Here it is, interrupted by the CHRISTmas and New Year's Holiday vacation I was on: The 10th Amendment. The end of the classic "Bill of Rights." I do recommend that everyone read through the Constitution once... and the Bill of Rights regularly.
Amendment 10 -
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.
One issue that mankind has always had has been the shady, sneaky and greedy nature of mankind. In the past, if a government or king thought of a new way to exert power, they just took it. Our Founding Fathers, in wisdom that some have argued ranges from vast to Divinely Inspired, put a stop to that. (or, at least, engaged in the hope to)
The 10th Amendment sharply limits the ability of the Federal Government to take on additional powers or abilities not specifically given to them. Rather than creating an empty area, these powers are given to the State or the People.
Misuse: Vast. Regular. The Federal Government has largely become a bloated entity, reaching its grubby fingers into everything it can. The Federal Government has specifically taken powers that it did not have, despite this call for the power to, instead, go to the State or the People. Unfortunately, time and time again, such acts thet remove our freedoms are met with thunderous applause (which is often how liberty dies, contrary to popular belief.)
Our Federal Government regularly oversteps its bounds with different bills and measures. The Clinton "Assault Weapons" ban (which played on the ignorance of congressmen and citizens by practically defining 'Assault Rifle" as any rifle that looks scary) is just one example.
The Constitution serves to limit Federal and State powers, not defend them. The Federal Government (and many state governments) defines 'public good' as liberally as Michael Moore defines "Torture"
Be these racist programs like EEOC and Affirmative Action, or red-tape fests like the FDA and the FCC, the Federal Government only grows bigger, and more powerful. This is what the anti-federalists feared would happen. They were convinced to support a Federal government with the promise that such constitutional structuring would make such growth impossible.
Leave it to the bureaucrats to do the impossible.
People want a "Pro-homosexual marriage" or "anti-homosexual marriage' act passed by the federal government..... that isn't their job. It is the job of the state. Don't let the Federal Government do it!
People want 'Universal healthcare" . . . that isn't the job of the federal government. Don't let the Federal Government do it!
People want 'sensible national gun control' (which is never sensible, but always oppressive, and never seems to apply to those who draft such resolutions, as they have armed bodyguards).... that isn't the job of the Federal Government. Don't let the Federal Government do it!
Don't keep sliding into the liberal abyss that is socialism. Stand up for <i>personal responsibility</i>.... that is the only way to preserve our rights and freedoms.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com
"Don't keep sliding into the liberal abyss that is socialism. Stand up for personal responsibility.... that is the only way to preserve our rights and freedoms."
This is a gem of a statement.
Creeping Socialism ....government creeping into our lives is all around us.
I do not agree with all your views.
It is excellent that you are sounding this alarm.
Rest in peace: YourFuneralGuy
I wish the alarm woke more people up. Too many are content to let a ever-more-liberal government whittle away at their rights and freedoms for the sake of another government program or social hand-out.
Unfortunately, it involves effort to take responsibility... no effort is needed (or wanted) to slip into socialism.... just sit back and become more dependent.
***
While States do have the right to make their own laws regarding the issuance of marriage licenses, they do not have the right to arbitrarily deny the freedom to marry which is in fact a right that is reserved for The People. One need simply look to the extant precendents regarding attempts to limit interracial marriages to see how this works.
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
Following the decision in Loving v. Virgina (1967), States were not required to pass laws specifically governing interracial marriages, but they were required to remove any laws which contradicted the 14th Amendment's requirement Equal Protection and Due Process by denying those citizens the opportunity to marry in their respective States.
***our Constituion protects the rights of ALL of our citizens, and not just the one's that you like and agree with.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
***Comment edited for TOS violations by mvenus929 on Jan 3, 2008.
According to your argument, we should let anyone marry. That includes adults and children, people and animals, and any other combination that you can think of.
Furthermore, you forget why "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." It is because marriage is necessary for both literal and figurative procreation. Literal, in the biological sense. Figurative, in the sense that a stable family structure greatly enhances a child's likelihood of living a productive and enjoyed life. The waffle that is the issue of homosexuality has not been shown to be stable enough to be entrusted with the lives of children. Homosexuality stems from a desire to have and do what YOU want, not what is necessary and right.
Disclaimer: I do not hate gays or lesbians. If this comment offended you, please know that it was not my intention.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
That isn't my argument at all. This canard ignores the fact regardless of the way that "marriage" is defined, it is at is most basic level a legal contract, and that neither animals nor children may enter into contracts of any sort in this country. Both I and my husband are already qualified as individuals by the State to enter into a marriage contract. The question then becomes what is the rational purpose to deny already qualified candidates for marriage from exercising their freedom to marry with each other.
Now, maybe your biology teacher didn't cover this, but the fact is that marriage is not in any way required (legally OR biologically) in order for a couple to procreate. What the Supreme Court has consistently ruled is that "marriage AND procreation" (note the presence of the conjuction) are both fundamental rights in this country. Your argument ignores not only the fact that there is no contingency to the rights associated with the parent-child relationship in this country that are contingent on the marital status of the child's parents, but also that non-procreative heterosexual couples are allowed to marry without question or issue all the time. Even beyond this, your argument fails to take into account that our system already recognizes the parental rights (both in and out of a marital arrangement) of de facto parents. Children who are acquired by couples through in vitro procedures, adoption, and similar lines of action deserve the same rights, and except in the case of gay parents are offered the same rights as the children other families. Thus, there is a glaring fallacy in the argument that marriage is somehow legitimately restricted to citizens who intend to procreate.
In the landmark decision of Perez v. Sharp (1948), the Court clearly ruled that the "essence of the right to marry is
freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice." The Court further clarified this by stating that, "In determining whether the public interest requires the prohibition of a marriage between two persons, the state may take into consideration matters of legitimate concern to the state...Such legislation, however, must be based on tests of the individual, not on arbitrary classifications of groups or
races." Restricting marriage based on the sex of a potential partner is not a "test of the individual," and is clearly unconstitutional.
This is actually an argument that damages your position, since in fact many gay couples already HAVE children, and form de facto families in the same manner that many heterosexual families (who likewise seek a marital relationship to protect and stabilize their own de facto families). To suggest that the children of these couples should be thrown out in the cold (legally speaking) is demonstrative that an honest desire for the welfare of children is not really a part of your argument.
To say that you don't "hate gays or lesbians" while simultaneously advocating against their access to the most basic rights of citizenship is, IMHO, a fundamentally incompatible position. You may like to tell yourself that your position is not hateful, but the reality is that the policies you defend are aggressively harmful to the gay commuity and their families.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)