Subject:
|
Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Mar 2004 18:25:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
183 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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?)
|
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.
| |
“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.
|
I submit that the DOMA is unconstitutional as written, so it’s hardly “activist”
for a judge to rule against it. The question remains: why did Dubya identify
this as a state’s rights issue during his 2000 campaign, but now it’s a Federal
issue?
| |
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?
|
Well, if such opponents wish to change the sectarian definition of marriage,
then I support their efforts absolutely. However, if they seek to deny marital
rights by altering the Constitution, then I oppose them absolutely.
Regardless, the question isn’t about what recourse I can suggest; the question
is why did Dubya in 2000 think this was a states’ rights issue, but now he
thinks it’s a Federal issue? I mean, the 14th Amendment wasn’t ratified in the
interim...
| |
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?
|
I think I was imprecise in my wording. If Dubya wishes to criticize Kerry for
changing his viewpoint, then Dubya must justify his own changes in viewpoint,
or else he is guilty of hypocrisy (again). Alternatively, Dubya could explain
why Kerry was wrong to change his views in each and every case; thereby Dubya
could demonstrate that such changes of view were capricious or poorly-founded,
and that Kerry was therefore wrong to change his view.
So the issue isn’t whether or not Dubya is justified in rebuilding nations that
the US bombed into desolation; the issue is why Dubya feels that he is justified
in changing his view but no one else is equally justified.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) Fair enough. (...) Well, it is if the law hasn't even been contested before them yet! There is a process with which they apparently cannot be bothered. (...) Good question. I think he believed that judges would actually uphold the law of the (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
