Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DOMA is an abuse of federalism (George Will tastes the rainbow)
The Washington Post ^ | March 20, 2013 | George F. Will

Posted on 03/21/2013 4:02:21 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

“[U]nder the Constitution, the regulation and control of marital and family relationships are reserved to the States.”

— U.S. Supreme Court,

Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948)

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is an exception to the rule that a law’s title is as uninformative about the law’s purpose as the titles of Marx Brothers movies (“Duck Soup,” “Horse Feathers,” “Animal Crackers”) are about those movies’ contents. DOMA’s purpose is precisely what its title says. Which is why many conservatives and liberals should be uneasy Wednesday when the Supreme Court hears arguments about its constitutionality.

Conservatives who supported DOMA should, after 17years’ reflection, want the act overturned because its purpose is constitutionally improper. Liberals who want the act struck down should be discomfited by the reason the court should give when doing this.

DOMA, which in 1996 passed the House 342 to 67 and the Senate 85 to 14, defines marriage for the purpose of federal law as a legal union between one man and one woman. Because approximately 1,100 federal laws pertain to marriage, DOMA’s defenders argue that Congress merely exercised its power to define a term used in many statutes. But before 1996, federal statutes functioned without this definition......

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: doma; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; lavendermafia; samesexmarriage; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

1 posted on 03/21/2013 4:02:21 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

How could marriage not be a Federal issue if each state is forced to recognize marriages from other states?


2 posted on 03/21/2013 4:03:36 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Exactly!


3 posted on 03/21/2013 4:05:56 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
“[U]nder the Constitution, the regulation and control of marital and family relationships are reserved to the States.”

Even though SCOTUS said this, I'm going to disagree. Article 1, Section 8 specifically authorized Congress to set standards for 'weights and measures'. 'Measures' has always been recognized to include legal definitions to ensure consistent application. As long as marriage is a legally recognized contract, defining it falls under that.

4 posted on 03/21/2013 4:06:58 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

I thought George was smarter than that.


5 posted on 03/21/2013 4:07:10 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

There is only one way to deal with this and that is to remove Government from the situation entirely. It’s none of their business how consenting adults chose to order their lives. There’s no good reason for it in the tax code or anywhere else for that matter.

Marriage should be between the participants and the church of their choice. Anything else can be handled by contract lawyers.


6 posted on 03/21/2013 4:08:24 PM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

He likes those East Coast and California cocktail parties.


7 posted on 03/21/2013 4:10:23 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
George Will tastes the rainbow

I think he's been tasting a lot more than that for a long time.

8 posted on 03/21/2013 4:11:17 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Hey RATS! Control your murdering freaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

Never trust a man who wears a bow tie.


9 posted on 03/21/2013 4:11:45 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
How could marriage not be a Federal issue if each state is forced to recognize marriages from other states?

They aren't. A same-sex couple married in Massachusetts can't move to Nebraska and file a joint return. And I'd prefer that the feds stay out of it. While now DOMA says that marriage is between a man and a woman it only takes a bad election or two before Congress might decide a marriage is also between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Should that happen, I don't want them to force my state to recognize it. If Massachusetts wants to recognize same-sex marriage then let them. We don't, and aren't about to. I won't tell them what to do and they don't tell us what to do.

10 posted on 03/21/2013 4:19:08 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Federal DOMA was even considered because every time the state would pass their own DOMA, the courts would knock it down. Abnormal has become normal.


11 posted on 03/21/2013 4:20:10 PM PDT by pacpam (action=consequence and applies in all cases - friend of victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Shep Smith was just ecstatic to announce the study that gay parents are just as good as straight parents. In a normal world, nobody would believe such BS, but this isn’t a normal world. F*ck Colorado, and all proponents of this.


12 posted on 03/21/2013 4:20:47 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Which article and section of the Constitution do you think gives the feds that right?


13 posted on 03/21/2013 4:24:14 PM PDT by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
George is 1....either GAY himself OR 2....has a GAY CHILD...PERIOD. NO other reason to accept GAY MARRIAGE!!! It's an OXYMORON!!

WHo the HELL watches that queer Shep Smith??? He does so much EDITORIALIZING I can;t stand it.

14 posted on 03/21/2013 4:25:43 PM PDT by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gorush

Why do you think getting government out of marriage would be an improvement?


