I know this will take a lot of slack from y'all but here goes. I think that gays should be allowed to have civil unions with no benefits from the government. We have chosen democracy as our form of government. To quiet the gays I believe that the government should take away the benefits associated with heterosexual marriage; tax breaks,etc. I am an advocate for states' rights and smaller federal government. I think we have already overstretched the government with all of the liberal Roosevelt and Johnson programs; social security, etc. It used to be that people understood that the government couldn't give benefits to everyone and, therefore, should not give benefits to anybody. Well, I just destroyed my future political career so I digress. I just don't think that the government should encourage any belief, lifestyle, etc, rather the government should focus on the security of the people. We should cancel these government benefits and pay the national debt with them. Then after the debt is paid, lower taxes, and only take in enough to continue to defend our country and its values.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Bush announces support of Marriage Amendment
- Thread starter Bro. James Reed
- Start date
Conservative Christian
New Member
"I know this will take a lot of slack from y'all but here goes. I think that gays should be allowed to have civil unions with no benefits from the government. We have chosen democracy as our form of government."
America was founded as a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
The WHOLE IDEA behind government recognition of gay civil unions, is to give them a legal device with which they can extort money and other benefits from taxpayers and employers!
If gays wish to cohabit, let them--but it's not the government's place to grant them legal recognition in any form, whether by civil marriage or civil unions.
America was founded as a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
The WHOLE IDEA behind government recognition of gay civil unions, is to give them a legal device with which they can extort money and other benefits from taxpayers and employers!
If gays wish to cohabit, let them--but it's not the government's place to grant them legal recognition in any form, whether by civil marriage or civil unions.
The Constitution Party is against the Federal Marriage Amendment.
They stand against the GOP on this issue. Here is what they say:
It was, "is family/morality law reserved for the states only, and
would amending our Federal Constitution with such family/morality
law, i.e., a federal marriage amendment, destroy the balance of
power between the states and the federal powers, and inevitably
place such family/morality law in grave jeopardy?"
As you know with panels, if everyone on the panel agrees with
any answer given by a panel member, the rest remain quiet.
If there is disagreement or clarification required, another panel
member may contribute to the answer.
Well, my friend, guess what? Howard Phillips, Chairman of
the Conservative Caucus, answered my question exactly as
I have on our Federal Marriage Amendment Alert Page!!!
Everyone on the panel, that's right, Chief Justice Roy Moore,
Ambassador Alan Keyes, and Founder of Institute on the
Constitution Michael Peroutka agreed!
So in short the CP considers it not the jurisdiction of the federal government. Someone posted on the BB that the GOP as early as 1856 was against polygamy, so it looks as if the GOP again is on the cutting edge of stopping judicial activism. The CP has been hijacked by the far-right and they have joined hands with the far-left. The Democrats are saying along with the CP that gay marriage is a states right issue.
www.nogaymarriage.com
They stand against the GOP on this issue. Here is what they say:
It was, "is family/morality law reserved for the states only, and
would amending our Federal Constitution with such family/morality
law, i.e., a federal marriage amendment, destroy the balance of
power between the states and the federal powers, and inevitably
place such family/morality law in grave jeopardy?"
As you know with panels, if everyone on the panel agrees with
any answer given by a panel member, the rest remain quiet.
If there is disagreement or clarification required, another panel
member may contribute to the answer.
Well, my friend, guess what? Howard Phillips, Chairman of
the Conservative Caucus, answered my question exactly as
I have on our Federal Marriage Amendment Alert Page!!!
Everyone on the panel, that's right, Chief Justice Roy Moore,
Ambassador Alan Keyes, and Founder of Institute on the
Constitution Michael Peroutka agreed!
So in short the CP considers it not the jurisdiction of the federal government. Someone posted on the BB that the GOP as early as 1856 was against polygamy, so it looks as if the GOP again is on the cutting edge of stopping judicial activism. The CP has been hijacked by the far-right and they have joined hands with the far-left. The Democrats are saying along with the CP that gay marriage is a states right issue.
www.nogaymarriage.com
Conservative Christian
New Member
Please show me exactly where in the Constitution there is an amendment opposing polygamy, and please provide documentation proving that it was proposed and passed due to the efforts of the Republican party.
As for the Republicans allegedly opposing judicial activism, your blatant falsehood is purely ignorant:
Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues & Strategy Bulletin of November 15, 1999
ONLY ONE OF 200 CLINTON JUDGES REJECTED BY GOP SENATE UNDER LOTT
"Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), a guest on Fox News Sunday (11/7/99), had this to say about Senate confirmation of President Clinton's appointees to the Federal judiciary:
"[T]his Congress has approved something like 300 judges -- well, since Clinton has been in office -- 300 federal judges....Two hundred, 200 have been since we've been in the majority. ...And we've only rejected one federal judge since I have been majority leader.""
http://www.conservativeusa.org/GOPLeaders.htm
KenH
Well-Known Member
Do you have a link to this? I couldn't make out what you were trying to say/quote.
