Video: Palin supports Federal Marriage Amendment
posted at 3:53 pm on October 20, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Normally I’d call this another reason for the base to love her, but the implications for federalism make me wonder how reaction will shake out. Althouse, who’s been pretty high on her (but isn’t a member of the base, needless to say), finds it “genuinely dismaying.” I find it more perplexing than anything else given that she’s on record recently as supporting a federalist approach to abortion. I can understand the opposite position, of banning abortion at the federal level via amendment (as Huckabee wants to do) but letting the states handle marriage on grounds that the dire moral imperative in protecting innocent life should trump normal conservative inclinations towards state rights, but what’s the argument for Palin’s vice versa? Is it simply a question of identifying which issue federal judges are more likely to tinker with at this point and taking that issue out of their hands before they can act? McCain shares that concern — but thinks that any amendment can and should come after a problematic ruling, not before. Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Ugh. It’s a state’s issue.
lodge on October 20, 2008 at 3:55 PM
given the state judges imposing gay marriage, this is a no-brainer.
right4life on October 20, 2008 at 3:55 PM
WAIT! NO! DON’T DO IT! SHE’S DELIBERATELY TRYING TO LOSE THE ELECTION FOR US!!
thareb on October 20, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Good for you ‘Cuda! She’s already come out against gay marriage decisively and forecefully in her highly watched debate, so this shouldn’t make too many political waves with the PUMAs.
YellowDawg on October 20, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Her line should be—Just because I don’t support gay marriage, doesn’t mean I hate gays. Hell, if I hated gays, I’d make it mandatory.
Kasper Hauser on October 20, 2008 at 3:57 PM
there isn’t a true federalist approach to the new concept of redefining marriage.
since Marriage is a contract, and the constitution says that all states much honor contracts originating in other states it makes a federalist approach impossible in the real world. The Libs will simply legalize it in Mass and California, people will go there to get married then move back to their state. Then some group of them will sue their state on these grounds that they must respect the contract constitutionaly.
jp on October 20, 2008 at 3:58 PM
And still not a single word on immigration. Hell, Joe the Plumber has said more on immigration than Palin.
SnarkVader on October 20, 2008 at 3:59 PM
seems to me that since even California has opposed gay marriage pretty heavily, she isn’t stepping on any toes that will matter here except for maybe those Gay Puma’s over at Hillbuzz
jp on October 20, 2008 at 3:59 PM
I amy not agree with her, but I totally respect her strong willingness to state HER truth. I am a strict Federalist, so I think the issue belongs with the states, BUT, unlike abortion, with gay marriage, if you have states who legalize it and those “legally married” gays move to other states and expect equal treatment, it does become an issue on a Federal level. The issue will eventually have to be resolved in Federal terms on that basis.
Sarah Palin ROCKS! Plain and simple she IS da’ WOman!
ihasurnominashun on October 20, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Remember when GWB yakked about it – then it was promptly forgotten. Politicians, all of them, say whatever, to whomever. I’d love to see a lie-detector attached to their butts, and have them zapped every time they say something stupid, or a lie.
Imagine Obama’s (little) butt…
Entelechy on October 20, 2008 at 4:00 PM
For those who believe in a federalist approach as opposed to an Amendment, what are we to do with Full Faith and Credit Clause? Doesn’t FF&C render this a very different issue from abortion?
flyfisher on October 20, 2008 at 4:00 PM
I don’t agree with her, but the thought of Andrew Sullivan’s reaction to this is fun to think about.
Slublog on October 20, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Considering the way judges are legislating on this, I don’t mind a federal look at it.
Iblis on October 20, 2008 at 4:01 PM
__________________
GMTA…except you said it better!
ihasurnominashun on October 20, 2008 at 4:01 PM
The abortion issue is different from a Federal standpoint. The Feds can legitimately get involved in the marriage issue because the conflict is not whether a state can offer gay marriage, but whether other states have to honor a gay marriage contract that another state has legalized. Only the Federal govt can resolve a dispute between the states.
Kenrod on October 20, 2008 at 4:01 PM
I say we just chuck the whole process and put Joe on the ballot.
