Padded-glove Righties...

[Canceled2]

Does it matter what any "study" has to say on the matter? IMHO it's irrelevant, the question is does the government or the rest of society have any authority to make a determination on the matter in question one way or the other?

If we governed our society based on "studies", "opinion polls" or anything else besides the rule of law, junk food, violent movies and a host of other assorted things that are derivatives of individual (sometimes *bad*) choices would be outlawed.

When it comes to the protection of children, studies DO matter. All kinds of safeguards and restrictions are regulated for the sole purpose of protecting children. Studies have leant to these safeguards and restrictions being enacted by law. So, yes, government actions are generally required to protect children historically. Everything from toy safety to labor laws establishes that government monitoring child safety has long been, not only an accepted practice, but a neccesary one to protect children from harm.

Studies and history show that children are best served in a two parent household with a mother and father. Because of the homosexual in your face agenda, we now have to look at the issue of how are children going to be affected.

 

[unphased]

Language specific to "units" is not in the Constitution. There are numerous protections and liberties provided for by the Constitution that do not have or need specific language to infer their rights to protection under the Constitution.

This is true when applied to the liberty of the citizenry, however the government does not posses ANY authority not explicitly granted to it in the Constitution, the Constitution does not grant the authority for the "protection" of arbitrarily defined "units" based on arbitrarily defined "best serves" criteria...

Our government’s job when seeking to establish laws, is to determine if one are they are Constitutional? Second, are they necessary for the health and safety of our citizenry?

The only question that matters from a legal standpoint is Constitutionality and as I alluded to earlier, if a law violates the liberty of a citizen then it's unconstitutional no matter how "necessary" some politician believes it may be. This of course does not apply to laws which restrict one citizen from violating the liberties of another citizen...

The canard of "we shouldn't be legislating morality" is what began this particular thread of debate. All law deals with a moral question. All law points to an objective and declares "this is right and this is wrong"

Well I don't believe we should be legislating morality (that's just a formula for the destruction of the rule of law) and on the matter of "right and wrong" (since we live in a society based on the rule of law, so far anyways) the final arbiter is always the Constitution (the highest law of the land) and since the Constitution offers no explicit judgement on "morality" methinks you're following the wrong path here with respect to your arguements.

 

[Canceled2]

This is true when applied to the liberty of the citizenry, however the government does not posses ANY authority not explicitly granted to it in the Constitution, the Constitution does not grant the authority for the "protection" of arbitrarily defined "units" based on arbitrarily defined "best serves" criteria...


The only question that matters from a legal standpoint is Constitutionality and as I alluded to earlier, if a law violates the liberty of a citizen then it's unconstitutional no matter how "necessary" some politician believes it may be. This of course does not apply to laws which restrict one citizen from violating the liberties of another citizen...



Well I don't believe we should be legislating morality (that's just a formula for the destruction of the rule of law) and on the matter of "right and wrong" (since we live in a society based on the rule of law, so far anyways) the final arbiter is always the Constitution (the highest law of the land) and since the Constitution offers no explicit judgement on "morality" methinks you're following the wrong path here with respect to your arguements.

Methinks you have missed the point. ALL law deals with moarality. The Constitution most certainly does deal with the governments obligation to protect units of life when it addresses domestic tranquility as noted in the Preamble. It further establishes the groundwork for pursuit of redress under the general Welfare intent as well as establishing Justice. Too, the Preamble speaks to "our posterity" meaning that governments role takes the long view of its repsonsiblity to society's future generations.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

[Cancel3]

Studies and history show that children are best served in a two parent household with a mother and father. Because of the homosexual in your face agenda, we now have to look at the issue of how are children going to be affected.

We have looked at how homosexual parents effect kids. There has been no study showing any effect.

 

[unphased]

Methinks you have missed the point. ALL law deals with moarality.

Maybe I am missing your point, dunno. What you *seem* to be suggesting is that there is some other "morality" that applies above and beyond that of our common "morality" that is embodied by the Constitution and if that is what you are suggesting then I am saying that is not the case. Applying the subjective morality of an individual or a group of individuals in contradiction to the limitations placed by the constitution is a clear violation of the rule of law because it is subjective and therfore arbitrary (a really good way to chart a course toward totalitarianism). If this is not what you are saying then I apologize for my misinterpretation.

The Constitution most certainly does deal with the governments obligation to protect units of life when it addresses domestic tranquility as noted in the Preamble. It further establishes the groundwork for pursuit of redress under the general Welfare intent as well as establishing Justice. Too, the Preamble speaks to "our posterity" meaning that governments role takes the long view of its repsonsiblity to society's future generations. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."[/

Well now you're climbing up the slippery slope of attempting to both transform the preamble into part of the active portion of the Constitution (i.e. assigning powers and limitations) it's not and never was intended to be so and then going further by attempting to interpret it's meaning into a legal framework. The preamble is simply a declaration of the documents intent (a summary) the devil is in the details as they say. By doing so you are attempting to do what many have done before, specifically taking a VERY broad statement which was never meant to be interpreted as granting or limiting anything and making it apply in a way that's convienent for your particular point of view. The left has been doing this for decades by claiming that "promote the general welfare" essentially grants the Federal Government the power to do whatever the hell it wants (as long as it of course serves the pet causes and social experiments the left is attempting to promote at the time).

Ask yourself this question, would you want to be subject to the arbitary "morality" of the current crop of legislators in Washington with the force of law behind whatever they happen to decide is "moral" or "immoral" ?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You know very little about biology if that is your definition of life, but that said, even the joining of egg and sperm is just potential and many if not most of these joinings end naturally. So then using your simplistic moral preaching, who kills, or is responsible for these trillions of murders? Unless a couple live as the Orthodox do, all people engage in 'abortion,' only the Catholic church is clear about this, but even Catholics don't have families like the one I was raised in. But the grandest irony of all here is the very people who pretend they support life, do not when it comes to support and education. As I have often said, Abortion is the Hypocrites Crutch, it requires nothing of the empty headed moralist except a condemnation of others, it is why the conservatives cling to it, it fits their judgmental ideology. Let Gawd in all her glory judge and let us educate and help those in need then you hypocrites will cease being hypocrites.

Funny, it sounds as though you are the one who needs educating. I know a great deal about biology, but this fact was articulated by former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who probably understands biology better than you and I combined. Certainly he understands it better than you. Life begins at conception, there is no other ingredient needed to make it life, and it will be a living being until it is either terminated or dies naturally. Only time delineates the various stages of this life, but it is never "not a life." This is basic biological fact, and you are a lefty who has sought to simply redefine what life is.

As for your stupidity about all but the Orthodox committing trillions of "abortions," this is just another canard you regurgitate to bolster your failing argument. Abortion is the willing and deliberate termination of pregnancy. Everyone who is mature enough to debate, understands that point. But you must try and muddy the waters, to solicit uncertainty, because you really can't argue against the scientific biological facts.

Now... all of this being said, I am not "anti-abortion." I don't want to see abortion completely outlawed in all cases. I think there is a legitimate purpose to retain abortion as a medical procedure, and there are circumstances which abortion might be the best option. However, we must all admit the truth about what we're doing here. It is the willing and deliberate taking of another human life, and that is somewhat important (or should be) to a civilized society. The tone-deaf lefties like you, want to ignore reality, you want to deny what we're doing. You want to call life something else, so it makes it all okay to terminate it. The problem is, facts aren't on your side, and you are split from reality.

 

[Canceled2]

We have looked at how homosexual parents effect kids. There has been no study showing any effect.

Yes there have been, and they were grossly flawed. More importantly there have been numerous studies that show children are more stable and productive when raised in two parent households with a mother and a father.

Experimenting with our children's health and safety is obscene! We know what is best for children. Asking laws to be passed (homosexual marriage acts) that causes the health and welfare of children to be put at risk is a fight worth fighting, and I'll fight it.


