GOP Platform 2008 on Preservation of Marriage

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | September 24, 2008 | RNC

[RogerFGay]

The 2008 Republican Platform, Values section, topic Preserving Traditional Marriage; with comments from readers. ... cont.

[RogerFGay]

ping

[manc]

this whole homo marriage is just plain stupid

it is not a civil right and if they use that argument then is a man having 5 wives a civil right

in their bedroom their business
actually it is not always in the bedroom, they like to tell everyone they meet how perverted they are but OK lets go with the privacy thing
could a man have sex with his dog and marry it, after all it is in his bedroom
sound far fetched ,actually not it happened not too long ago in guess where
sherborn Massachusetts, no surprise on the state

[RogerFGay]

Courts have not ruled that same-sex marriage is a civil right. These judgements are post P.O.P.S. v. GARDNER (1993) in which marriage and family law was reclassified from civil law to social policy. This shift redefined marriage to its current status as purely a matter of politically controlled public policy and eliminated rationality and Constitutional protection against arbitrary government intrusion. With the established meaning of marriage removed, and rationality no longer a requirement, "equal treatment" under law was applied selectively to produce a Constitutional ban against outlawing same-sex marriage. (i.e. you and O'Reilly are right that if "equal treatment" is actually the rule, then marriage to a squirrel etc. is also Constitutionally mandated ...)

Marriage and family in the US have been removed from the private sphere as an issue Constitutionally left "to the states and to the people" and have become mere elements of federal government programs. The change in classification was done to allow federalization of marriage and family law. The purpose of federalization was to impliment a huge pork-barrel scheme. In other words, this all happened, and corrupt courts did what they needed to allow it, because of money.

[RogerFGay]

And yes - no big surprise that it happened in Massachusetts. Mitt Romney was one of the biggest porkers around. I cringed every time one of his supporters characterized him as a fiscal conservative who was good with economics. He was sucking down as much federal pork as he could by any means necessary, without regard to its greater effects. How was that experience supposed to translate into a good president?

[manc]

the courts PLEASE

liberal activist judges

not a civil right and if it was then so would having 4 wives like muslims wants

[manc]

from the last post as I had cut it short

you know the amount of times I have heard homosexual activitists going on that it is their civil right .

Well it is 2008

so what I don’t care if it is 2109 the year doesn’t make it right and every argument they use can be used for other kinds of marriage

to me and I am not sure where you stand but a line needs to be drawn ion the sand about marriage

it is either a man and a woman BETWEEN that is or if you allow homosexual marraige then you allow all kinds of marriage as every argument legally and technically can be used

I will say this
have you noticed that it is the honosexual folk who do not want muslims to have 4 wives, it is the homosexuals who do not want a man to have more than one wife and it is the homosexual who does not want a person marrying an animal(yes it does happen)

homosexuals care nto for the law nor the civil rights they care about tryibng to make it normal what they are doing.
by TV by radio by magazines in your face they use all outlets to try and brainwash us and our children

They truely believe that if they keep making us see it we will just get used to iot

NEVER for me or my kids

[RogerFGay]

I'm not sure if you read my last posts or not. I've written with specific mention of the "activist judges" excuse in this, among other articles. The key issue here - and this is practice not just philosophical - is federal intrusion, initiated by Congress and implemented in the states in the form of federally funded, federally regulated programs. When courts redefined marriage, it was in response to and for the preservation of what Congress did, and to preserve the pork-barrel funding states were receiving from federal programs.

If "liberal" means Democrat to you, and "conservative" means Republican appointees, it isn't a solution. The problem was created with very heavy bipartisan support. Loyalist Republican judges could have brought the Constitution into play to stop it any time over the past 18 years and they haven't.

[manc]

no I agree with you, maybe it was the way I worded it

sometimes SARC doesn’t come off to much on the web

[RogerFGay]

Yep. I’ve been writing articles for years. You have to be very careful with sarcasm. The trick is to make it much more obvious than you think it needs to be - i.e. subtly but surely explaining it. You have to keep in mind that you’re writing with the advantage of knowing what’s in your mind. Readers must interpret without that information.

[manc]

could you send me the stories when you write them or do a ping please

thanks