Liberal

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

As local as possible, self governance

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

Apparently you do not really understand the issues.

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.

Its an American thing. You wouldn't understand

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

 

What's a liberal?

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

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

Piers Morgan.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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: