moments' in Moderate Political History. Only losses.)
To: rollo tomasi
And for the record I don't believe the Federal government should be involved with marriage so I agree with you there. To me it is a 10th Amendment issue left up to the States and the local government within. Thats a start.
But in this day and age, marriages without some sort of public code is asking for trouble. Churches could sanction some dude marrying his dog, cow, or horse, siblings getting married creating interesting offspring, divorce becoming one big cluster f* than it is now in regards to property and offspring. All this should be left with the locals to ORGANIZE, hence anyone calling their home a church could seriously screw up the community and unleash unregulated hell (Contrary to libertine belief, government regulation can be productive to society).
So as long as its a 10th Amendment issue left up to the States and the local government within, its alright with you if one State/local government legalizes some dude marrying his dog, cow or horse, another legalizes siblings getting married, another legalizes same sex marriage, another legalizes polygamy, another bans civil marriage and so forth. Thats similar to what you seem to believe could happen if government got out of marriage except that everyone under the authority of a particular State/local government would have to recognize the legitimacy of the marriages.
Ok, lets take it from another angle. You appear to want the government (except the Feds) involved in marriage. How involved should it be and why? Why should your view prevail? Should State or local government provide any benefits to married people that are not provided to single people? If so, and if Siblings past the age of child bearing want to marry to take advantage of those benefits or if a widowed pensioner on the brink of death wants to marry his own child so the child can get government mandated surviving spouse benefits, why should the government be involved in marriage to the extent that it denies such marriage to them?
210
posted on
01/22/2009 10:53:07 AM PST
by
KrisKrinkle
(Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
To: KrisKrinkle
If....one of your parents died and left no will, how can the court judge whether or not you or your surviving parent would get said inheritance if the court is "out of the marriage" business? The same way a court would do so now if my parents were not married.
Wrong. Children born in wedlock are considered children of both spouses and this is not so in unwed couples. This is a special privilege accorded married couples because of the nature of their union and the primary reason for marriage, to beget children.
211
posted on
01/22/2009 5:32:24 PM PST
by
frogjerk
(It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish - Mother Teresa)
To: frogjerk
So, if the court is “out of the marriage” business and one of my parents died and left no will, the court could not judge whether or not I or my surviving parent would get said inheritance the same way a court would do so now if my parents were not married, because even though it is “out of the marriage” business the court would be bound by the special privilege accorded married couples that children born in wedlock are considered children of both spouses and this is not so in unwed couples.
I dont follow the part where the court would be bound by the special privilege accorded married couples even though it is “out of the marriage” business.
212
posted on
01/22/2009 6:11:50 PM PST
by
KrisKrinkle
(Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
To: Pyro7480
There are good tax policy reasons for loosening the constraints are who can marry whom. Under the tax code a spouse can leave his/her/its spouse an unlimited amount of money without paying estate taxes. If I could marry my son and daughter, and my wife could marry them too, then they could marry THEIR children, estate taxes can be made a thing of the past... hmmmmmm
To: KrisKrinkle
People who disagree with that are sufficient in number to get the government to act on their behalf. That cant happen if we get the government out of marriage.From day one of this country, government has been involved in marriage: from http://www.genealogymagazine.com/coloandma.html
Whatever religious significance they attributed to marriage, all the colonies recognized it as a civil contract based on mutual consent of both parties. Husbands had to support and cohabit with their wives. Deserters were hounded and errant husbands hauled into court for adultery or for failing to provide. Early court records reveal many such cases. Especially in New England, where authorities kept a watchful eye, both husbands and wives often received reprimands for misconduct.
Your proposition is no better than the giving in of the RINOs to the left. If we, as a people, are going to start giving into the extreme left in this country as to the definitions of commonly used words are, we are in big trouble.
If "promoting for the common welfare" and "ensure the domestic tranquility" means anything, it has to imply the government will stand up for what is right. Marriage is what is right. In no way can "securing the blessings of Liberty" mean diluting marriage to a mere standard issue contract that would be no different than me buying an air conditioner.