HornetSting on October 20, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Big f’ing deal. Has it occurred to any of the panicking political geniuses here that an amendment to the Consitution has to run a gauntlet through the statesfirst?
Ask anyone who supported the Equal Rights Amendment, which was adopted in…in…oh wait…it wasn’t adopted. Huh. How about that.
ManlyRash on October 20, 2008 at 4:02 PM
It is a State issues to deal with it. Not a Federal one.
She already said that gay marriage would not happen in Alaska, which it didn’t. But Palin also let it be known that just because she didn’t let it happen, that she wasn’t going to stop rights to them. The Gay and Lesbians here can have the same medical, dental and other items that Married people have here in Alaska. It is biased not too let them have health insurance or other, and the fact they can put their partner on it as well is fine.
I don’t see the problem here.
upinak on October 20, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Why not look up her view on immigration instead of saying she hasn’t.
upinak on October 20, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Whatever happened to that little thingy that Billy Jeff signed into law……Defense of Marriage Act?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 20, 2008 at 4:04 PM
ditto, minus the typos of mine.
another reason why the courts are so important on Federal level. Obama can really screw them up in 4 yrs time.
jp on October 20, 2008 at 4:05 PM
States issue and even then government really shouldn’t be in the business of marriage period.
So yea, it’s disappointing.
CTDeLude on October 20, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Palin needs to convince people that she has the capacity to think carefully about economic and foreign policy issues. The McCain/Palin ticket isn’t behind because swing voters thought they weren’t strong enough against gay marriage.
She has two weeks before the election. It is a waste of a news cycle for her to spend time on gay marriage while voters are frightened by the economy.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Bad quote. This will be taken out of context as if she was going to push for such a thing. Which is not in the purview of the VP, in any way, shape or form.
With help like this from CBN, we won’t need enemies. This is not going to win any votes, but it could lose some.
connertown on October 20, 2008 at 4:08 PM
I would guess that she’s taken the stands she has because states can keep abortions from happening in their states, but theoretically, they would be forced to recognize any marriage from another state.
So I would guess that it’s because with the marriage issue it may impact other states whereas an abortion cannot.
Esthier on October 20, 2008 at 4:09 PM
There’s this thing called the 14th Amendment that more or less made us all primarily citizens of the United States instead of Alabama, Maryland, Colorado etc., and made the states departments of the federal govt., at least as it is interpreted. Maybe a fair, consistent application of the 14th Amendment would strike down laws against concealed carry, for instance. Maybe state and municipal govts. would have to explain why “Congress” in the 1st Amendment is understood to mean school board, for instance.
So as long as there’s a 14th Amendment, let’s be fair to ourselves and recognize the pros as well as the cons.
Akzed on October 20, 2008 at 4:10 PM
There is nothing anti-federalist about a Constitutional Amendment.
If you go through the insanely complicated process to get an Amendment through, the Admentment is thus by definition Constitutional. E.g. judicial activists on the court will have to go home crying.
BKennedy on October 20, 2008 at 4:11 PM
doesn’t a majority of US Citizens(other than the MSM) not support Gay Marriage? Even Joe Biden claims to be against it, so I doubt this hurts too much.
the bigger thing here is Postmodernism, we should be asking why there is a movement to redefine marriage at this point in history and not before now?
jp on October 20, 2008 at 4:12 PM
I’m glad she hasn’t. To me it means she doesn’t agree with McCain. If she doesn’t, then she has no business saying one word of it. She’s only the VP candidate after all, not the top of the ticket.
Esthier on October 20, 2008 at 4:13 PM
A federalist should comprehend Constitutional Ammendments and be okay with them. What I don’t like is the Federal Gov’t usurping states rights through legislation and preemption.
DWSC on October 20, 2008 at 4:13 PM
It’s a state issue until there is an amendment. Then it’s a federal issue.
Actually….it should be a state issue but the problem is judges are usurping legislative authority and making up their own laws allowing gay marriage. So it’s the judges that are pushing the issue out of the state realm and into the federal realm.
t.ferg on October 20, 2008 at 4:13 PM
I say go for it. The sooner this hits Federal level the sooner the SCOTUS ruling comes out saying it’s unconstitutional.