There exist absolutely no significant populations of same sex families for scientists to observe over long periods of time. Honest researchers confess as much.

035749-1425r.htm (16 June 2004).
4 Perrin, 2002, p. 343.
5 Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review,” 66 (2001), pp. 159-183.

Flawed study

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

As to the argument that this will open some kind of Pandora's box where anything goes, I say so be it. Any unorthodox behavior that might exist, probably already exists in some small amount and is happening under the radar, i.e. FLDS. It is so minuscule a concern that not one person should have to sacrifice their social, economic and political protections over an endless game of what if.

Here is where we disagree Adam. Actions have consequences, that is a fact. When you establish a law which redefines marriage based on sexual lifestyle, you do indeed open a Pandora's Box. It is the precedent established in law, coupled with the guarantee of equal protection under the law. We can't avoid or escape this, because we've made it the law. Unless you are willing to allow every sexual deviancy to come under the umbrella of "marriage" you better think about what you're doing here, because that is exactly what will happen, as soon as you redefine marriage to apply to sexual lifestyles. And when they come with their petitions in hand, what will you say to them? Sorry, we can't honor the Constitution in your case? No, I don't think that would work.

The issue of Gay Marriage, to me, is a legal one, not social. I have no problem with gay people, or what they do, and I believe they should have the right to do whatever they want to do, including having a wedding ceremony, if that's what they want. I am not even as "right-wing" as Ice Dancer, I believe gay couples should be allowed to adopt kids, providing they meet the qualifications. So my position doesn't come from a "homophobic" extreme. It's simply the rule of law, and how we establish laws. We can't "redefine" marriage to include a sexual lifestyle, there are too many consequential problems we wouldn't want to deal with as a society.

What we CAN do, is establish a new Civil Unions system, to replace governmental sanction of marriage. In this, we would allow ANY TWO people to obtain a Civil Union Contract with each other. This would suffice as a current Marriage License, in that, it would allow joint benefits, insurance, adoption, etc. And, if some church wanted to "marry" gay couples who have a CUC, so be it! This removes the issue of sexuality and the issue of sanctity, from governmental entanglement. It gives everyone, essentially what they want, without the consequences of establishing a law based on sexual lifestyle... OR, religious dogma!

 

[Canceled2]

Maybe I am missing your point, dunno. What you *seem* to be suggesting is that there is some other "morality" that applies above and beyond that of our common "morality" that is embodied by the Constitution and if that is what you are suggesting then I am saying that is not the case. Applying the subjective morality of an individual or a group of individuals in contradiction to the limitations placed by the constitution is a clear violation of the rule of law because it is subjective and therfore arbitrary (a really good way to chart a course toward totalitarianism). If this is not what you are saying then I apologize for my misinterpretation.


Well now you're climbing up the slippery slope of attempting to both transform the preamble into part of the active portion of the Constitution (i.e. assigning powers and limitations) it's not and never was intended to be so and then going further by attempting to interpret it's meaning into a legal framework. The preamble is simply a declaration of the documents intent (a summary) the devil is in the details as they say. By doing so you are attempting to do what many have done before, specifically taking a VERY broad statement which was never meant to be interpreted as granting or limiting anything and making it apply in a way that's convienent for your particular point of view. The left has been doing this for decades by claiming that "promote the general welfare" essentially grants the Federal Government the power to do whatever the hell it wants (as long as it of course serves the pet causes and social experiments the left is attempting to promote at the time).

Ask yourself this question, would you want to be subject to the arbitary "morality" of the current crop of legislators in Washington with the force of law behind whatever they happen to decide is "moral" or "immoral" ?

You are failing to understand the argument which is: Do persons have a right to redress and or seek to create law that protects individuals or groups? The two issues are abortion and homosexual marriage. Our Constitution most certainly does advantage itself to the citizens it protects to seek redress politically and legally.