Standing up for what is right is what America is all about. America, the most moral nation that the earth has ever known is in big trouble if we are going to turn our backs on the institution which we call marriage. The institution which is the primary reason why we are all here living on this planet.
It is really insanity to be debating what the meaning of the word marriage is. The hijacking of the government by radical special interests is what the issue is here and the answer is not to give in to what the left wants - to strip away one by one the sacred institutions and traditions that made this country great and reduce the United States of America to nothing more than a shell of its former self, to exchange truth for a lie, to discard the divine providence and protection that George Washington spoke about 200+ years ago, to flush down the toilet the blood of America's valiant defenders throughout the ages.
Somehow, I doubt that in a foxhole in a great battle for our freedom past, men, ready to shed their blood for our way of life, thought "I'm doing this for my domestic partner and bastard son/daughter back home." What I'm getting at is that the implied goodness of marriage has to be included in what is good in government and cannot be separated because many ignorant are misled by the devious.
Freedom is having the right to choose from different goods, not to do evil, which same-sex marriage is; that is license. This is why I am not a libertarian even though I agree with them on many points.
Thanks for listening.
214
posted on
01/22/2009 6:36:01 PM PST
by
frogjerk
(It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish - Mother Teresa)
To: KrisKrinkle
I dont follow the part where the court would be bound by the special privilege accorded married couples even though it is out of the marriage businessPlease rephrase the question because it is confusing.
215
posted on
01/22/2009 6:41:37 PM PST
by
frogjerk
(It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish - Mother Teresa)
To: frogjerk
From day one of this country, government has been involved in marriage That kind of reads like something I could use as a problem statement.
Your proposition is no better than the giving in of the RINOs to the left.
That's arguable. If nothing else, it's a "less government is better" position; "less government is better" is one of the positions of the politically conservative segment of conservatives; theoretically at least, the non RINO segment of the Republican party is conservative.
If we, as a people, are going to start giving into the extreme left in this country as to the definitions of commonly used words are, we are in big trouble.
Agreed. But I don't advocate giving into the extreme left as to the definition of commonly used words. I advanced the idea of protecting marriage by getting the government out. I don't know much about chess, but I know the pieces on the back row are the important ones. You don't allow them to be taken easily or without an advantage. . You may allow the pieces on the front row, the pawns, to be taken. Marriage is a back row piece, not a pawn to be taken and one way I see to protect it is to take it out of play by getting the government out of it. If conservatives don't want to get government out of marriage they will have to get government to protect marriage which means they will have to exercise control over government and they are not very good at that. For one thing too many conservatives view government with distaste while failing to understand a basic reality in regard to it.. Too many on this very forum will agree "Guns don't kill people ", "Spoons didn't make Rosie fat", and "Pencils don't make mistakes" while at the same time blaming government (without specifying the level) for the outrage of the moment. The reality is that "the outrage of the moment" is not the fault of government anymore than killed people are the fault of guns, fat people the fault of spoons or mistakes the fault of pencils. The fault always lies with people or some segment of people and in the case of government the fault lies with those who control the government, not government itself. To get government to protect the interests. of conservatives, to include marriage, conservatives have to get control of government and for that to happen they have to join together (Another problem since conservatives are not very cohesive) and. change their attitude toward government. Till we get sufficient control of the government to protect our interests, perhaps the best we can do is get the government out of our interests so others can't use it to harm them.
Standing up for what is right is what America is all about.
But people who advocate same sex marriage argue that they are standing up for what is right. If both sides argue they are standing up for what is right, without justifying their "rightness" to the other side or to neutral parties, they go nowhere. Seems to me that a major way people who advocate same sex marriage justify their rightness is by pointing to the legal advantages government grants to marriage. Get government out of marriage and they don't have that argument.
America, the most moral nation that the earth has ever known is in big trouble if we are going to turn our backs on the institution which we call marriage. The institution which is the primary reason why we are all here living on this planet.
