Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Jul 2004 16:08:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1236 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Good sense has
prevailed, for now.
What intrigues me is that the rush to amend the Constitution in order to
restrict freedom is expressly contrary to the supposed philosophy of
true Conservatives, yet so-called Conservatives worked the hardest to
enact this change. Interesting.
|
The proof will be in the pudding. If the Lefties try and challenge
the DOMA under the 14th Amendment,
then their agenda will be clear, and only a new amendment to the
Constitution will protect States’ rights for self-determination.
|
But that’s a very different issue from Santorum’s holier-than-thou
prohibition amendment. The amendment, as proposed, would have stripped
individual states of their right to define marriage. If the amendment had
forbidden the Federal government from creating a nationwide definition of
marriage, then it would have been on much stronger footing, historically
speaking.
|
But don’t you see that that is the crux of the matter. The Left has forced
the issue-- now the only solution is an “all or nothing” one. The activists
couldn’t just leave well enough alone.
| |
| |
The real perversion is the attempts by the Left to redefine marriage.
|
Actually, the real perversion is the attempt by the Right to redefine
Campaign 2004 as a crusade for the soul of America.
|
Really now. You know that’s not what it’s about. But I do think it is about
protecting the future of America as we know it.
| |
If we’re really interested in protecting marriage by Constitutional
amendment, then why was no mention made of the penalties for heterosexual
infidelity or spousal abuse?
|
Irrelevant.
| |
Don’t these present a much greater danger to
Our Oldest Institution than homosexuals?
|
Of course not. These have always existed. They are not even in the same
ballpark as a destructive result of a total redefinition.
| |
And it’s not an “apples and
oranges” issue; either we intend the amendment to protect marriage, or we do
not.
|
Protect the definition of marriage, not the quality of the institution.
Let me ask you, Dave! If you are against defining marriage as the union of 1
man and 1 woman, how would you specifically define it?
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