15 posted on 03/21/2013 4:26:11 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If the federal government supposedly “gets out of the marriage business,” there will still be endless contracts and legalities, and the government will then be equating homo couplings with real marriages as the same thing. Such a government that embraces this degeneracy is a government I wouldn’t lift a finger to save. I voted in my state for an amendment to the constitution that a marriage is one man and one woman, and it passed resoundingly. If these scumbags try to override my vote and my state’s constitution, I’d happily see them and the country burn to the ground first.


16 posted on 03/21/2013 4:34:34 PM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greene66

It would be a lawyer’s dream come true, that’s for sure.


17 posted on 03/21/2013 4:35:10 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Why do you assume that is what I think? The Constitution is, indeed, meaningless these days and I feel the fact that it is is responsible for many of our country’s woes. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, The Dept. of Education, The EPA, DHS...are all unconstitutional...why not one more unconstitutional law/mandate/department? That should fix everything, right? No, we have lost our country and the culture that once represented it. I’m in favor of fighting to reinstate the original intent of the constitution, not further deconstruction in the futile hope of somehow changing our depraved culture. I, personally, have no hope that the zeitgeist can be redirected but fighting for more unconstitutional bandaids would be hypocritical for someone who holds my opinion. You are, of course, welcome to yours.


18 posted on 03/21/2013 4:39:44 PM PDT by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Marriage should be between the participants and the church of their choice. Anything else can be handled by contract lawyers.

Nice in theory, but it would turn the simple question "Is Bob married" into a complicated examination of the contracts to which Bob was subject, and could easily lead to a situation in which some people would regard Bob as married while other people did not. A total mess. To be sure, such situations can also arise in states with Common Law marriage, but having everyone draft up their own "marriage contracts" would make things even worse.

19 posted on 03/21/2013 4:40:42 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: supercat

A contract is a contract. It wouldn’t matter what other people “saw”. If they want to sue each other over it, that’s fine with me. Stupid people should be separated from their money, even if that means getting lawyers involved.


20 posted on 03/21/2013 4:46:59 PM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

“It would be a lawyer’s dream come true, that’s for sure.”

But at the state level where “social” law belongs. The activist organizations will have to spend time and resources to fight their agenda in 50 separate states instead of going for one knockout win at the federal level as they succeeded in doing with abortions and are trying to do with firearms. It is much tougher to win 50 battles than to win one.


21 posted on 03/21/2013 4:48:54 PM PDT by Soul of the South (Yesterday is gone. Today will be what we make of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

“Never trust a man who wears a bow tie.”

Good point. I was trying to figure out which side of the plate the president of JC Penny bats on, but Wikipedia had NOTHING on him. He’s 54 years old - he’s obviously chosen a side...and given his use of Ellen, I think my question is answered.


22 posted on 03/21/2013 4:51:36 PM PDT by BobL (Look up "CSCOPE" if you want to see something really scary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Why do you think getting government out of marriage would be an improvement?

Oh, for Pete's sake, you've got the question backwards.

Why do you think getting the government involved in marriage would be an improvement. Do we really need governmet to regulate our private lives?

23 posted on 03/21/2013 4:51:43 PM PDT by BfloGuy (The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment. -Ludwig von Mises)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

Since I, as the vast majority of the population do, believe that marriage and family is the cornerstone of a well-functioning society, I believe that it is one of the legitimate areas for some kind of government regulation.

There is nothing to stop people from having whatever kind of living arrangements they want.....just don’t have the government sanction it as being on equal terms with a marriage between a man and a woman.


24 posted on 03/21/2013 4:55:20 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
Should that happen, I don't want them to force my state to recognize it.

If I were the Great High Lord Poo-Pah In Charge Of Everything (but still bound by the Constitution), I would have Congress write and pass a law like the following:

  1. USC 4.1 requires that states shall give full faith and credit to public acts performed in other states, but allows Congress to legislate the means by which such acts shall be proven, and the effect thereof.
  2. Accordingly, any state may be compel another state to recognize a marriage among two or more persons performed within it, if the Secretary of State of the state where the marriage was performed appears in person at the office of Secretary of State to be compelled and hands over a 12oz bar of 99.9% pure gold with the names of the married persons engraved thereon along.
  3. A state which is thereby compelled to recognize a marriage performed in another shall be required to, if presented with a sheet of paper containing the names of the people in question, and upon payment of a fee determined by that state, not to exceed $500, affirm such recognition by marking the paper in ink with the word "whatever" and returning the paper to the presenter.
  4. States are required to retain the record of another state's marriage for a minimum of 24 hours. At the end of that time, the gold bar that was presented to certify that marriage will be the property of the state that received it, to do with as it sees fit.
  5. Nothing herein shall restrict the authority of states to accept other forms of proof of marriages performed in other states, nor to recognize them in other ways, should they see fit to do so.
Such a law would be a very clear exercise of a power which Congress is explicitly given in USC 4.1; I doubt that any state would ever bother proving a marriage performed therein using the procedure described in the legislation, but if a state chose to do so I wouldn't think it would pose any particular problem.
25 posted on 03/21/2013 5:01:19 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
A contract is a contract. It wouldn’t matter what other people “saw”.