The Preamble does illuminate intent. Intent is important when deciding if an issue warrants investigation or challenge. Remember the Constitutional Gymnastics of Roe? Creating trimester tests of personhood so that a woman's so called freedom and privacy over her own body could be used to kill a human being in her womb. Tell me where that language is found in the Constitution without having to not only infer, but infer with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears! If we had had the science in 1972 that we have today, Roe would never have happened.

 

[unphased]

You are failing to understand the argument which is: Do persons have a right to redress and or seek to create law that protects individuals or groups?
The two issues are abortion and homosexual marriage. Our Constitution most certainly does advantage itself to the citizens it protects to seek redress politically and legally.

Of course the people have said rights, the Constitution doesn't limit the rights of the people after all... citizens can seek redress or seek to create law all they like, they just can't be allowed to succeed in gaining unconstitutional "redress" or creating unconstitutional laws in the process, allowing such is to allow the destruction of the rule of law.

Personally I believe that the Constitution stands mute on the questions of both of the specific issues you point out and thus it becomes a question for the states and their respective Constitutions.

The Preamble does illuminate intent.

Of course the Preamble "illuminates" intent it doesn't however lend itself to legal interpretation nor was it the intent of the founders that it be so, it's the "tell them what you're going to tell them" part of a what we all learned in speech class but don't confuse it with the "then tell them" part.

Intent is important when deciding if an issue warrants investigation or challenge. Remember the Constitutional Gymnastics of Roe? Creating trimester tests of personhood so that a woman's so called freedom and privacy over her own body could be used to kill a human being in her womb. Tell me where that language is found in the Constitution without having to not only infer, but infer with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears! If we had had the science in 1972 that we have today, Roe would never have happened.

You picked a bad example, personally I have always found the Constitutional underpinnings of the Roe vs. Wade decision to be dubious at best and given that, a decision which should rightfully rest with the states (barring a constitutional amendment to the contrary of course).

 

[Canceled2]

Of course the people have said rights, the Constitution doesn't limit the rights of the people after all... citizens can seek redress or seek to create law all they like, they just can't be allowed to succeed in gaining unconstitutional "redress" or creating unconstitutional laws in the process, allowing such is to allow the destruction of the rule of law.

Well, then you have supported my supposition to Adam.

Personally I believe that the Constitution stands mute on the questions of both of the specific issues you point out and thus it becomes a question for the states and their respective Constitutions.

You are personally entitled to your opinion. I agree that abortion law should have been left to the states. Since however states rights on the issue was removed, the SC is the body where redress on the issue must go.


Of course the Preamble "illuminates" intent it doesn't however lend itself to legal interpretation nor was it the intent of the founders that it be so, it's the "tell them what you're going to tell them" part of a what we all learned in speech class but don't confuse it with the "then tell them" part.

Intent is where you begin when dealing with what the Constituion intends.


You picked a bad example, personally I have always found the Constitutional underpinnings of the Roe vs. Wade decision to be dubious at best and given that, a decision which should rightfully rest with the states (barring a constitutional amendment to the contrary of course).

I picked the example of one of the issues that I had been discussing, appropriate, really. Again, though redundancy becomes tedious it often seems unfortunately neccesary in the blogosphere. The need to redress abortion with the SC is the result of the liberal agenda taking it there in the first place.

 

[unphased]

Well, then you have supported my supposition to Adam.

Excellent, glad I could be of service.

You are personally entitled to your opinion. I agree that abortion law should have been left to the states. Since however states rights on the issue was removed, the SC is the body where redress on the issue must go.

This is true, unfortunately in doing so you are swimming against current of the rule of precedance, which is a critical component of the rule of law and thus isn't (and shouldn't be) easily overturned.

Intent is where you begin when dealing with what the Constituion intends.

