Subject:
|
Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:25:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
161 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
As George Bush tries to make gay marriage a key election issue,
|
Please, let’s be honest. WHO is making gay marriage an election issue?
Who is driving this issue and pushing it to confrontation?
|
Well, honestly, Dubya made it an election issue when he put it in his SOTU
address. Watching the speech, it was fairly obvious that the matter would
become a proverbial litmus test as the campaigns moved forward. As usual,
Dubya can maintain his morally questionable (but not technically false)
deniability, since he can claim that he never pushed it as an election topic.
|
I quoted the salient text of the SOTU below:
“A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we
should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most
fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already
taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in
1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a
union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine
marriage for other states.”
(where was the Left’s outrage when Clinton signed that law?)
“Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order,
without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On
an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges
insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative
left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend
the sanctity of marriage.”
Bush wouldn’t have even broached the topic were it not for the actions of
certain judges.
| |
It’s interesting that Dubya, with his famous fear of nuanced thinking,
condemns John Kerry for allegedly waffling on issues. Kerry’s career has
spanned two decades, and any reasonable person would accept that, given
changing circumstances over time, a legislator’s opinions would evolve.
|
Perhaps, but we shall see if the opinions are still subject to change within
the span of now until November;-)
| |
Why,
Dubya himself has waffled on the issue of nation building, as well as the
issue of gay marriage, the latter of which he declared to be a matter for
states to decide. Now he declares it to be the purview of the Federal
government, while he simultaneously engages in the building (through
Halliburton) of at least two nations.
|
It should be a state issue in theory, but it can’t be a state issue in practice
because of Article IV of the Constitution. Too many states won’t tolerate the
recognition of any other union besides 1 man and 1 woman as they would be forced
to do. The issue has been forced to a head by activist judiciaries and the only
solution is an Amendment to the Constitution. What other recourse do you see
for opponents of changing the definition of marriage?
As far as nation-building goes, it seems you should give Bush the same deference
you gave Kerry for his waffling. Honestly, how could we morally cut the (evil)
head off of 2 countries’ governments and not be involved in the rebuilding
process? To not would be stupid and render all previous efforts meaningless.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) And how did Bush become “president”? Was it by listening to the "will of the people"? John: face facts. Bush mixes religion and politics in a rather ugly way when it suits him; this is just another example of that. Iraq showed us all that Bush (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) If you'd known me back then, you'd have heard my outrage! That exact example is why certain Liberal pundits have identified Clinton as the greatest Republican President of the latter 20th century. (...) I submit that the DOMA is (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) Well, honestly, Dubya made it an election issue when he put it in his SOTU address. Watching the speech, it was fairly obvious that the matter would become a proverbial litmus test as the campaigns moved forward. As usual, Dubya can maintain (...) (20 years ago, 8-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
