See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On May 12th, 2010 at 7:27 am, Trollman said:

   WarEagle82 said:

   But, I can’t make an unredeemed man live like a redeemed man. It isn’t possible. (See 2 Cor. 5:14 for one of the reasons why.) Therefore, the unredeemed will choose to ignore natural law and they will continue to reap the consequences.

   They can choose to do whatever they like. If two people of the same gender want to do whatever, then so be it. What no one has the power nor the authority to do is to redefine reality. Two people of the same gender does not make a marriage.

   The traditional definition of marriage isn’t arbitrary, it is based upon facts.

2. #102
   On May 12th, 2010 at 7:39 am, WarEagle82 said:

   Trollman,

   Why do you think I have always put the term “gay marriage” in quotations? You do realize how that is commonly used, don’t you?

   Irony
   Main article: Scare quotes

   Another common use of quotation marks is to indicate or call attention to ironic or apologetic words:

   He shared his “wisdom” with me.
   The lunch lady plopped a glob of “food” onto my tray.

   Marriage is between one man and one woman. No other union is a marriage.

   I assumed you noted and understood my use of the quotation marks.

3. #103
   On May 12th, 2010 at 7:48 am, Trollman said:

   rightwingrocker said:

   What we are asserting is which power has the authority to enforce it – and it ain’t the fed.

   The federal government’s powers are limited to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Per Amendment X, the States and the People are reserved all others, including this.

   Then gay marriage for everybody! Why? Because states can’t simply agree to disagree on such fundamental issues. That is why – and even a liberal is smart enough to understand this – if there is gay marriage in any state in this country, there will be gay marriage in every state.

   Marriage has to be dealt with at the federal level, because states, by their very nature, cannot solve this matter. It is a “your freedom ends when you bring harm upon another” kind of thing. For that, you need an arbiter between the two (or in this case, 50). States do not have the powers that they cannot have.

   rightwingrocker said:

   Honestly, I couldn’t give a crap what the majority of Americans agree with. The system was set up to keep the majority from dominating for a reason.

   It’s what the Founders would agree with that drives my decisions.

   #1. You completely miss my point. All I was saying was that we shouldn’t run from an issue where we have popular support, since we have RINOs here suggesting we do just that.

   #2. It does matter what a majority believe, because the majority can amend the Constitution.

   And if you can’t understand that, if you think it is sick to believe family & natural law is more foundational than federalism, then you are sick, & are beyond logic.

4. #104
   On May 12th, 2010 at 7:52 am, Trollman said:

   WarEagle82, I didn’t say you believe two people of the same gender equals a marriage.

   Where I disagree with you is this: Refusing to acknowledge the “right to gay marriage” does not force anyone to live a redeemed life, as you suggest.

5. #105
   On May 12th, 2010 at 10:00 am, rightwingrocker said:

   #1. You completely miss my point. All I was saying was that we shouldn’t run from an issue where we have popular support, since we have RINOs here suggesting we do just that.

   The way you’re presenting your point is that the federal government should enforce provisions of natural law that it’s not authorized to enforce under the Constitution.
   

   Then gay marriage for everybody! Why? Because states can’t simply agree to disagree on such fundamental issues. That is why – and even a liberal is smart enough to understand this – if there is gay marriage in any state in this country, there will be gay marriage in every state.

   I don’t agree with you on this at all. States, by their very nature under the supreme law of the land, have the right and the power to agree to disagree on anything that the Constitution does not specifically forbid them from disagreeing on.

   I’m no advocate of gay marriage. It is wrong and it is detestable; but the States control it, and that is where you must fight this battle.

   RWR
   http://www.rightwingrocker.com

   If this is your point, then you’ve been doing a pretty bad job of presenting it.

6. #106
   On May 12th, 2010 at 10:12 am, rightwingrocker said:

   #2. It does matter what a majority believe, because the majority can amend the Constitution.

   Then amend the Constitution. I have no problem with that. Until that happens, it is what it is.
   

   And if you can’t understand that, if you think it is sick to believe family & natural law is more foundational than federalism, then you are sick, & are beyond logic.

   Re-read what I said. I did not say that; and you know I didn’t.

   I said that from a GOVERNMENT STANDPOINT, it is sick to posit that MARRIAGE is more important than federalism if you are of a belief in limited constitutional government.

   By this, I am saying that you (in a sick way) refuse to acknowledge that these problems are PARALLEL EFFECTS of the destruction of federalism as opposed to the direct cause and effect relationship that you attribute.

   Reinstate federalism, and watch this stuff fizzle away. The institution of marriage will be saved, the welfare rolls will disappear (the federal ones completely), and even our economy will reestablish itself as the envy of the world.

   These problems are ALL the result of the systematic dismantling of federalism in this country, including those involving marriage. The Constitution is based on natural law (why do you think “birthers” think they have a case?), but also recognizes a particular structure (federalism) that organizes the power in a fashion most friendly to the people. That happens to be why it is right.

   For more on modern Federalism, check this out.

   RWR
   http://www.rightwingrocker.com

7. #107
   On May 12th, 2010 at 10:13 am, rightwingrocker said:

   BTW I’m not sure how #106 wound up all messed up … the part after the signature should come right after the quote.

   Thanks.

   RWR
   http://www.rightwingrocker.com

8. #108
   On May 12th, 2010 at 9:50 pm, 4USA said:

   I live in South Carolina and know his family. I’d vote for him in a second. He is more Tea Party than Republican.