I Respectfully disagree, the preamble is nothing more than the label on the box, the contents of the box is where we begin to deal with Constitutional intent. To do otherwise would be to open up a plethora of potentially nasty consequences which none of us would ultimately find acceptable (just imagine for example the myraid of ways that "domestic tranquility" could be intepreted , I'm sure you get the picture).

I picked the example of one of the issues that I had been discussing, appropriate, really. Again, though redundancy becomes tedious it often seems unfortunately neccesary in the blogosphere. The need to redress abortion with the SC is the result of the liberal agenda taking it there in the first place.

You misunderstand me, I said you picked a bad example in your choice of Roe Vs. Wade because it illustrates precisely the point I was making about the interjection of subjective morality into the legal process. I do understand your point regarding the left wing agenda of "taking it there in the first place", as a strict constructionist I cannot support a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court which I feel is based on a VERY loose interpretation of both the wording and intent of the Constitution. The abortion question rides very low on my list of priorities regarding the issues that this country needs to deal, that being said, while I understand the moral objections that those on the pro-life side have to abortion, I do not share them and since I believe the preeminent litmus test must be the liberty of the individual I cannot concur with forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will... so there you have it, something for everybody to disagree with.

I picked the example of one of the issues that I had been discussing, appropriate, really. Again, though redundancy becomes tedious it often seems unfortunately neccesary in the blogosphere. The need to redress abortion with the SC is the result of the liberal agenda taking it there in the first place.

 

[unphased]

The biggest problem I have with social conservatism is that it goes against my conservative desire for less government.

Actually I don't think it does, at least not as expressed by "mainstream" social conservatives I know, IMHO they do have a valid message to deliver regarding the moral decay and decadence of our society (remember the Romans and what these attributes did for their society) it's just that the extremist social conservatives seem to want to adopt the tactics of the left and get into the "legislating morality via central government game" instead of taking the hard road and actually convincing people of the merits of what they have to say, essentially becoming statists of a different stripe in the process.

The social issues that separate the liberals and conservatives are the least important issues, in my opinion.

While I personally share this view (so called "social issues" are low on my list as well), one must also realize that others have a different set of priorities, doesn't make you and I right and them wrong, just means we differ on our organization of priorities, no ?

Gay marriage is one that could be cured by removing the government from the entire marriage equation.

Agreed, although there is no harm in endeavoring to understand the "moral objection" presented in opposition to it, putting aside the popular "gay marriage is a "gateway drug" to bestiality,etc..," some very thoughtful social conservatives I know have strongly held moral objections to it, while I may not agree I endeavor to understand where they are coming from and I *think* I'm the better for those endeavors.

Legislating morality is great, when you are discussing univerals moral issues such as murder or theft. But when you start legislating sexuality, giving preferences to one religion over another, or trying to return to some 1950s Ozzie & Harriet ideal, you have lost my backing. And many other conservative's backing.

"Universal moral issues" are you perchance referring to our common morality that is embodied by the U.S. Constitution ? if not then you lost me.

The biggest issues that face our nation right now are financial issues. When we are on the brink of bankrupcy, social issues just don't carry much weight.

Fix the tax code (or replace it with the Fair Tax). Stop unnecessary government intervention. Prevent the removal of the 2nd Amendment. Keep the government from screwing up our healthcare system any more than it is.

These are issues the conservatives should be addressing. That will nullify the emotional weapons.

And sometimes punching with padded gloves is done more to protect your hands than to prevent the blows from doing harm.

Methinks you are attempting to apply your organization of "national priorities" to every other conservative, which, in my humble opinion is a mistake that only leads to misunderstanding (between conservatives) and mixed message (from conservatives), there is room for compromise or at the very least understanding after all, no?

BTW I happen to pretty much agree with your priorities however that is immaterial to the point I'm trying to make.

*To the OP, you wrote a very articulate post outlining your views (well done), unfortunately you seem to want to rely on unnecessary invectives to describe your opposition, which, in my honest assessment detracts from many of the valid points you are attempting to make, after all you can disagree while still respecting your opposition (even if your opposition doesn't return the favor).