From the Constitution Party platform( www.constitutionparty.org/party_platform.php#Family ):
Family
The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family. We affirm, therefore, that no government may authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. Parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. Assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency usurps the role of the parents.
The Galatian
Active Member
What Mr. Lott isn't saying, of course, is that a slew of them were simply bottled up in committee, and never got to a vote. The democrats as well as the republicans play that game.
As long as we have politicians who lie to us by peddling only part of the truth, it's not going to get better. We need to toss them out and let new ones know we won't reward them for lying to us, as we have in the past.
Conservative Christian
New Member
You're wrong. He specifically used the word APPROVED. The Republicans APPROVED 200 liberal democrat Clinton judges.
Please stop trying to twist his words to suit your own personal bias.
The Constitution Party is against the Federal Marriage Amendment. From what the members of that political party have posted on this board, it is clear that they do not support the Federal Marriage Amendment. They have called the Federal Marriage Amendment a "trojan horse." They have sided in effect with John Kerry who says that it is a states rights issue.
www.nogaymarriage.com
www.nogaymarriage.com
Glad to hear that you are a supporter of the FMA, Ken! That makes you different from the position stated by the Kelly McGinley (sp?) column, which said that the CP considered the FMA a trojan horse and which said that Howard Phillips, Judge Moore, Alan Keyes, and Michael Peroutka were against the FMA.
If you want to sign the petition, visit
www.nogaymarriage.com
If you want to sign the petition, visit
www.nogaymarriage.com
This coming from Galatian is hilarious ...
Conservative Christian
New Member
Constitutional Trojan Horse
by George Detweiler
"Seemingly innocuous constitutional amendments — designed to appeal to good, patriotic Americans — contain hidden dangers that would greatly harm our republic.
The familiar story of the Trojan horse offers an apt metaphor for ongoing efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution. Virgil’s Aeneid relates how the Greeks used the gift of a giant horse to gain access to the fortified city of Troy and conquer it from within. Similar use is being made of seemingly innocuous proposals to amend the Constitution. Most of the proposed amendments address hot-button issues, such as term limits, flag burning, and traditional marriage. Although welcomed by well-intentioned Americans, those "gifts" could conceal a stealthy effort to destroy the Constitution from within, via a second constitutional convention.
Two proposed amendments presently before Congress illustrate this duplicitous strategy at work. On the Senate side, S. J. Res. 35, the "Crime Victims’ Rights Amendment," plays to public outrage over violent crime. On the House side, H. J. Res. 93 purports to protect American family values by amending the Constitution to limit the term "marriage" to the traditional man/woman relationship. Both have considerable popular appeal — but both are "gift horses" that should be rejected."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/07-29-2002/vo18no15_constitution.htm
by George Detweiler
"Seemingly innocuous constitutional amendments — designed to appeal to good, patriotic Americans — contain hidden dangers that would greatly harm our republic.
The familiar story of the Trojan horse offers an apt metaphor for ongoing efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution. Virgil’s Aeneid relates how the Greeks used the gift of a giant horse to gain access to the fortified city of Troy and conquer it from within. Similar use is being made of seemingly innocuous proposals to amend the Constitution. Most of the proposed amendments address hot-button issues, such as term limits, flag burning, and traditional marriage. Although welcomed by well-intentioned Americans, those "gifts" could conceal a stealthy effort to destroy the Constitution from within, via a second constitutional convention.
Two proposed amendments presently before Congress illustrate this duplicitous strategy at work. On the Senate side, S. J. Res. 35, the "Crime Victims’ Rights Amendment," plays to public outrage over violent crime. On the House side, H. J. Res. 93 purports to protect American family values by amending the Constitution to limit the term "marriage" to the traditional man/woman relationship. Both have considerable popular appeal — but both are "gift horses" that should be rejected."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/07-29-2002/vo18no15_constitution.htm
KenH
Well-Known Member
From the article: "But efforts to curb judicial abuses need not court such dangers. The proper remedy to judicial usurpation is to employ a little-known power contained in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which allows Congress to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This power applies, by extension, to all federal courts, since the Supreme Court is the only federal court established by the Constitution and Congress established all other federal courts. This power could be used to prevent the federal courts from hearing cases from abortion to the Pledge of Allegiance. If this were done, myriad pretexts for endlessly tampering with the Constitution would be lost."
I agree. But every time I bring up that idea, liberals pooh-pooh the idea that the Supreme Court could be hemmed in like that. What would happen if the Congress passed such a law and the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress couldn't do that?
I agree. But every time I bring up that idea, liberals pooh-pooh the idea that the Supreme Court could be hemmed in like that. What would happen if the Congress passed such a law and the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress couldn't do that?
Conservative Christian
New Member
The Federalization of Morality Law
Erich G. Lukas, Director of InfoQuest* for Truth Ministry
"The removal of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore by a federal court is just one example of a judicial trend that has been going on in our country over the past few decades; the federalization of morality law.
Morality law, like capital punishment, is reserved for state legislatures and courts.
When our Federal Congress allowed our Federal Supreme Court to hear a state abortion case, what happened? Every pro-life state in our Republic was forced to become pro-abortion, all at once, with one flick of the switch!
When our Federal Congress allowed our Federal Supreme Court to hear a state case on prayer in government schools, what happened? Every pro-prayer state in our Republic was forced to become anti-prayer, all at once,
with one flick of the switch!
When our Federal Congress allowed our Federal Supreme Court to hear a state case on sodomy, what happened? Our Federal Supreme Court sodomized every anti-sodomy state in our Republic, all at once, with one flick of the switch.
Now some members in our Federal Congress are pushing for a federal marriage law amendment to the Constitution. Beware, my friends, because such a switch can and will be pushed both ways if we allow it to fall under federal jurisdiction!"
http://fp.users.fast.net/InfoQuest/Federal_Marriage_Amendment.htm
Erich G. Lukas, Director of InfoQuest* for Truth Ministry
"The removal of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore by a federal court is just one example of a judicial trend that has been going on in our country over the past few decades; the federalization of morality law.
Morality law, like capital punishment, is reserved for state legislatures and courts.
When our Federal Congress allowed our Federal Supreme Court to hear a state abortion case, what happened? Every pro-life state in our Republic was forced to become pro-abortion, all at once, with one flick of the switch!
When our Federal Congress allowed our Federal Supreme Court to hear a state case on prayer in government schools, what happened? Every pro-prayer state in our Republic was forced to become anti-prayer, all at once,
with one flick of the switch!
When our Federal Congress allowed our Federal Supreme Court to hear a state case on sodomy, what happened? Our Federal Supreme Court sodomized every anti-sodomy state in our Republic, all at once, with one flick of the switch.
Now some members in our Federal Congress are pushing for a federal marriage law amendment to the Constitution. Beware, my friends, because such a switch can and will be pushed both ways if we allow it to fall under federal jurisdiction!"
http://fp.users.fast.net/InfoQuest/Federal_Marriage_Amendment.htm
KenH,
I like your idea. Let's see what the judiciary does with the Constitution Restoration Act. That will tell us what we need to do next.
I would actually be in favor of an amendment which states that
In the event that any portion of the Judicial branch of the federal government shall restrict the powers of a state in a manner which is not clearly and unambiguously forbidden to the States by the actual text of the Constitution of the United States, and not merely by a judicial "interpretation" thereof, the Congress may by simple majority of each House with the assent of the President overrule the decision of the Supreme Court which restricts the powers of the State or of the Several States. The Supreme Court is reprimanded for its substantive due process decisions by the passage of this Amendment and is forcefully reminded of that it is not to legislate by means of interpreting the Constitution. Those powers not granted to the federal government herein and not restricted from the States, are reserved to the States or to the peoplel and not to the Courts.
Of course, that Amendment is a pipe dream.
I like your idea. Let's see what the judiciary does with the Constitution Restoration Act. That will tell us what we need to do next.
I would actually be in favor of an amendment which states that
In the event that any portion of the Judicial branch of the federal government shall restrict the powers of a state in a manner which is not clearly and unambiguously forbidden to the States by the actual text of the Constitution of the United States, and not merely by a judicial "interpretation" thereof, the Congress may by simple majority of each House with the assent of the President overrule the decision of the Supreme Court which restricts the powers of the State or of the Several States. The Supreme Court is reprimanded for its substantive due process decisions by the passage of this Amendment and is forcefully reminded of that it is not to legislate by means of interpreting the Constitution. Those powers not granted to the federal government herein and not restricted from the States, are reserved to the States or to the peoplel and not to the Courts.
Of course, that Amendment is a pipe dream.
My last post was somewhat off topic.
I wish a Constitutional amendment weren't necessary here. But I think it is. Because it's likely that the federal judiciary will rule that Full Faith and Credit requires recognition of "marriages" recognized by another sister state.