Many car rental companies as a matter of policy will allow a renter's spouse to drive a rented car without having to pay an "additional driver" fee. If there isn't a standard definition of "marriage", how should the company determine whether or not two people who wish to rent a car should have to pay the extra fee? The question "Are these people married" should be a simple one, but if every "marriage" contract is different how should the company determine whether two people are actually married or just drew up a sham contract to save a few dollars on their car rental?

26 posted on 03/21/2013 5:08:48 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

You have things exactly backwards.

DOMA is the only thing preventing your state from being forced to recognize those marriages,

The courts would make your state recognize those ‘marriages’ just as now it forces it to honor child custody and support agreements for those ‘marriages’.


27 posted on 03/21/2013 5:09:51 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Since I, as the vast majority of the population do, believe that marriage and family is the cornerstone of a well-functioning society, I believe that it is one of the legitimate areas for some kind of government regulation.

That has nothing to do with the Constitution at all. The Constitution does not carve out favors for majorities. The fact that you and your "vast majority of the population" favor something, means nothing.

BTW, I also believe that marriage and family are the cornerstones of a well-functioning society. But that doesn't change a thing about what I wrote.

You do understand that point, don't you? What we want is not necessarily "constitutional". It's important to acknowledge that.

28 posted on 03/21/2013 5:13:11 PM PDT by BfloGuy (The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment. -Ludwig von Mises)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

George F. Will: Closet Confederate?


29 posted on 03/21/2013 5:18:27 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
All three sections of DOMA are necessary; well thought out by a then saner Congress than we've had in several election cycles. Each one preserves states' rights to define natural marriage as the only reality in their jurisdiction.

Without the passage of DOMA, we would likely have had nationwide recognition of same-sex "marriage" force on every state 6 years ago.

The federal recognition clause is essential because it prevents fake "marriage" from being exportable to every other state.

The only thing lacking was a clause to preclude any marriage-like combination as well. Wise state governments foresaw this threat and did the right thing by also preventing "marriage-lite."

30 posted on 03/21/2013 5:19:27 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

if doma is, so is roe v. wade.


31 posted on 03/21/2013 5:56:12 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

same as driver licenses. fedgov doesn’t set standards. may ask for certain things but states determine state id information.


32 posted on 03/21/2013 5:59:13 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: supercat

Dude, it’s a contract. Read it before you sign it. If you don’t like it or don’t understand it, don’t sign it. It’s really not that complicated.


33 posted on 03/21/2013 6:14:16 PM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: supercat
If I were the Great High Lord Poo-Pah In Charge Of Everything...

Well...


Genesis 13:13
Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.

Genesis 18:20-21
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and
their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Genesis 19:4-7
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men
from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them
."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.

Psalms 12:8 The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.

Doonesbury Cartoon for Feb/08/2013

Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.

2 Peter 2:13b Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.


Ezekiel 16:49-50
49. "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.



2 Peter 2

1. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
5. if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6. if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7. and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8. (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)--
9. if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
10. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;
11. yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
12. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done.
Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.



But there IS hope!!!

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape...
 

 
 
 
 

34 posted on 03/21/2013 6:19:48 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Agreed and seconded. The government getting involved with it only gives it more power, and makes it larger.


35 posted on 03/21/2013 6:41:16 PM PDT by wastedyears (I'm a gamer not because I choose to have no life, but because I choose to have many.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
"While now DOMA says that marriage is between a man and a woman it only takes a bad election or two before Congress might decide a marriage is also between a man and a man or a woman and a woman."

Oh how I wish people would understand that statism is a two edged sword and it's more likely to cut in the wrong direction if it's at the federal level!

