Posted on 09/13/2011 6:45:21 PM PDT by fwdude
Edited on 09/13/2011 7:19:21 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
we get the question :-)
True. But the pervert contingent is trying to invoke the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. DOMA properly stopped this from happening, which is why that is the supreme target of their attacks. Thank God that Congress still had the moral fortitude to take up the legal defense of DOMA when Barry abandoned it. DOMA bolsters states rights.
“The people of this state, not judges, bureaucrats, or politicians, should define marriage, which I personally believe should be between one man and one woman,” said Daniel.”
Meh. I’ll take my Church’s definition of the institution, thanks. It’s never going to change. The definition of marriage isn’t dependant upon what the majority say it is or isn’t. Not that I wouldn’t vote again for a pro-marriage amendment in my state, I just know that if you live by the sword, you have to realize you might perish by the sword one day.
The general trend for the “people’s definition” of the institution hasn’t been too rosey in the last 40 years. It’s just changing slower than the statist and homosexualist take on marriage(thank God). I wouldn’t trust the people to define marriage now, much less another 40 years from now.
Freegards
Exactly. I would like one of these folks who say they’re “economically conservative but socially liberal” in theory to point to an example where that has ever actually worked in practice.
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.