I’m also glad to see Palin keeping the base in line, and incidentally revealing the hypocrisy of the Christianists who say abortion is a state rights issue while gay marriage is a federal one. I guess it’s one or the other based on which one you think you can win?
The truth is that in these two instances the Right wants to use the power of government to force their morals onto others.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 20, 2008 at 4:13 PM
So does this mean she doesn’t support homosexual marriage, either?
A federalist option on abortion is wrong, just like a federalist approach to prosecuting slavery would be wrong.
Some things require a moral imperative. To most of mankind, that includes marriage.
But we seem h3ll bent, as a culture, on destroying any meaning or sanctity of that arrangement.
And if we keep going down this road, a rebellion will form around this concept of ‘full faith & credit.’
locomotivebreath1901 on October 20, 2008 at 4:14 PM
There’s nothing to look up. She hasn’t made a single comment about it since being chosen.
SnarkVader on October 20, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Hate to say it, but this has to be addressed at the national level, because marriage is also a legal contract, and this type of contract has to be recognized as binding in all states, or in none. It cannot rationally be done nor enforced on a state by state basis, without infringing on rights to free movement of people. If enough states legalize gay marriage, this will go to the SCOTUS, and will likely be upheld as a right, to be recognized nationwide.
This is an issue that cannot be left to the states individually. Eventually it will become a national issue.
trailboss on October 20, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Gay marriage will ultimately be settled on the Federal level. Sarah knows this and says as much. She hopes it will be to her liking. Hope being the operative word.
As more states approve it, it will get too complicated with divorces, custody battles, inheritances, alimony etc across state lines.
One way or another this thing is getting settled by activists Supreme court justices or by the legislature, amendment or otherwise.
I would imagine if Obama gets elected it will be settled while he is in office. Roe v Wade part II.
patrick neid on October 20, 2008 at 4:14 PM
My bad, I didn’t realize Palin is in favor of a Constitutional Amendment. In that case, go right ahead. It won’t happen.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 20, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Are you serious? If so, calm down.
CP on October 20, 2008 at 4:16 PM
When people don’t impose any morals on themselves, their neighbors might have to do it for them.
Akzed on October 20, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Simple and true.
trailboss on October 20, 2008 at 4:17 PM
LOL, you can’t be serious? Why not lock them up then if it’s so immoral? Morality is a personal choice, not some sort of absolute. I don’t think what consenting adults entering into a marriage contract can be construed as immoral.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 20, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Really?
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Immigration.htm
or how about when she sent the Alaska National Guard down to help build the fence?
Operation Jump Start
upinak on October 20, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Hard to know what she’s thinking without more detail.
Spirit of 1776 on October 20, 2008 at 4:19 PM
This bears repeating. Given the hurdles needed to pass an Amendment and that fact that a supermajority of states must approve it and the fact that neither the President nor Vice President plays a direct role, who cares what she thinks? Her vote counts as much as everyone elses.
SAZMD on October 20, 2008 at 4:19 PM
if GOP could pull off an Amendment Vote, it could put the Dems in a tough spot politically. many of them, most actually, would need to support it. especially those in Purple districts. and then you have the liberal activist base of the party who would revolt against such a stance.
jp on October 20, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Gay marriage and abortion are not the same type of issues in practice. Per Patrick Neid’s post, gay marriage carries with it a host of potential complications; it’s not a finite act. It can be done, undone. etc.
Abortion, on the other hand … once it’s done, it’s done. What do you debate later on?
That’s why the state by state approach works for abortion but nor for gay marriage. The only thing they have in common is that they are both “social” issues.
BigD on October 20, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Oh really? Morals like “generosity”?
I was under the impression that folks around here weren’t too keen on their “neighbors” forcing generosity on them.
But maybe some morals are more appropriate for the mob to enforce than others.
Lehosh on October 20, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Crap…
this link has it. It didn’t paste correctly.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060803-7.html
and this one.
http://www.176wg.ang.af.mil/
upinak on October 20, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Full Faith and Credit Clause. Public acts in one state are binding in the others. That’s why Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 20, 2008 at 4:23 PM
The laws surrounding homosexual relationships will ultimately be decided in the courts. It will never be marriage because calling unnatural perverted behavior specifically condemned by God “marriage” is an affront to all that is Holy in pretty much every faith.
These people will ultimately have to answer for their faithlessness. All the courts have the power to do is better define who gets the to pull the plug, who has to pay whome, and (even worse) who gets custody rights of adoptive children when an unholy relationship breaks up.
highhopes on October 20, 2008 at 4:23 PM
such thinking has given us the gulag, the gas chambers, and cutting a hole in a babie’s head and sucking out the brains.
we’ve seen your future, and it sucks..
right4life on October 20, 2008 at 4:23 PM
ahem, and the source of your Morality comes from _________?
Western Civilization was founded on an absolute moral standard, even those like Thomas Jefferson who as a skeptic struggled with things like the Miracles in the bible had no Problem outlawing Sodomy, while we are on the subject here.
jp on October 20, 2008 at 4:24 PM
That and they both are acts against God’s will for His people. Hell won’t distinguish between abortionists and sodomites.
highhopes on October 20, 2008 at 4:25 PM
which sets this up for an ACLU type legal challenge and to be decided by SCOTUS or an Amendment first, to clear the issue up.
jp on October 20, 2008 at 4:25 PM
I have noticed this with her before. A lot of times you don’t know why she thinks what she thinks because she doesn’t fully explain herself. Your left guessing if her answer is one that is thought out or not.
Mark1971 on October 20, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Like abortion, this should just be left to the states. Most of the 50 (or is it 57) states will ban both abortion and gay marriage if given the chance.
Speaking of that, any Californians here keeping an eye on Prop. 8? You think it’ll pass?
mram on October 20, 2008 at 4:28 PM
And again, what has she said about immigration since being chosen? If you can find a quote, I’m more than willing to admit I’m wrong.
SnarkVader on October 20, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Yeah you’re right, I’m just joking. Let’s let everyone do what he wants! Everything, all the time! Child sex! Polygamy! Roving gangs of rapists expressing their personal morality! Yay!
Akzed on October 20, 2008 at 4:29 PM
the real irony in this whole thing, is the Liberal Socialist State is dependent on the Christian Family Unit to survive, yet they are doing everything they can to destroy the Family which will inturn eventually destroy their vision of a Utopian State(i.e. nanny state Socialism).
The State has an interest in the healthy Family Unit and Women having babies at more than 2.1 per woman AND that Family teaching its children things like RESPECT FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS, for example. One of the Internal Contradictions of Libertarianism here.
jp on October 20, 2008 at 4:29 PM
It is now, but if a Constitutional Amendment addressing it is passed by the procedure set for such a thing, then it becomes a Federal issue. Which is sort of what Gov. Palin is talking about.
Mind you, I wouldn’t mind leaving it up to the States myself, but with with the Full Faith and Credit clause along with judges reading what’s in the law rather than interpreting it to mean what they’d like for it to mean, anything a State said would be irrelevant once the Robed Tyrants were done examining penumbras and emanations (and international consensus).
Good luck trying to pass the FMA, though.
Misha I on October 20, 2008 at 4:29 PM
He also owned slaves and thought that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. He helped to create a system of government where the governed can make changes based on a moral understanding that is infulenced by many sources.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 4:30 PM
A marriage license is a contract that is able to be taken across state lines under the constitution. An abortion is not. Therefore, it is understandable that someone would prefer a federal solution for gay marriage and a state solution for abortion.
Kafir on October 20, 2008 at 4:30 PM
given the number of states already voting to ban gay marriage, it has a very good chance.
right4life on October 20, 2008 at 4:30 PM
My morality comes from personal introspection and reasoning. I’m not about to go out and steal, lie, cheat, or murder because all of those things impact the rights and freedoms of others. I don’t see any marriage contract between adults as inherently immoral.
Morality drawn from a book (the Bible) or an individual (the Pope, etc.) is an Appeal to Authority in logic-speak. If I don’t agree that your authority is one, then such appeals are irrelevant.
Western Civilization was never founded. If it was, what date was it founded on? As for same-sex marriage, it won’t destroy society. If anything, it will strengthen society because marriage contracts are more stable and conducive to societal harmony than the lack of such contracts.
Jefferson also had no problem condoning slavery. Or profiting from it. Don’t trot him out to make a moral argument.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 20, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Yes, I too tire of laws affecting morality. Theft and Murder should be accepted in a truly civilized society. Don’t people realize that survival of the fittest is the only true moral system? All these impositions on thieves and murderers are ridiculous. ANARCHY!
BKennedy on October 20, 2008 at 4:31 PM
AllahPundit, I still haven’t forgiven you for this:
As supported by a higher authority than me, it was and is completely out of order:
My biggest problem with you AllahPundit is that you do not have the capacity to apologize – at least not that I have seen – And I have a really really big problem with that.
And….. until you can show the strength to apologize (without excuses and dodges)…. SCREW YOU (to use a metaphor) !!
Maybe as the self-imposed leader of the atheist flock here, you could be an example of good intentions?
But until then, you keep reinforcing my experience with atheist friends, in that, you don’t have the goodness inbred in you as do Deists.
Mcguyver on October 20, 2008 at 4:31 PM
don’t forget the poor Cannibals out there that Society rejects over their ‘choice of morality’. i.e. Eating Humans. Cannibals have Rights too! Who are we to Judge
meanwhile, the Secular Humanist stand in Judgement of Traditional Values everywhere you look.
jp on October 20, 2008 at 4:31 PM
I think Gov Palin and Joe Biden agreed on this in the debate.
christene on October 20, 2008 at 4:32 PM
He realized that slavery was a problem that would eventually have to be dealt with, and as for women’s suffrage – that was fixed by a [drumroll...........] constitutional amendment.
Akzed on October 20, 2008 at 4:32 PM
I’m voting against it, of course. Even if it does pass, it won’t become law because it would be instantly struck down by the court. Propositions aren’t law, anyhow.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 20, 2008 at 4:32 PM
and gay marriage will impact the freedom of christians, and others who disagree with it. but to people like you, some pigs are more equal than others.
right4life on October 20, 2008 at 4:32 PM
So was slavery as I recall.
Akzed on October 20, 2008 at 4:32 PM
You don’t want to support gay marriage, fine. But there is absolutely no need for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage.
Give it to the states.
JetBoy on October 20, 2008 at 4:33 PM
I understand what you mean, hh. I was only trying to distinguish her legal reasoning.
Although I don’t know that I could equate murder with sexual sin.
BigD on October 20, 2008 at 4:33 PM
you’re an idiot, proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment. pathetic.
right4life on October 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM
to which, William Ayers is an example of a Secular Humanist ahead of the curve here. wanting to get rid of prisons and all.
jp on October 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM
I was wondering why I heard his head explode.
Dash on October 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Marriage isn’t a state issue. It doesn’t belong to government, any government.
Marriage licenses are state issues. And as someone up the thread said – full faith & credit – makes licensing an option for the federal level. Ie if fed is going to dish out monetary bonuses for marriage contracts, it should have say in what the contract is. I just wish government would get out of the marriage business altogether, including the financial aspects.
Spirit of 1776 on October 20, 2008 at 4:35 PM
So it just might at times be the product of indigestion, or hormonal imbalance…
That’s either arbitrary or Christian. Either way it isn’t very original, so it can’t be te product of “personal introspection and reasoning.”
Akzed on October 20, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Oh P.S. Anyone ever asked here about Civil Unions?
Dash on October 20, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Theft and murder aren’t moral acts. They also interfere with the rights of their victims, so are illegal and punished by the power of government.
Really, this tiresome slippery slope argument merely serves to show the vapidity of a moral argument against same-sex marriage.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 20, 2008 at 4:36 PM
neither is killing an unborn baby. its not illegal, and not punished by the government.
right4life on October 20, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Not that you have made argument one in favor of it.
Akzed on October 20, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Yeah, you go do that. We’ll still love her regardless.