36 posted on 03/21/2013 6:49:31 PM PDT by uncommonsense (Conservatives believe what they see; Liberals see what they believe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; wolfman23601; ColdOne; navymom1; Pat4ever; RIghtwardHo; Reaganite Republican; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

37 posted on 03/21/2013 6:53:27 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
If Massachusetts wants to recognize same-sex marriage then let them.

We DON'T want it here! We were NEVER allowed to vote on it!

38 posted on 03/21/2013 6:55:39 PM PDT by massmike (At least no one is wearing a "Ron Paul - 2016" tee shirt........yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

You are wrong. Can I marry a woman in California and then marry a woman in Georgia? No, I would be committing a crime. All 50 states recognize marriage from other states with regard to bigamy. I can only be married to one person at a time in the U.S. It’s not a state issue.


39 posted on 03/21/2013 7:00:09 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: supercat
"If there isn't a standard definition of "marriage", how should the company determine whether or not two people who wish to rent a car should have to pay the extra fee? "

There isn't a current standard between the states. Some recognize SSM, some have laws against.

Usually contracts stipulate the state who's laws apply (usually the state of incorporation or primary headquarters).

40 posted on 03/21/2013 7:03:05 PM PDT by uncommonsense (Conservatives believe what they see; Liberals see what they believe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

You and the supporters have it backwards.

Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion. . .

Marriage is an establishment of religion.

Government cannot protect or attack marriage. It is an institution of the church. Judges affirming a new definition of marriage or legislative votes all violate the civil rights found in the first amendment.

This is the intrusion. Will is probably right about DOMA but that is also why all of the government changes to marriage definitions are unconstitutional as well.

Separation of church and state NEVER protects the church. It apparently always protects the State and its ideological preferences.


41 posted on 03/21/2013 8:17:56 PM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

(George Will tastes the rainbow)

George Will licks the log.


42 posted on 03/21/2013 8:41:59 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Good point.


43 posted on 03/21/2013 9:02:07 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

It puts the lotion on its rear end!


44 posted on 03/21/2013 9:03:48 PM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Bigamy is not a Federal crime. It’s a State one.


45 posted on 03/21/2013 9:11:24 PM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

“How could marriage not be a Federal issue if each state is forced to recognize marriages from other states?”

Its quite simple, what Massachusetts is licencing is not marriage no matter what label Massachusetts wants to slap on it.

Texas has no equivalent licence to extend. Of course if Texas did that licence too would not signify or enable marriage.

A marriage is and can only ever be a union between 1 man and 1 woman. Never let anyone pass marriage off as anything else in front of you. Let them call you a “bigot” or what ever other contrived term the left wants to come up with, You have thousands of years of western history and Biological proof to back you up.

If you want to call theses left-tards something call them sheep who blindly follow what other tell them with nether reason nor tredtition to justify their acts.


46 posted on 03/22/2013 1:26:34 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
You and the supporters have it backwards.

Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion. . .

Marriage is an establishment of religion.

But I agree with you. Government should get out of the marriage business. Probably my crappy writing that led you astray.

47 posted on 03/22/2013 3:38:09 PM PDT by BfloGuy (The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment. -Ludwig von Mises)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
Bump! Nice argument.

Still think DOMA needs to be raised to an amendment, though, otherwise the Enemy will succeed, with pervs already on the Court and ready to drop the gavel on the 97% heterosexual majority.

48 posted on 03/22/2013 3:45:16 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

I think we agree but I could not tell completely.

This would also mean that the government cannot rewrite the definition.

This is an establishment of religion, It means what religion says it means.

Non religious may face some sort of paradox here but they should construct their own group sense of partnering.


49 posted on 03/22/2013 3:52:56 PM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
[Article] This subject is a state responsibility, a tradition established and validated by what can be called constitutional silence ...

Balzac, George. The Constitution didn't mention thermonuclear weapons, either. Will you argue that constitutional silence, to remove those weapons to the States' armories?

How could marriage not be a Federal issue if each state is forced to recognize marriages from other states?

Which is precisely, Evan Wolfson of Lambda Legal said in 2001, the way the Movement pervs and their 600 gay lawyers intend to attack the institution of marriage before the Supreme Court.

The complaint will be, is, a claim of discrimination under the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV) by States that do not recognize perverted antimarriage as a "sacrament" equal to matrimony.

My homo-shackup is equal to your 75-year marriage .... which by the way is a nullity.

Gays are just attacking the obvious evidences of their own perversity, again, and trying to eliminate the moral observances of others from the known universe.

50 posted on 03/22/2013 3:55:53 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson