Posted on 10/02/2007 8:04:06 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
State decisions are not written into the US Constitution. Fred's supports the States making their own decisions on a matter that is not in the purview of the Federal Govt. The only thing the govt. has to do with it is within the Full Faith and Credit clause, and that can be changed by Congress, it doesn't need another amendment to the Constitution. This would allow States to NOT officially recognize the 'marriage' of homosexuals that took place in a different state. He would also remove the ability of Federal judges to tamper with decisions made by the voters and legislatures in a State regarding homosexual 'marriage'. These are things that can be done without having to go through the time needed to ratify an amendment to the Constitution.
I saw Fred in Coralville Iowa yesterday. His speech really impressed me and he addressed all the things I had any concern about. Moreover, he spoke about things like limiting government’s role and federalism that I have not heard talked about politically.
I’ve gone from “he looks like the best of what we’ve got” to solidly pro-Fred.
Yikes! I hope not!
Abe had one purpose and one purpose only: maintain the Union.
Fred talks about Federalism in a way that understands that a loosening of the bindings is appropriate right now....let the states take back some of their power, independent experiments, ... this is why he sees perhaps 50 different "Gay Marriage" laws instead of one iron-fisted central dictate.
Let California and Massachussetts be gay. Let Texas hang em all! (just kidding)
Don't require any to recognize the others if they violate the local statute. If a gay couple wants to travel to Texas, let them respect the local laws, just like I have to respect Mass gun laws when I travel there.
Let the gay couples live in Massachussetts if that's where it's legal, and let them go through Mass State divorce and Mass State probate court for wills and estate.
Texas and Mississippi don't need to be involved in that if they choose not to.
That's FREDeralism.
Abe ended up getting us the Central Planning bureaucracy that we see today in DC.
"Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition it is the means by which husband and wife participate with God in the creation of a new human life. It is for these reasons, among others, that our society has always sought to protect this unique relationship. In part the erosion of these values has given way to a celebration of forms of expression most reject. We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality." -- President Ronald Reagan, July 12, 1984
That's good news. Thanks for posting.
Easy to do when your NAY vote means nada. Do you honestly think as President Thompson would have vetoed the Volunteer Protection Act? It exempted Good Samaritans from being sued.
If Fred means to deny homosexual marriages federal benefits then he is already demanding a distinction. Why not acknowledge that by at least instisting they be called a "civil union" rather than a marriage? He is trying to have it both ways. He wants the states to choose, but he knows he can't really do that when there are so many federal benefits attached to marriage. So he has to deal with the federal issue with this disaster of an amendment that would ultimately end in the same disasterous way as if the courts had imposed it. In fact it might be worse simply because of the initial chaos of trying to figure out who is legally married and who isn't, who is married at only the state level and who is also considered married by the federal government, etc.
You keep repeating this blatant lie like it is a fact. Thompson is talking about an amendment prohibiting judges from overriding the will of the people. The gay agenda, like most of modern "liberalism", can only survive by judicial fiat.
Fred’s amendment would do both.
I am as opposed to "conservative" judges ruling by fiat as I am at "liberal" judges doing so.
I’m a Fred supporter, but “20 years of Bush-Clinton?” What are you smoking?
Do you see any differences between the Clinton Administration and GWB’s administration on: taxes, terrorism, homeland security, confronting rogue nations, Supreme Court justices, abortion, etc.? If you don’t, you have your head in the sand.
You sound like a bitter borderbot who makes no other distinction between candidates. I disagree with the President on the border and on entitlement spending curbs, but he has been a VAST improvement over Clinton.
And in the interest of homosexual marriage he would amend the constitution to make sure states could alter the God-given definition of family.
What is on the auction block here is the "right" for states to choose to force the federal gov't to recognize homosexual marriages as legitimate. Just how does Fred's plan leaves states against homo marriage free from entanglement with it? It is impossible. That's why the basic definition of marriage ALREADY IS A FEDERAL ISSUE!!!! Eliminate all the federal recognition, obligations and benefits given tt marriage and then maybe you can restrict the issue to the states. BUT THAT IS NOT THE WAY THINGS ARE RIGHT NOW! And there is a zero percent chance that will ever happen.
I suspect I'd get the same sort of non answer from Fred too. Who precisely needs to unite with whom? Am I required to move toward some other belief to achieve this unity or are others supposed to gravitate toward my beliefs to achieve this unity? Name names and explain Fred's plan to achieve this "unity".
National security and the protection of it’s people is guaranteed by the constitution and is therefor a specifically designated Federal government power/duty.
So my answer is no, he would not have vetoed it and that action would be consistent with his Federalist/Constitutionalist philosophy.
THE MAN WITH "FIRST PRINCIPLES"!
FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:
Fallacy -- Introducing a strawman argument.
No one is talking about writing a "right" to homosexual marriage into the Constitution. To assert this is a bald-face lie, and makes the rest of your "analysis" pointless, because it is all based on that lie.
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.