I would not advocate turning our backs on the institution which we call marriage. If the government got out of marriage it would become a private or private and religious matter. Conservatives would have to promote it on a cultural and social level but at least they would not have their opposition using government against them. Of course conservatives are not any better on the cultural and social level than the are with government (witness the lefts control of art, academics, the media, etc) but at least they wouldn't have people using the government against them so much.
It is really insanity to be debating what the meaning of the word marriage is.
And I am not, unless your arguing that marriage is somehow dependent on government for its meaning, and then I would argue that marriage predates government.
Somehow, I doubt that in a foxhole in a great battle for our freedom past, men, ready to shed their blood for our way of life, thought "I'm doing this for my domestic partner and bastard son/daughter back home."
You think men loved and cared about their women, their mates, more or less because they were or were not married to them in the view of the government? You think men loved and cared about their children, more or less because they were or were not bastards in the view of the government? What ever their reason for loving and caring about them to a particular degree, I doubt that the view of the government was a consideration.
Freedom is having the right to choose from different goods, not to do evil, which same-sex marriage is;
And the counterargument could be "Freedom is having the right to choose from different goods, not to do evil, which opposition to same-sex marriage is;
That's not my argument so don't flame me on that. The point is that as standalones, neither position is sufficient to prevail unless the listener already believes.
Thanks for listening.
You're welcome, my pleasure.
Now, if anyone is still reading, allow me to point out that my original post was just a discussion starter. My (corrected for spelling) post was:
"Government intervention in marriage is the problem. Get the government entirely out of marriage. No laws regarding marriage, no benefits, etc.
After that, if a basic public interest substantiating the necessity of government intervention in marriage is proved to exist, let that interest be the foundation and limitation of any government intervention."
I don't seriously expect or advocate getting the government entirely out of marriage as proposed in the first paragraph. I am more interested in the second paragraph. What I had in mind was determining any necessity for government involvement in marriage and then holding the government to that. Small, limited government and all that stuff. More importantly, I hoped to surface proof of a basic public interest substantiating the necessity of government intervention in marriage which could be the foundation and limitation of any government intervention. I would expect such proof to undermine the leftist assault on marriage partly in and of itself and partly by supporting the removal of government from some of the involvement it now has in marriage, thereby making it a harder target for the left.
216
posted on
01/23/2009 10:05:58 PM PST
by
KrisKrinkle
(Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
To: frogjerk
Please rephrase the question because it is confusing. I don't think I can. My response in post 212 was a response to your post 211 responding to my post 200.
I had trouble following your response in a way that made sense to me considering my post 200 so I reworded your response as best I could to see if I had it. Apparently we have had a breakdown in communication, which never happens on the FreeRepublic forum, so we'll probably get banned :)
217
posted on
01/23/2009 10:18:45 PM PST
by
KrisKrinkle
(Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
To: KrisKrinkle
Umm there is a thing called common sense, tradition, and historic lessons which intelligent human beings have concluded that marriage between a man and women is best suited for organizing society.
You act like this institution, which has been government approved in Western Civ. since polis were forming in Ancient Greece, just dropped out of nowhere.
You are describing brave new world concepts which are fine if the majority of those who want to pervert society like yourself have the numbers to promote the “privatization”.
I myself believe, like those wise men before me, that marriage between one man and one women is not only pleasing to God (Which over sees us) but should be promoted (As it has been for thousands of years) by government due to obvious conditions only a perverted, immature, and irresponsible individual would not “get”.
Feds should be out of marriage but if 2/3 of the (Article. V.) process decide to Amend the Constitution then marriage becoming a federal issue becomes fine with me. Since I am a believer in federalism marriage as of know should be promoted by the State (As it has been for 200+ years) to ensure logical organization so the next generations will have some healthy society to live in. You promote chaos which combined with the sexual appetites and loose morals of today's society will ensure that the State mandate tyranny in order to “over regulate” a society which will spiral out of control. Don't think so, consult any history book.
I am a big believer in libertarian thought but do not drink the whole glass, especially the ones that the libertines serve. I have much respect for von misses institute/Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul but completely privatizing marriage would just lead to the State picking up the pieces the perversion would leave behind. Until you can honestly show me that the electorate not the usurper of “rights” in the court system will “legalize” marriage to siblings, homosexuals, animals, etc. then your hyperbole is just that, hyperbole.