There is one chance that this won't happen: Usually, a state is not required to recognize an act of a sister state that is against the non-recognizing state's public policy.
I think a number of states will have their judiciaries rule that it is necessary to recognize the marriages of sister states even if Congress restricts the jurisdiction of the federal courts AND that restriction is recognized as valid. (And it may not be here where the jurisdiction is based on a textual Constitutional provision.)
I wish a Constitutional amendment weren't necessary here. But I think it is. Because it's likely that the federal judiciary will rule that Full Faith and Credit requires recognition of "marriages" recognized by another sister state.
There is one chance that this won't happen: Usually, a state is not required to recognize an act of a sister state that is against the non-recognizing state's public policy.
I think a number of states will have their judiciaries rule that it is necessary to recognize the marriages of sister states even if Congress restricts the jurisdiction of the federal courts AND that restriction is recognized as valid. (And it may not be here where the jurisdiction is based on a textual Constitutional provision.)
Pennsylvania Jim
New Member
Two points about the amendment issue:
1) Many of the people who are most strongly against sodomite "marriage" are also against amending the constitution to define marriage, for good reasons posted in the info and links above.
2) Conversely, many who are in favor of the amendment are soft on the issue itself, including the President. It's easy to say "I'm for the amendment", but let's see how hard they actually push to get it passed.
Pretty much the same crowd who claims to be against abortion but sit quietly by racking up a fat pension while 3500+ babies die per day. It makes a good fundraiser, though.
1) Many of the people who are most strongly against sodomite "marriage" are also against amending the constitution to define marriage, for good reasons posted in the info and links above.
2) Conversely, many who are in favor of the amendment are soft on the issue itself, including the President. It's easy to say "I'm for the amendment", but let's see how hard they actually push to get it passed.
Pretty much the same crowd who claims to be against abortion but sit quietly by racking up a fat pension while 3500+ babies die per day. It makes a good fundraiser, though.
How's this for the marriage amendment:
I'm not for it or against it until I see what it says. If it in any way entangles federal courts or federal law into issues surrounding marriage beyond merely saying that it's between a "man" and a "woman," then I'm probably against it. If it can even be interpreted by the sorry Supreme Court to enable the Supreme Court to legislate on the topic of marriage, then I am probably against it.
I don't think Congress has hashed out the wording yet. So I'll just say that I support an Amendment in principle.
I don't think anything short of a Constitutional Amendment will undo the actions of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Unless, of course, the Massachusetts legislature decides that there shall be no marriages in Massachusetts but that Mass. will still have family law for those married. And will recognize marriages of its sister states. And then perhaps have a neighboring state conduct marriage ceremonies for indigents on its border.
I wonder how the Mass. Supreme Court would respond to that. It wouldn't be a denial of Equal Protection to gays, would it? No Massachusetts marriages for anyone. And it's not Massachussetts' fault that its sister states don't marry homos.
I'm not for it or against it until I see what it says. If it in any way entangles federal courts or federal law into issues surrounding marriage beyond merely saying that it's between a "man" and a "woman," then I'm probably against it. If it can even be interpreted by the sorry Supreme Court to enable the Supreme Court to legislate on the topic of marriage, then I am probably against it.
I don't think Congress has hashed out the wording yet. So I'll just say that I support an Amendment in principle.
I don't think anything short of a Constitutional Amendment will undo the actions of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Unless, of course, the Massachusetts legislature decides that there shall be no marriages in Massachusetts but that Mass. will still have family law for those married. And will recognize marriages of its sister states. And then perhaps have a neighboring state conduct marriage ceremonies for indigents on its border.
I wonder how the Mass. Supreme Court would respond to that. It wouldn't be a denial of Equal Protection to gays, would it? No Massachusetts marriages for anyone. And it's not Massachussetts' fault that its sister states don't marry homos.
Wow thanks for this thread. I have long held political beliefs that follow the CP platform. While I will not jeopardize my vote by voting for the CP candidate in this year's presidential election, I am thankful for y'all getting me interested enough in the CP to look up their platform. It's just not worth voting for a man that won't win and getting Kerry in the White House. Bush can beat Kerry, but I don't think that Petroutka can. I will support the CP as much as possible though, without contributing to the liberalization of the government.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Considering the fact that Mr. Bush beat a Southerner, Mr. Gore, by 220,000 votes in 2000, I seriously doubt that your vote is going to make a meaningful difference in Mr. Bush beating a Massachusetts liberal in 2004.
Your vote would mean more if you and about 20,000 of those excess of 220,000 voters vote for Mr. Peroutka this year, and Mr. Bush won South Carolina by only 200,000 votes this time.
