Posted on 11/22/2006 10:11:01 AM PST by Deut28
The Christianist Candidate
In case you were unaware, it's Mitt Romney. As with most Christianists, the idea of allowing different states to try different solutions to the same problem is dispensable when moral absolutes are involved. In other words, the fundamentalists have no interest in federalism. If federalism means that California can have marriage equality and medical marijuana, today's GOP base wants none of it. Here's Romney's discussion of John McCain's approach:
Romney was less charitable to McCain, who on Sunday told ABC News: 'I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states.' McCain also said, 'I believe that gay marriage should not be legal.' Romney seized on the remarks. 'That's his position, and in my opinion, it's disingenuous,' he said. 'Look, if somebody says they're in favor of gay marriage, I respect that view. If someone says — like I do — that I oppose same–sex marriage, I respect that view. But those who try and pretend to have it both ways, I find it to be disingenuous.'
It's now disingenuous to have a position on a matter but believe it should be decided by indidividual states rather than by federal control? Disingenuous? Of course, Romney knows better. He's smart, he's aware of the important principle of federalism - but he's going for the Christianist wing, the wing that only supports states' rights when states support Christianist policy prescriptions. And so another conservative principle gets inverted by the allegedly "conservative" candidate.
Baloney. A "living breathing document" is one that never needs amended. A fixed, static one, where words mean what they say, is one that requires amendments from time to time.
Better a christianist than a butt-piratist, Andy.
so let's just let God figure it out.
In my opinion, one of the reasons we are here on this Earth is to try to figure it out ourselves.
But since the LDS teach traditional morality, he is considered as bad as an actual Christian by Sullivan and his ilk.
Same table next to the Brady Campaign/VPC stickers.
It doesn't take a Christian to be disgusted by sexual deviancy and the high cost of medical support required by the deviants. Even the Muslims find this behavior reprehensible, not to mention a myriad of others.
NeoCaveman - I get your position, and that's why I'm open to handling it in D.C.
But I'm sure you're aware that states currently issue licenses and regulations that are handled federally in many other areas than marriage.
As for the IRS, Bill Clinton has already handled that issue through DOMA. Many, many states have already taken those steps as well through legislation and constitutional (state) amendments.
1. People move. If two guys get married in Vermont and later move to Oklahoma are they still married?
2. The IRS. Does the Vermont couple file jointly as married and the Oklahoma couple not?
3. That 14th Ammendment. Yes, we don't care for it, but it'll mean the courts will decided this on a one size fits all matter.
1. Federal protection of marriage act answers this question.
2. Yes, because they are not married in the eyes of Oaklahoma.
3. That's not necessarily true. We don't know that yet, we'll only know when it actually comes up before the court.
I understand the problems with handling it at a state level, and if it doesn't work, i.e. if the courts mandate it, then I would support a Constitutional Amendment. Preferably, I would amend the Constitution to specifically make it a states issue, but if banning it federally were the only step available, I would take it.
I respect the side that says we need to act first, it's a respectable position and I understand their reasons, but I would rather wait till we know for sure that is our only out. Federalism has bent and broken enough on pressure from the left, it doesn't need pressure from the right unless absolutely necessary.
Andrew Sullivan is a Homosexualist.
"Why such bigotry now?"
Recognize this truth -- The bigotry is fueled by the Old Media, the homos, and the ACLU.
Uhh...that's pretty much counter to every part of the Bible I know of.
Makes it pretty clear, it seems to me, that we aren't to judge who goes to heaven and who doesn't.
Makes it pretty clear, it seems to me, that we won't ever be able to 'figure it out ourselves' too. God's too big for that. We are kind of like an ant trying to understand an elephant.
Argus - I find that turn of phrase more palatable than the 'buttpiratist' someone tossed out earlier!
OH GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK.
Saying Marriage should be a states issue is hardly 'supporting gay marriage.'
Under that definition, are you also going to say that all of those who think Abortion should be a states issue are 'supporting abortion'?
We are just going to disagree tacticly. I think that once the courts rule, the horse is out of the barn and isn't going back in. I probably would be loathe to support a Constitutional Amendment at that point knowing it would be far too late. You'd have sympathetic "married" couples to sway public opinion and then the issue would be do churches who not perform gay weddings lose their tax exempt status.
I'm for playing shut down defense NOW and not needing a Hail Mary pass in the fourth quarter.
I think John Derbyshire coined the term, for the political tendency to advance the gay agenda by any means necessary. Sort of like "Islamist" for the jihadis.
Gee, maybe we should make all laws national laws just in case the SC invalidates them!
I have trouble beliving that would be the case. Gay Marriage bans have passed in every single state they have been on the ballot, including blue states.
Frankly, if you ARE right, then I don't see what the point of trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment is anyway, before or after, because it won't pass. They can and would use the same tactics as they would to keep it from passing before hand then afterwards.
I really do not like being lumped in with mormonism as "christian" as much as I don't like Christianity being lumped in with islam as "religion".
It's like lumping Ted Bundy and Mother Teresa together as "human".
Worthy points.
But seems like we'd end up leaving all this up to Anthony M. Kennedy writing for the 5-4 majority....
Towards insanity? Hell, he beat me there by at least a country mile!
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
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.