Bachmann - Take away states rights...

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
Bachmann supports taking away the states right to define marriage....

She is supporting a constitutional amendment that would define marriage for the states. Is that really consistant with the smaller government message of the conservatives?
 
You're such a fucking dumbass. You fuckhead partisans want a federal law, so when the person of the opposite philosphy agrees with you, they're still wrong? You're an asshole
 
The far right was hypocritical with pushing for DOMA. Clinton went along with political winds and signed it. Those calling themselves 'conservatives' are just another form of elites wanting to impose their values onto all. Marriage belongs for the states to define, not the fed. Just like Roe was bad law, so is this attempt to move marriage to federal level.

We need less fed, not more.
 
If recognizing marriage is left up to the individual States polygamy will flourish.

Some States allow cousins to marry. For example, California. On the other hand Texas does not so if a California couple, married cousins, move to Texas both would be permitted to re-marry without getting a divorce.

Things would get even more complicated if one decided to divorce. For example, let’s say John marries his cousin Mary in California. Then John and Mary move to Texas and John marries Carol. Mary decides to file for divorce. If she files in California would she be entitled to half the house in Texas?

Of course, if Mitty gets elected he could change the Defense of Marriage Act to a more Mormon view. :) Then John and Mary and Carol could live happily ever-after. Also, with a little further tweeking of DOMA, should Mary feel cheated by John having two wives, John could seek a bi-sexual lover and marry him.

Let’s call him Bill. Bill could then be a wife to John and a quasi-husband to Mary. Then we’d have John with Mary and Carol and Bill. Mary would have John and Bill. Bill would have Mary and John.

Should Carol feel she’s getting the short end of the stick, in a manner of speaking, perhaps she and Mary, by exploring their lesbianism, could be the answer.

I'm sure no one would want to add the possibility of 50 different definitions of marriage by allowing individual States to have authority so when it comes to marriage it looks like Mitt's the man. :)
 
apple0154 said:
If recognizing marriage is left up to the individual States polygamy will flourish.

Some States allow cousins to marry. For example, California. On the other hand Texas does not so if a California couple, married cousins, move to Texas both would be permitted to re-marry without getting a divorce.

Things would get even more complicated if one decided to divorce. For example, let’s say John marries his cousin Mary in California. Then John and Mary move to Texas and John marries Carol. Mary decides to file for divorce. If she files in California would she be entitled to half the house in Texas?

Of course, if Mitty gets elected he could change the Defense of Marriage Act to a more Mormon view. :) Then John and Mary and Carol could live happily ever-after. Also, with a little further tweeking of DOMA, should Mary feel cheated by John having two wives, John could seek a bi-sexual lover and marry him.

Let’s call him Bill. Bill could then be a wife to John and a quasi-husband to Mary. Then we’d have John with Mary and Carol and Bill. Mary would have John and Bill. Bill would have Mary and John.

Should Carol feel she’s getting the short end of the stick, in a manner of speaking, perhaps she and Mary, by exploring their lesbianism, could be the answer.

I'm sure no one would want to add the possibility of 50 different definitions of marriage by allowing individual States to have authority so when it comes to marriage it looks like Mitt's the man. :)
Click to expand...

Look, someone wants polygamy? Their choice. Same if they like their friend, Flicka. Not my problem. They can deal with the end results. Slippery slope notwithstanding, to each their own. It won't stop neighbors from thinking some are weird, there may well be local ordinances or state laws against some, but let the states exercise their areas of responsibility.
 
Annie said:
The far right was hypocritical with pushing for DOMA. Clinton went along with political winds and signed it. Those calling themselves 'conservatives' are just another form of elites wanting to impose their values onto all. Marriage belongs for the states to define, not the fed. Just like Roe was bad law, so is this attempt to move marriage to federal level.

We need less fed, not more.
Click to expand...

I'd go even a step further. I don't see where the states have the authority or power to define marriage. that is left up to the people.
 
Jarod said:
Bachmann supports taking away the states right to define marriage....

She is supporting a constitutional amendment that would define marriage for the states. Is that really consistant with the smaller government message of the conservatives?
Click to expand...

An Amendment requires ratification by 3/4 majority of state legislatures. How is that taking away states rights?

Aren't you an attorney? :palm:
 
Marriage is a religious institution.

But the marxist government we live under conflicts with the basic rights of individuals again.
 
The Dude said:
Now you want to expand the police state to regulate church marigaes. Fucking conservatards batshit crazy Bauchman is perfect for ya
Click to expand...

Authoritarians (conservatards) are just total fucking liars. The only limits they really want on government powers are limits on business regulatory agencies. Government in the bedroom is fine with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top