Subject:
|
Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Mar 2004 21:47:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
240 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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.
|
Fair enough.
| |
| |
“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.
|
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.
| |
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?
|
Good question. I think he believed that judges would actually uphold the law
of the land rather than capriciously ignoring it. Federal action is the only
check available in our system of checks and balances to combant this type of
unprecedented action.
| |
| |
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.
|
Why? I thought you preferred that the government simply not recognize any
marriages at all?
| |
However, if they seek to deny
marital rights by altering the Constitution, then I oppose them absolutely.
|
No one is denying any rights to anyone. Everyone is free to marry 1 member of
the opposite sex. If you expand the numbers or the gender, you have changed the
very essence of what marriage is by definition. And even if you do that,
by what logic do you prevent 2 brothers from marrying, or 2 sisters, or 2 guys
and 3 gals. I don’t think you can.
| |
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...
|
True, but legislation through judical fiat is rather a new twist...
| |
| |
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.
|
Okay, people change their views; I just think Bush will have an easier time
defending his than Kerry will.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) I'm a little lost on the pronouns here--does "they" refer to the people getting married and/or the people performing/solemnizing those marriages? My understanding is that the DOMA frees states from the obligation to recognize same-sex (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 9-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
|
|
|
|
