Liberal

[saturneptune]

?

It seems to me that a true conservative constitutional constructionist would have to say that defining marriage is up to each state. It would require a liberal interpretation of the the constitution to say otherwise.

The point is that these labels are tossed about way too freely. Everyone is 'liberal' in some areas and 'conservative' in others.

True conservative constitutional constructionists would have to say that defining marriage is neither the realm of the state, federal, or local governments. Marriage is not a power or a governing issue, it is a sacred vow. A liberal would advocate government involvement. The level of government is immaterial.

The sacred vow is a three way contract, between the Lord, husband, and wife. There is no need for a fourth party to have a say, especially the quality of the federal and state governments today.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

True conservative constitutional constructionists would have to say that defining marriage is neither the realm of the state, federal, or local governments. Marriage is not a power or a governing issue, it is a sacred vow. A liberal would advocate government involvement. The level of government is immaterial.

The sacred vow is a three way contract, between the Lord, husband, and wife. There is no need for a fourth party to have a say, especially the quality of the federal and state governments today.

While I agree that the state/government has no place in marriage, that is not clear in the constitution. If a state wants to define marriage they have that constitutional right, whether I agree with them or not.

 

[saturneptune]

While I agree that the state/government has no place in marriage, that is not clear in the constitution. If a state wants to define marriage they have that constitutional right, whether I agree with them or not.

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

States defining marriage operate off of a negative. They do it because marriage is not defined. Notice is says reserved to the States or the people. Does it not seem odd that all 50 states presume the power to define marriage?

Marriage was instituted by the Lord as recorded in Genesis. It is clearly defined, and does not include same sex marriages. The Framers of the Constitution had sense enough to leave the issue alone. The Lord does not need help in giving the sacred instititution of marriage a helping hand. The fact that state governments have chosen to define marriage cheapens the institution itself.

When the Lord instituted marriage, it was an eternal standard. One man, one woman, for life. Really deep stuff there. The Bible is quite clear about marrying someone built like you, or exchanging vows with your cat. So, state governments, presume to pass laws that define marriage like the Bible, with one difference. God's standards are permanent and eternal. State government's standards are subject to change and in our case, seem to last a little over 200 years.

To agrue that states have the power to define marriage requires exercising an unmentioned power, AND denying that unmentioned power to the people. The 10th Amendment says states or people.

In the reality of the situation, one can certainly not argue against your position, as it is a physical fact that fifty laws defining marriage do exist. When mixed with the sacred, government is disguisting, so in reality, it makes no difference whether the state or federal government infects marriage.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

. When mixed with the sacred, government is disguisting, so in reality, it makes no difference whether the state or federal government infects marriage.

That's true, but that is not the discussion here - the topic here is defining liberals and my point is that it takes a liberal to want the federal government to define marriage. True political conservatives would want DOMA repealed, no matter what our personal views. Congress has no constitutional right to define marriage. Now that it has taken that right they can also redefine marriage.

 

[saturneptune]

That's true, but that is not the discussion here - the topic here is defining liberals and my point is that it takes a liberal to want the federal government to define marriage. True political conservatives would want DOMA repealed, no matter what our personal views. Congress has no constitutional right to define marriage. Now that it has taken that right they can also redefine marriage.

That is also true, but do not you agree that the term "liberal" basically means wanting a change from the status quo? I would think a liberal wanting change during Hitler's term in office would be different than the way we use the term "liberal," meaning a socialist agenda in simple terms. If we were using liberal by its correct meaning in today's American politics, wanting a change, Rand Paul would be considered a liberal.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

That is also true, but do not you agree that the term "liberal" basically means wanting a change from the status quo?

I consider a liberal (in the context of this discussion) to be one who holds to a loose and flexible interpretation of standards such as the Bible or the constitution. I don't agree that it simply means change.

 

[Streetsweeper]

This is perhaps a little off-topic to my OP but the answers may help me understand American perspectives a little better.

People on this forum are rightly proud of the US constitution but with that in mind some of the attitudes expressed seem a little odd.

1. If Americans hold such strong allegiance to the federal union through the constitution why is there so much reluctance to permit federal initiatives? Doesn't an enabled federal government serve to strengthen an unify the nation?

2. Where do Americans place their primary allegiance? Is it to the state or the nation? I assume national allegiance takes precedence, but comments about presidential and congressional infringements over state rights seem to suggest otherwise.

3. The US constitution does not pemit revision to the extent that content is discarded. It does permit modification through appended amendments which can render original content redundant even though that content remains part of the constitution. If I have this correct, then the constitution maintains it's own historical development within itself.

Several people have expressed concern, even using the 'L' word in connection with proponents of constitutional change, and yet perhaps the most conservative of all amendments (the 2nd) would not exist without the constitutional provision for change.

What is meant when claims are made that L's are "wanting to destroy the constitution"?
Why is there suspiscion about constitutional change?

4. Some people have talked about the constitution being founded on a philosophy of individualism. Someone provided a link to the Declaration of Independence (thankyou whoever that was). I read through that and did a little web study on history of the period in which the Union was established.

I really can't see that individualism is emphasised. Freedom, wefare, happiness etc, for the individual are noted, but always in the context of a moral and functional, collective national community. Indeed the entire process of constitutional formation is directed toward unification.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting the people writing the constitution or DoI were looking toward any notion of common property.

5. A short diversion into the Bible.
Does the US constitution, or state constitutions (do you have state constitutions?) facilitate the model of Christian community described in Acts 2, if people choose to live in that way?

 

[Revmitchell]

This is perhaps a little off-topic to my OP but the answers may help me understand American perspectives a little better.