218
posted on
01/24/2009 7:57:41 AM PST
by
rollo tomasi
(Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
To: rollo tomasi
Umm there is a thing called common sense, tradition, and historic lessons which intelligent human beings have concluded that marriage between a man and women is best suited for organizing society.
That looks like a response to an issue not raised by me.
You act like this institution, which has been government approved in Western Civ. since polis were forming in Ancient Greece, just dropped out of nowhere.
From my post 160: "I believe the institution/custom of marriage predates and exists independent of government,..."
In turn, you act like this institution depends on government for its existence.
You are describing brave new world concepts which are fine if the majority of those who want to pervert society like yourself have the numbers to promote the privatization.
You seem to incorrectly believe I want to pervert society when what I want is to prevent the perversion of society by those who can muster the majority to get government to legalize perversion.
I myself believe, like those wise men before me, that marriage between one man and one women is not only pleasing to God (Which over sees us) but should be promoted (As it has been for thousands of years) by government due to obvious conditions only a perverted, immature, and irresponsible individual would not get.
That's a nice belief. That you have that belief is no reason for another individual to believe it. That you believe the same thing as men you say are wise does not mean that others should take that wisdom at your word or that you yourself are wise. That marriage between one man and one women should be promoted by government does not mean that it actually is being promoted by government. (In some cases it is not being promoted by government, thus my proposal.). That conditions are obvious to you does not mean they are obvious to others. Calling individuals perverted, immature and irresponsible when they do not appear to "get" what you think they should get isn't helpful.
Feds should be out of marriage...
That would be a start. Note that they are already in it. Look at your Form 1040. Consider the adverse affect Federal Welfare regulations and laws have, at least allegedly, on marriage and the family. Look at Federal laws and regulations regarding spousal benefits. But don't bother responding to me about any of that, what I want to know is why you think the Federal government, but not other levels of Government, should be out of marriage.
"(M)arriage...should be promoted by the State (As it has been for 200+ years) to ensure logical organization so the next generations will have some healthy society to live in."
That marriage should be so promoted by the State does not mean that it is being or will be so promoted by a State. Individual States could do different things. One State could legalize some dude marrying his dog, cow or horse, another legalize siblings getting married, another legalize same sex marriage, another legalize polygamy, another ban civil marriage and so forth. Thats similar to what you seem to believe could happen if government got out of marriage except that everyone under the authority of a particular State would have to recognize the legitimacy of the marriages.
You promote chaos...
Maybe. If so, it's no more so than you with the proposition that individual States promote marriage without Federal intervention. See my comment above.
I don't think you understand, so let's try again. My original (corrected for spelling) post was:
"Government intervention in marriage is the problem. Get the government entirely out of marriage. No laws regarding marriage, no benefits, etc.
After that, if a basic public interest substantiating the necessity of government intervention in marriage is proved to exist, let that interest be the foundation and limitation of any government intervention."
Note that while I wrote that Government intervention is the problem in the first paragraph, I left room for it in the second. I don't seriously expect or advocate getting the government entirely out of marriage as proposed in the first paragraph. I am more interested in the second paragraph. What I had in mind was determining any necessity for government involvement in marriage and then holding the government to that. Small, limited government and all that stuff. More importantly, I hoped to surface proof of a basic public interest substantiating the necessity of government intervention in marriage which could be the foundation and limitation of any government intervention. I would expect such proof to undermine the leftist assault on marriage partly in and of itself and partly by supporting the removal of government from some of the involvement it now has in marriage, thereby making it a harder target for the left.
Until you can honestly show me that the electorate not the usurper of rights in the court system will legalize marriage to siblings, homosexuals, animals, etc. then your hyperbole is just that, hyperbole.
The 'usurper of rights' in the court system" is part of the government I proposed getting out of marriage.
219
posted on
01/24/2009 9:59:17 PM PST
by
KrisKrinkle
(Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-219 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson