Posted on 09/07/2007 10:41:59 AM PDT by Josh Painter
My point is that I didn't need a license before entering into that contract. The government only gets involved after the fact if one party alleges a breach of the contract. Why is marriage any different? It's a contract between two consenting parties. The government's only interest should be if a breach of contract is alleged by one of those parties.
Get government out of the business of sanctioning a religious ceremony and this problem goes away.
Without marriages, the raising of children in society becomes weakened. Social morality becomes frayed.
There's no evidence to support that claim. What we experience in this country with the kind of family/social breakdown you describe isn't the result of people "shacking up"; it's the result of government interfering with them. When government becomes daddy, you get the problems we see today. A century ago, government didn't step in to save the day when people made stupid mistakes. They were allowed to get through those mistakes on their own. It's the only way to learn from mistakes. Instead, government prevents them from learning and the cycle continues. This is yet another example of government being the problem, not the solution. Conservatives should see this almost instinctively.
Fred simply blunders away on this issue his chance to be THE candidate who could have brought economic and social conservatives together.
He had the bulk of the national pro-family movement ready to individuall sign on with him until he decided to align himself with Hillary and Obama and McCain and Rudy in supporting the “right” of states to come up with 50 different definitions of marriage.
Homosexual “marriage” in California and Vermont and Connecticut and Massachusetts and New York and New Jersey?
Polygamy in Utah?
And how did Fred explain his “judges are the only problem” solution?
Today in Iowa:
“I don’t think it’d ever happen. I think the chances of gay marriage in law passing in any state in this country, by their legislature, is virtually zero.”
http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/09/political-video-of-the-day-fred-1.html
Sorry, Fred, it’s not “virtually zero.” It’s 100 percent certain.
Fred has spent a lot of time in Hollywood. How did he possibly miss the FACT that the California Legislature — two years ago yesterday, in fact — already did approve full-fledged homosexual “marriage.”
Thankfully, Ah-nold vetoed it. But as soon as CA has another Dem gov, homosexual “marriage” will become law in CA by legislative action, not judicial fiat.
That is, unless the N.J., Vermont, or N.Y. legislatures beat them to it first. Pro-family activists in N.J. say if Repubs don’t win two key state Senate seats in Nov 07, eight weeks from now, N.J. will legislatively approve homosexual “marriage.”
Fred’s detachment from reality on this issue does not inspire confidence.
Maybe I misunderstood his statement. I do not see how he can allow states to call homosexual unions marriage without getting into federal issues like taxes and benefits. If he means they can offer state benefits under another name so that it doesn't violate the federal definition then we are talking about the same thing as the FMA. If we are talking about getting rid of the federal DOMA in favor of something which allows states to grant homo marriage including federal benefits, then that's bunk and I won't support it. The federal definition needs to stay as it is.
What about social security? Etc.
1. Marriage is different from your cell phone contract because family and the raising of the next generation is a bit more important than your ability to get a mobile call.
2. government is indeed involved in breach of contracts anyway so the removal of a standard legal definition of marriage helps NOBODY and doesnt remove the government from adjudicating conflicts arising AT ALL. If you are married and get divorced, there are rules for who gets the property and kids... if you shack up, there are only those rules that are imposed willy-nilly.
3. You are taking the libertarian position, which is usually fine for purely economic matters but fits as well as a square peg in a round hole for cultural matters like this. Yes, people with their own personal lawyer could craft a ‘marriage contract’ as good as the current law, but young kids in real life dont have that option. Either govt provides structure for better cultural behavior and outcomes or it wont happen. The reason being that (a) people arent always rational but are emotional too, and (b) not everyone has the ability to understand the consequences of their actions.
Furthermore, the ‘parties’ to a marriage involve more than the self-interest parties to a business contract - ie what about the kids?
4. This is a cultural issue, and its not just govt that is the problem here - children in broken homes are more likely to be juvenile delinquents, more likely to have school problems, and have a shocking 89 times greater risk of being victims of child abuse from a ‘shack up’ boyfriend of their Mom’s than from their married biological father. In other words, marriage and family helps prevent a LOT of social problems and pathologies that we as citizens and taxpayers end up suffering from and paying for.
Dan Quayle got a lot of heat for criticizing “Murphy Brown” and the single-mom-by-choice movement, but a few years later there was an article in the Atlantic Monthly “Dan Quayle was right” that laid out the many negative consequences of single Moms raising kids, broken homes, out-of-wedlock kids, etc. having government remove the legal definition of marriage will certainly weaken the marital bonds that help define marriage and lead to far more broken homes. Its a no brainer.
To summarize:
- the cultural consequences of broken homes is very bad
- marriage is required to shore up the family structure
- the victims of a culture that devalues family and marriage include the children in broken homes but also the rest of us who pay the price for social pathology
- the culture of divorce in recent times underscores this point
- its not just a matter of blaming govt and running away from it
- to protect marriage, you have to define it in law
- marriage has been defined in law for centuries, its not in any way shape or form a part of ‘big government’ anymore than laws against theft are
- having been defined in law, to further protect the family we need to prevent it from getting undermined by foolish ideas such as ‘gay marriage’
- the only sure way to prevent gay marriage is the FMA
Logical Conclusion:
=> Save Western Civilization, Support the Federal Marriage Amendment!
For more on this, the National Review articles on the de facto abolition of marriage in Scandanavia (in the wake of adopting gay marriage) are enlightening and disturbing.
We already have that. It's called the 10th Amendment. Big government social 'conservatives' are going to do everything they can to finish off this Republic..
"Fred Thompson endorsed an amendment to the Constitution that would prevent state judges from altering the definition of marriage without the direction of their states' legislatures." -- but apparently he does still want state legislatures to have the power to legalize sodomite "marriage."