People on this forum are rightly proud of the US constitution but with that in mind some of the attitudes expressed seem a little odd.

1. If Americans hold such strong allegiance to the federal union through the constitution why is there so much reluctance to permit federal initiatives? Doesn't an enabled federal government serve to strengthen an unify the nation?

Who in the world knows what you mean by "enabled Federal government"

2. Where do Americans place their primary allegiance? Is it to the state or the nation? I assume national allegiance takes precedence, but comments about presidential and congressional infringements over state rights seem to suggest otherwise.

As local as possible, self governance

3. The US constitution does not pemit revision to the extent that content is discarded. It does permit modification through appended amendments which can render original content redundant even though that content remains part of the constitution. If I have this correct, then the constitution maintains it's own historical development within itself.

You either have no idea what you're talking about or your liberalism is showing.

Several people have expressed concern, even using the 'L' word in connection with proponents of constitutional change, and yet perhaps the most conservative of all amendments (the 2nd) would not exist without the constitutional provision for change.

Apparently you do not really understand the issues.

What is meant when claims are made that L's are "wanting to destroy the constitution"?
Why is there suspiscion about constitutional change?

Because the so called "change" is always to be done in a way contrary to the constitution (it is the only way libbies know how to act) and because communism has been trying to get its nubs on this country for years.

4. Some people have talked about the constitution being founded on a philosophy of individualism. Someone provided a link to the Declaration of Independence (thankyou whoever that was). I read through that and did a little web study on history of the period in which the Union was established.

I really can't see that individualism is emphasised. Freedom, wefare, happiness etc, for the individual are noted, but always in the context of a moral and functional, collective national community. Indeed the entire process of constitutional formation is directed toward unification.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting the people writing the constitution or DoI were looking toward any notion of common property.

Its an American thing. You wouldn't understand

5. A short diversion into the Bible.
Does the US constitution, or state constitutions (do you have state constitutions?) facilitate the model of Christian community described in Acts 2, if people choose to live in that way?

Since the people in act did not use the government to live that way it is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Salty]

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) basically states :
"Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. "

Currently the Federal govt (to the best of my knowledge) does not recognize same sex marriage for purposes of federal taxes, or military members seeking dependent benefits.

Another question - if govt was totally out of it - who would marry an atheist?

Remember for every action there is (unintended) re-actions.

 

[poncho]

What's a liberal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IbV2eYla_b8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC4JJWUtzkc

Piers Morgan.

 

[poncho]

This is perhaps a little off-topic to my OP but the answers may help me understand American perspectives a little better.

You'll never understand American principles if you keep looking at them through the lens of collectivism.

I suggest you study individualism and watch every John Wayne movie ever made.

"There's right and there's wrong. You gotta do one or the other. You do the one, and you're living. You do the other, and you may be walking around, but you're as dead as a beaver hat." John Wayne

Maybe then you'll start to understand. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Revmitchell]

You'll never understand American principles if you keep looking at them through the lens of collectivism.

I suggest you study individualism and watch every John Wayne movie ever made.

Maybe then you'll start to understand. :smilewinkgrin:

Do you believe he really wants to understand? Hey I have some swamp land in Arizona to sell you.

 

[poncho]

Do you believe he really wants to understand? Hey I have some swamp land in Arizona to sell you.

No I don't think he wants to understand Rev.

I'm starting to think he's really Piers Morgan come here to help us poor ignorant Americans understand the error of our ways.

 

[Aaron]

True conservative constitutional constructionists would have to say that defining marriage is neither the realm of the state, federal, or local governments. Marriage is not a power or a governing issue, it is a sacred vow. A liberal would advocate government involvement. The level of government is immaterial.

The sacred vow is a three way contract, between the Lord, husband, and wife. There is no need for a fourth party to have a say, especially the quality of the federal and state governments today.

If the courts have no say in marriage, then they have no say in family or any other matter of law. Marriage is the foundation of all government.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Not particularly helpful.
The opposite of this must be someone whose mind is so closed no knowledge can get in.

They would accuse Jesus of being closed minded "and do" John 14:6 for example.

 

[poncho]

A liberal is a person who will argue with you about your right to own a semi auto rifle and then threaten to shoot you with a semi auto rifle if you aren't smart enough to give up your right to own a semi auto rifle.

 

[Streetsweeper]

What's a liberal?

Piers Morgan.

Yes, from that video Piers does seem like a nice guy, and so does Alex Jones.

Alex Jones' presentation certainly got the better of Piers Morgan in that interview.

 

[Streetsweeper]

They would accuse Jesus of being closed minded "and do" John 14:6 for example.

I don't have any problem with John 14:6.
Could you clarify what you mean?

 

[Streetsweeper]

You'll never understand American principles if you keep looking at them through the lens of collectivism.

I suggest you study individualism and watch every John Wayne movie ever made.

Study individualism!!
Like this? :

Captain Spock: My father says that you have been my friend. You came back for me.
Kirk: You would have done the same for me.
Captain Spock: Why would you do this?
Kirk: Because the needs of the one... outweigh the needs of the many.​

Sorry, I can't watch John Wayne. The acting is terrible.

 

[poncho]

Study individualism!!
Like this? :

Captain Spock: My father says that you have been my friend. You came back for me.
Kirk: You would have done the same for me.
Captain Spock: Why would you do this?
Kirk: Because the needs of the one... outweigh the needs of the many.​

Sorry, I can't watch John Wayne. The acting is terrible.

If you can't watch John Wayne movies then you'll never understand American perspectives.

Best you stay put right there where you are. :smilewinkgrin: