Defense of Marriage Amendment debate on CSPAN2 LIVE THREAD

CSPAN

[abnegation]

And so it begins.....

[goldstategop]

See my post #270 on the definition.

[goldstategop]

I believe in limited government based on the rule of law, not on the rule of men.

[abnegation]

Uh, I thought you wanted to discuss health care. There is a "limited government" subject for you to discuss.

[reagandemo]

I guess the Federalist Papers were a tad bit too hard for him. Hummm too bad the exchange was getting good. (sarcasm off).

[abnegation]

Funny thing......I post Hamilton and somehow that becomes a typical liberal name calling fest. You are not worth even responding too. I don't mind debate, whether or not we agree, but it is not my words you take issue with, but Haminton's. Have a good life.

[EternalVigilance]

That's not discriminatory since it follows what we know about the body. There's no such comparison with sexual orientation.

Yeah, all your deviancy of choice does is spread deadly diseases, and sears the consciences of our young people...leading them down a path that leads to the destruction of their lives; spiritually, physically, mentally and socially.

Homosexuals have a very high suicide rate.

They really do hate themselves and their lifestyle.

[johnfrink]

Homosexuals have a very high suicide rate.

The main reason for that is the hatred heaped upon them by people like you.

[tjwmason]

What are the legal incidents of marriage?

They are many and varied. They do inter alia include rights of inheritance.

Your problem seems to be that the proposed amendment prevents these incidents being required by the U.S. Constitution, or those of the several states.

Where does this prevent legislative action in any state (or indeed at federal level) granted these incidents?

Answer - it does not. It merely prevents activist judges from reading these incidents into constitutions. It says nothing about legislative acts (of the Congress, or of the states).

[ItsOurTimeNow]

A black man marrying a white girl doesn't change the definition of marriage.

Steve marrying Bruce does.

[abnegation]

Original thread here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1169815/posts?page=280

Although this thread might have a more civil debate than the original one I posted (liberal name callers on the original).

[carenot]

Are you a homosexual?????

Ask me if I am.

[EternalVigilance]

The main reason for that is the hatred heaped upon them by people like you.

I don't hate them.

It is people like you who hate them...you are their enablers.

[goldstategop]

Which is exactly the point: to prevent judges from making doctrine in this area. It doesn't prevent the state legislatures or Congress from deciding whether to allow civil unions/domestic partnerships. That's all there is to FMA. Simple and straight.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

Last month, I organized a Defense of Marriage rally here in ultra-liberal RI. With three weeks to prepare, I managed to rally 300 people together.

I sent out petitions to over 150 churches. I gathered up 1,139 signatures, which were sent to Chafee (R-RIno) and Reed (D-RI).

We be active!

[goldstategop]

Of course. Same sex marriage is not even remotely similar to interracial marriage. When two men or two women join in a union, its anything but true marriage. In contrast, the marriage of a man and a woman of different races has never changed the definition of that venerable institution.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

What we know irrefutably about the body is that it is designed to function ONLY heterosexually in regards to family. So, BZZZZT, sorry, try again.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

is meant to drive a wedge in the voters.

She's right on this account. I WANT this issue to divide people. Hot or cold...no lukewarm allowed!

[IamConservative]

Sucking all the oxygen away from the Senate Intelligence report hit piece.

[EternalVigilance]

I WANT this issue to divide people. Hot or cold...no lukewarm allowed!

You betcha!

[AFPhys]

Actually, you have fallen prey to the liberal's opposition rhetoric. Read the actual amendment, and some learned analysis as to what it will accomplish, not the rhetorical screed being put out in opposition.
.