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. In all cases. In every state. Fred just cannot bring himself to publicly affirm that.
Is he trying to steal log cabin votes from Giuliani?
As president he would not have even have anything to do with ratifying an amendment to the Constitution. Therefore his only purpose in opposing the protection of marriage in the USA from the sodomite assault must be that he is pandering for the votes of the sodomites!
“I’m not sure I understand his position entirely. Is he backing away from the DOMA that he voted for?”
NO.
” The FMA would essentially write that into the constitution so that judges can’t mess with it.”
CORRECT. It’s why we need it. It’s a DOMA that overrules any possible future Federal judge/USSC ruling.
“If we are talking about getting rid of the federal DOMA in favor of something which allows states to grant homo marriage including federal benefits, then that’s bunk and I won’t support it.”
It does not get rid of DOMA. That law stays. But - The problem with his Amendment is that, if California passed a law making gay marriage, it would stay. All the resulting issues involving de facto federalization of gay marriage flowing from gay marriage in one or more states would NOT be addressed by his amendment. It’s possible that DOMA would as a result of this be overturned by a Federal court that takes (1) Romer v Evans “gay equality is good” and (2) Full, faith, and credit clause to make (3) DOMA overturned an ‘gay marriage’ is required to be recognized across state lines (after all, traditional marriages are).
The gay activists know this, and they have been gradually chipping away at the bulwarks against this in law.
In the end, the anti-FMA forces are saying ‘we dont need FMA because we have a Federal law’. IMHO they are full of beans.
Even *Iowa* Judges overturn laws and invent gay marriage. If they can do it, a Federal judge can as well.
We need FMA. Nothing less will stop the end of traditional marriage.
You’re exactly right on how marriage is a national matter.
I like to liken this issue to the European population crisis. Look at where gay marriage has become the law of the land: broken European socialist states so dysfuncational that they cannot do something so basic as to produce enough offspring for their cultures to survive. Never in human history have birthrates been so low as in nations that are looking at legalizing gay marriage.
Now, remembering back to your childhood, you were raised with the expectations of growing up, marrying, and having a family of your own. Children played with doll houses. These had mothers, fathers, babies, pets, and children. From a very early age, we were taught that we were to have a family of our own one day and to simulate that.
Right now, we have a societal definition of marriage with 2 aspects:
1) finding a lifetime partner to share our lives with
2) forming a unit through which to conceive and raise our families.
The anti-marriage crowd wants to destroy #2 and completely redefine marriage under the guise of some abstract notion of romantic love and personal happiness. And essentially, that allows any pairing or grouping you could imagine.
Gay marriage’s most drastic effect may be on straight marriages. Marriages between people who grew up with the idea that they may or may not have children. It depends on who they marry. And there are many possibilites, of course. It muddles up something that should be perfectly clear and practiced from a very early age. Children should be nurtured to one day raise a family of their own.
Protecting traditional marriage is absolutely in the best interest of our society. It encourages large families. It encourages the absolute best arrangement in which to raise children. In encourages commitment. It encourages our children to learn to be good parents.
And every time we allow more nonsense to unhinge the nuclear family, we weaken our society.
We need this amendment.
Big blunder by Fred. He apparently missed the Cali lege vote recently as well... the SECOND time they passed it, it may be on to its second veto by Ah-nold.
He had the bulk of the national pro-family movement ready to individuall sign on with him until he decided to align himself with Hillary and Obama and McCain and Rudy in supporting the “right” of states to come up with 50 different definitions of marriage.
As conservatives, we should be unified on this. If we dont unify and speak with one voice to defend marriage, we will lose.
Dittos.
Support marriage = Support the Federal Marriage Amendment.
I don't think Thompsons plan is perfectly thought out. If he allows some states to have gay marriage per the U.S. Constitution then it must involve the federal government in recognition and benefits, unless the amendment specifically said otherwise. This could end up a big win for the homosexual lobby if we are not careful. But at least Thompson is thinking and addressing the problem of judges. At least he sees a problem.
You can't have federal taxes that are filed as "married filing jointly" and still deny that the people are married. The issue is and always has been federal. States set some parameters like age limits, but they don't get to dream up entirely different definitions.
There is zero percent change you are going to change my mind about Romney. Thompson still has to convince me his idea is a good one. But even if I reject Thompson, I won’t vote for the guy who was at the helm when the Massachusetts disaster happened. I’m not voting for a proven failure.
Fair enough. To call Romney a failure after what happened in Mass is simply not accurate, but you can hold that opinion if you want.
Support Thompson if you like, as well. I like him in many respects. Not this one. Or regarding tort reform. Or on the border. But he’s not that bad.
When asked by reporters about gay marriage, Thompson said he supports a traditional view of marriage as being between a man and a woman, but he did not criticize gays and lesbians.
"I'm not going to pass judgment on several million of my fellow citizens," Thompson said. "I think anybody who knows me knows how I feel about the importance of the family. A president of the United States should not go out of their way to castigate or pass judgment on a large segment of people."
Yet another Mitt-flop...
As a candidate for governor in 2002, he OPPOSED a Marriage Protection Amendment to his state constitution which, had it been approved, would have prevented the Mass Supreme Court’s 2003 decision on the issue. Told the homosexual activist newspaper in Boston that he would have voted against it had it appeared on the ballot.
Easy enough, Mitt, to put your finger up in the wind and try to make yourself out to be a “champion” of something approved in over two dozen states since 2004 by an average vote of roughly 70 percent.
But where were you when it might have made a difference in Massachusetts in 2002?
On the other side, sucking up to and being formally endorsed (for the second time) by the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans, the same bunch who spent $1 million on TV ads in key swing states in 2004 attacking Pres. Bush for supporting a federal Marriage Protection Amendment.
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.