Spanglemaker on October 20, 2008 at 4:39 PM
otherwise known as Humanism, a stated religion by its founders in the Humanist Manifesto.
a hopeless, meaningless philosophy…..which also has to borrow from the Christian worldview to function in Society or follow its logic to its conclusion of “Anything Goes”
jp on October 20, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Really? Care to back that throw-away line up?
Spirit of 1776 on October 20, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Right. I was disagreeing with the assertion that Jefferson subscribed to an absolute moral standard on every issue. If he could foresee slavery changing and allow for future generations to amend the Constitution, then he knew that views on morality would change.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Palin speaks for the base, if you have problems with Palin, you probably have problems with the base of the Republican Party. For the record, I support Palin and her stand on gay marriage which is not demonstrably different than President Bush’s position on gay marriage.
Agreed, there is nothing anti-federalist about the FMA. Look at the swift surgical unraveling of DOMA by the judiciary and you can see why the federalist approach makes no sense.
Angry Dumbo on October 20, 2008 at 4:40 PM
This country has grown too small not to have a single definition of marriage. It gets too fractured with neighboring states that do not allow Gay marriage dealing with people moving in and running deceitful political campaigns over this issue and funding Dems to get them elected with the purpose of getting laws changed.
Plus, if God lets the sun shine and the cool rain fall on both the righteous and sinners, He just might do the same with the firestorm unleashed on MA and CT that should be coming up. Just don;t look back as you run away, or bend over.
Hening on October 20, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Argument in favor of same-sex marriage contracts:
Heterosexual marriages are given sanction by the government. They are based on two individuals of different genders entering into a legal contract.
Two individuals of same gender want to enter into a marriage contract. The government discriminates against them by denying their desire.
This is a clear case of discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. Legally there is no reason to do so. Courts have ruled that this is the case.
Thus marriage should be unrestricted by the gender of the two individuals.
This is a short version, you can see longer and better reasonings in thew two major court decisions on the subject.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 20, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Palin already has the votes from the base. She’s causing the ticket to lose moderate voters.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 4:43 PM
If we could get rid of ACtivist Liberal judges who impose their liberal pro-gay views on this country we wouldn’t need a federal law stating marriage is between one man and one woman. Sorry to say the courts are full of judges who will impose gay marriage on all of us. Three states already now have it on their law books due to aactivist judges So bring on the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Bullhead on October 20, 2008 at 4:43 PM
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Establish a law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state and on a general plan.” -The Jefferson Memorial, Washington, D.C.
~
So, I think that Tom had some idea to which the amendment process might have been put to use. I’m sure he would have favored the 13th Amendment to what preceded it.
Akzed on October 20, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Why aren’t they moral acts then? Where did the source of this morality come from? If it comes from within(Humanism), then if say a Murderer and Mobster thinks Stealing and Murdering is Moral to them, who are you to Judge them?
even Plato realized there was a “One among Many” contradiction in this type of philosophy. A problem solved by the Triune God…but that is another debate.
jp on October 20, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Owning them and not manumitting them isn’t enough? How about having extra-marital relations with them and fathering children?
The point is that he isn’t a good choice for your appeal to authority.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 20, 2008 at 4:45 PM
its called the slippery slope…and its quite accurate.
right4life on October 20, 2008 at 4:45 PM
It’s her personal opinion, but it has little consequence. Constitutional Amendments require a super-majority in both houses of Congress and need to be ratified by 3/4 of the State legislatures, and none of the process involves the Vice President, if she were elected.
This probably won’t cost her any votes, because most of the Independent vote (and even many Democrats) consider marriage
Most voters will believe that she picked the “right” side of this issue, even though she couldn’t do anything about it if she were elected.
Steve Z on October 20, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Why should we amend the federal constitution to rescue the states from their own courts? Why can’t the states rescue themselves? California seems set to do so.
paul006 on October 20, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Just out of curiosity: suppose South Dakota legalizes marriage at the age of 9. Mary (aged 9 1/2) weds Bill (aged 47) in a beautiful ceremony in downtown Pierre. Then the happy couple moves to, North Carolina, where weddings before the age of 16 are generally frowned on. What would Bill and Mary’s status be there? Married couple under the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Child molester and a case for Child Protective Services?
factoid on October 20, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »