Posted on 03/29/2013 8:29:42 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Kinda funny how when President Bush was pressing for a federal constitutional amendment banning one-sex marriage how many (actually the lionshare) Democrats said that the issue should be left to the states.
When Dems supposedly supported traditional marriage they wanted the states to decide. Now that they support one-sex marriage, do they still believe that the states should decide or do they want the courts to force one-sex marriage onto all the states?
How could any Democrat be for an approach that says no to a federal ban - let the states decide - and then flip to a federal anti-ban: thus not letting the states decide?
One can possibly say that they have "evolved" on the issue, but how one approaches the issue cannot evolve. You either support top-down or you don't. People don't change on this mindset.
How can one be against a top-down approach on banning something, but be for a top-down approach on forcing one-sex marriage on all 50 states? How can one say that it is wrong to force a state to ban something, but it is ok to force a state to have to accept something?
There wouldn't be 50 different laws, either. There would be essentially 3: a few states would allow one-sex marriage, most would ban it/have banned it already, and a few would allow for civil unions.
What say you?
Should we have a state by state approach on abortion laws (pre-Roe v wade) and the same approach on marriage laws as well?
If we don’t go this route and one-sex marriage is forced on the states, there will be a 2nd Roe v Wade kerfuffle - and long lasting like the abortion issue has been.
Heck, in 2008 Obama said he opposed it. Remember that dems are the party of Fred Phelps and Obama continues to give hundreds of millions of dollars to countries who execute people for being gay.
I’m surprised gays trust them to keep lists of who is gay via marriage certificates.
Five out of nine fallible (or blackmailed) Supremes can rule that a horse is the same as a cow, or that 2+2=5, but they can't make either true.
Or they can rule that runaway slaves must be captured and returned to their masters, as they did before, and that wouldn't be right either.
And they can rule that homosexuals can "marry," but they the can't make that unnatural union a natural marriage any more than they can make a horse the same as a cow by legal fiat.
To quote a famous former Secretary of State, what difference does it make? For liberals, history began this morning...
We all should know by now that politicians do not have any personal beliefs that they are willing to show.
They have no integrity.
They wait until they see how the most voters go and then they follow.It’s all about re-election,the polls, they do not care about good, bad,evil, or right or wrong. The only thing that matters is re-election.
Now mind you I am not speaking of Democrats or Republicans, I am speaking about politicians of both parties.None of them are worth a damn. This is what our political system has become , now that we have professional politicians. The founders never planned on professional politicians, they planned on patriots. Unfortunately patriotism does not exist under Obama ,not with either party. They are all out to get all they can.
You don’t believe that????? Why is it they do not have to obey the Obamacare laws. The laws against sexual harrassment, the law forbidding insider trading. They exempt themselves from laws they pass for the “little people”
They said that then for the exact same reason why Cruz says it now: it’s the only way they thought they could win anything at all.
Now, they have a nationwide strategy and we’re left trying to staunch the flow of blood wherever we can.
They got smart and changed the game; we’ll need to be smarter to claw out way back.
I thought it was “Keep the government out of the bedroom.”
this is merely the libtards using the dialectic to incrementally shift farther to the left. That’s exactly what it is. Many republicans have no idea this is what is done, and many that do know what the left is doing, don’t care and want them to keep shifting to the left.
that would actually mean following the Constitution. If a Democrat is suggesting that, he/she’s lying.
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.