Skip to comments.DOMA Bad, Traditional Marriage Good
Posted on 07/03/2013 6:23:17 PM PDT by TurboZamboni
Zo thinks it is possible to support traditional marriage and still be against DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act). Dont get it? Then tune in and hear why as AlfonZo Rachel defends the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights
(Excerpt) Read more at alfonzorachel.com ...
both are good. that’s the problem. if traditional marriage is good, defending it is defending good, which is also good.
No such thing as “traditional marriage’
This is a made-up term to re-define marriage, which is impossible.
Marriage is marriage.
2 people, i.e., a man and a woman, get married [usually] to raise a family from conception to birth til forever because a parent and child are biologically connected by the same flesh and blood, unless there is an biological impediment and they cannot conceive a child.
Gays cannot raise a family from conception til birth etc above because they cannot conceive by themselves because it a biological impossibility.
Therefore Gay so-called marriage is a lie because it does not fit the definition and purpose of marriage.
It`s a lie -—
No; it's not good if, in defending marriage, the government steps outside of its Constitutional limits. This is almost the exact same thing that happened with the
War on Drugs and the 4th Amendment -- because "drugs are bad" & "drug dealers are bad" we allowed the police to violate the 4th so much that the 4th amendment is now virtually gone. (As evidenced in the NSA revelations, and the TSA's general operations.)
Indeed, CS Lewis commented on this mentality:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
— C. S. Lewis
Remember what was said: A government powerful enough to give you anything you want can take away everything you have.
Here we have Tonto, Tarzan and Frankenstein to weigh in.
Tonto: "Fire good."
Tarzan: "I think that fire good, too."
OK, now turning to Frankenstein, what do YOU think of fire?
Frankenstein: "Fire Bad! Fire Bad!"
Frankenstein goes crazy and breaks through the back wall of set.
DOMA was only bad because it was a poor substitute for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Without it, the existence of states that allow homo marriage will allow the degenerates to abuse the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution and force states that have banned it to recognize it. The degenerates will do this by lawsuit, and the only way to prevent that, is to either pass aforesaid amendment, or secession.
or impeach judges
I stand corrected- 3 ways.
Nice meta-reference to George Washington’s warning on government. [IIRC]
Not quite, DOMA could have been protected from the Supreme Court by congress (see congress's ability to limit the cases the Supreme Court can hear) -- I'm of the opinion that DOMA was put in place specifically to force the issue into the Supreme Court — I don't think it was a coincidence that as the USSC eviscerated DOMA they also set up precident to deny standing to the people in general as well as declare that State Supreme Courts could not confirm/certify standing. Noth that this was just before they amended the rules so that non-lawers cannot argue their case before the Supreme Court.
DOMA was a big distraction, and you're falling for it.