[Mr. Silverback]

Maggie Gallagher rocks.

[Support Free Republic]

SHOW YOUR PRIDE! SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[ArGee]

Santorum called the right to privacy a "me-centered" right.

Those who scream loudest about their rights are probably least secure in their source.

G-d gave us rights, but He also gave us responsibilities. Marriages work best when both spouses set aside their rights from time to time to meet their responsibilities to the family. The same holds true for societies. Voluntarily, mind you, not coerced as in Communism.

This is why the founders understood that without a Judeo-Christian morality, this nation could not endure.

Shalom.

[Arthur McGowan]

The problem with arguing that male-female marriage must be defended because it is "good for society" is that this is question-begging. Those who are proposing male-male and female-female and male-male-female and male-male-male marriage, etc., claim, based on the mere fact of their sexual attractions, that recognizing their sexual attractions as equally valid is "good for society." And our current contraceptive-marriage society has no valid response to them. As Andrew Sullivan has validly pointed out, "We are all sodomites now."

The only valid defense of male-female marriage is rooted in the nature of the human person, and the built-in intentions of the human person. If the nature of marriage as male-female is based on the mere fact that the MAJORITY of people wish to form that kind of marriage, or that the MAJORITY finds other kinds of sexual acts repulsive, then that is no defense of marriage at all.

If on the other hand, the defense of real marriage is based on the assertion (backed up by evidence) that the human person naturally desires CHILDREN, and desires sexual activity as a means to that and, AND that the human person disintegrates when sexual activity is deliberately rendered infertile, then there is a valid defense of marriage.

As long as "marriage" in our society REMAINS redefined as a legal arrangement between male and female which they may render infertile at will, "marriage" cannot be rationally defended against the demand for male-male or female-female marriage.

In short: "Marriage" in our society has already been redefined in such a way that there is no rational basis for resisting the demand for "gay marriage."

[freeeee]

The right to privacy -- which is not even in the Constitution

The author holds that we only enjoy specifically enumerated rights, and the government is not held to specifically enumerated powers. Rather government may derive limitless powers using the time tested LIBERAL method of perverting the general welfare clause.

The opposite is the case. Not all rights are enumerated:

Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And the government's only legitimate powers are specifically enumerated:

Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

But who cares about any of that when the big stick of government can be used to promote an agenda.

The author is no conservative. He is a living constitution RINO who'll trample the Constitution in a social engineering crusade that just happens this time to be favored by the right.

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
- James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831 _Madison_ 1865, IV, pages 171-172

[freeeee]

And, of course, marriages sustain the nation's population, providing a future workforce. In Japan and many European countries, as people opt for singleness or for childless marriages, the growing elderly populations have too few young people working to support them.

Translation: "We, the high and mighty hereby command you to breed, as to ensure a healthy supply of farm animals required to prop up the socialist ponzi scheme we call Social Security. Because when Social(ist) Security fails, the sheep will stomp their feet and bray until we lose power, and we certainly can't let that happen."

I'll provide for my own old age, thank you very much. And I'll reproduce solely if it pleases me, and for no other reason. And I have absolutely no duty whatsoever to spawn a mule born with a saddle on his back so he can pull the weight of your 'constituents'.

[Aquinasfan]

This is dead on. As the family goes, so goes society.

[Durus]

The article and the quote from Sanatorum show a profound lack of constitutional knowledge. First of all our right are not derived from the constitution. We have all rights except those ceded to both state and federal Government. The government, BOTH state and federal, have only those powers given to them by their respective constitutions. I fail to see the specific power given to the Government to tell Americans who they can and cannot marry.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." Thomas Jefferson