Posted on 06/07/2006 8:37:51 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh
Edited on 06/07/2006 11:34:52 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Yes, government already regulates marriage. I never said it didn't. The horses are out of the barn and it's too late to close the doors. If the federal government wants to in the future, it can continue to regulate it and declare that all states must accept same-sex marriage; all with only a majority to pass any other legislation. All that's needed now to force all states to accept same-sex marriage is a decision by the federal government (a majority decision by the Supreme Court or legislation from Congress) to further regulate it. The FMA protects states from imposing a radical new regime of marriage on them by the federal government. To change this afterward would require a new amendment instead of mere legislation. Basically all the FMA does is say what 'marriage' is. If you use a different label, you can give same-sex marriage all the benefits of anyone who is considered married, but only in that state. If another state *chooses* (is not force to) it can recognize that 'marriage'.
What would happen if this was passed is that the communists running the homosexual agenda movement would pass another amendment changing the wording of the marriage amendment...and that will give even more power to government. It's not to hard to imagine that this will all lead to government having the power to tell you whom you can't marry and who you must marry.
In the end, government will do what it can get away with. An amendment merely makes it more difficult to get away with it. You are concerned about things which are already a possibility, but are unwilling to do anything to mitigate these possibilities for fear they will make them a possible. If you think this sounds a little bizarre, that's the point.
If Congress would step up, this would not be necessary. It's too politically expedient to kick a controversial issue to the courts, though.
I still don't understand why you think that giving government further power, to solve a problem they created, is the logical response to this issue. A better amendment would be one that states firmly and directly that marriage is firmly and forever beyond the regulation of government.
All politics is a stupid waste of time. That's democracy. If wasting time were the issue, we could just elect a permanent dictator and have done with it, then not have to 'waste time' on any other issue ever again.
Ha! Congress doesn't want to touch controversial issues when they can just let the courts handle it.
Not that tough if the vote gets split:
30% John McCain 20% someone else 15% someone else 15% someone else 10% someone else
You are right. Congress abandoned it's responsibility. Not the first time, though. It has a long history of abuses.
We're watching the building of a house divided.
"We've been subsidizing the country for years. "Massachusetts taxpayers receive less federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid compared to the average state."
I will take your word on that. But that will soon be changing as the taxpayers foot the bill for picking up the pieces left in the wake of Mass.'s social experiment.
You know first hand how it feels to have to pay for others' mistakes.
Society has a duty to promote those institutions which ensure the future AND discourage those acts which offer nothing for the future.
Not in the United States of America.
What you're describing is a social-engineering totalitarian state.
Society rewards the institution not the individual.
This nation was founded on the individual.
It wasn't the amendment that failed; it was the Republican leadership, especially in the Senate. If Denny Hastert had testicles instead of sour grapes, he would have told his colleagues in the Senate, "Don't send us any spending bills until you have passed this amendment." Compromise is the art of prostitutes and politicans; it takes a man to be a leader. And the Republicans don't have many.
just like the abortion debate, this is like a visit to the Twilight Zone, I can't believe this is even up for question ! It's like the world has gone insane, McCain will finally be free to marry a male sheep, and it's OK to take a human life (as long as it is an unwanted pregnancy).......
Beam me up Scotty !
Sadly, I have to agree with you. Few real leaders, anyway. Tom Tancredo might be one, although he is focused on a single issue; time will tell.
As several people have commented in this thread, the timing of the Marriage Amendment was problematic. It was clearly an attempt to redirect Conservatives' attention away from the issue of illegal immigration, even if it was defensible as a matter of policy and law. In any event, the current Republican "leadership" is adrift and detached from its base of support, having long since abandoned the intellectual challenge of implementing a philosophy of governance for the more lucrative pleasures of influence-peddling.
In what way is McLame Conservative or Republican for that matter? Is there something?
In what way is McLame Conservative or Republican for that matter? Is there something?
He's a Republican, make no doubt about it. The only qualification required is the endorsement of the party.
But he isn't a conservative, which if the party bigwigs had any principles would preclude him from receiving that endorsement.
wow, that was quick.
"A constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman stalled"
That's just sad....and pathetic. What kind of twisted and perverted thinking is actually "governing" this country?
Guess they need to be reminded of Sodom and Gomorrha's fate.
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.