Quote:
IMO, if someone were to ask me, the correct solution to the problem isn't to pass an ammendment, but simply change the federal laws so that marriage in one state is no longer a marriage in all states. So if the citizens of Massachusetts want to allow gay couples to marry, they can, but the citizens of Nebraska don't have to recognize it.
For the first time in my Alla life, I agree with you gbaji.
*faints*
As for the rest of the post, it's just a muddled explanation to try and justify doing something which is contrary to Republican principles.
But, to be honest, I think "big principles", which the Republican party is full of, are always stupid, since different situations require different actions, as you pointed out in your post. And it one of the reasons I can't stand all this hypocrisy about Republicans being the champions of the states against "Big Governement" and "Federal interference". It's a load of propagandic, simplistic non-sense that appeals to the most basic instincts of voters. But, this being politics, it's nothing new.
The reality is that this ban on gay marriage, or to put as hypocritically as the Republicans do, this "definition of marriage which is not against gays, but simply designed to make things simpler but really its not against gays no no" is shameful and would not have happened if the Republicans were not so reliant on their hardcore Christian support base. And it is this support, upon which they are so dependent, which causes them to attempt to pass silly legislation such as this. When you dance with the devil (or in this case God, I guess)...
Quote:
Minimizing big government does not explicitly mean having less legistlation, or smaller budgets, or whatever rhetoric-of-the-day people choose to try to make this point on. It's about reducing the impact of direct federal power on the citizens lives.
And how does banning gay marriage "reduce the impact of direct federal power on citizens lives"? It doesn't. Let's turn this situation on its head. Imagine the Democrats were in power, and where passing a federal law (or amending the constitution) that would define "marriage" as a union betweent two persons, of the opposite sex or not. The Republicans would be in upheaval, since this would consitute the federal govt imposing its moral on states, and "Big Governement", etc... And yet, this is exactly what teh Republicans are doing, just the other way round. Now, I dont mind people having moral values,but for ****'s sake, be honest about it.
Quote:
They feel that they have to because many of their constitutents feel that their state laws are being attacked by people not living in their states
Funny.
If they are not living in their state, then how can it bother them, or even affect them?
No, they feel they have to do this because it will shore up dwindling support from the evangelical right. Which is fine, everyone has their supoprt base they have to pander to.
Just dont pretend otherwise, cos thats just hypocritical. And we all know you wouldnt do that.