Huckabee

Wrong.DOMA was codified in two different sections of the US Code. Here's what they say:

quote:

---

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

---

1 U.S.C. 7

quote:

---

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

---

28 U.S.C. 1738CNeither of these provisions prevents "redefining" anything.I suspect that 1 U.S.C. 7 defined marriage for the first time for federal purposes. The reason it had never been so defined before is because traditionally the definition and regulation of marriage was left to the states.28 U.S.C. 1738C is pure political pandering. There was no need to pass a law saying that states didn't have to recognize gay marriages from other states. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require states to recognize acts from other states that go against their public policy.They certainly do not prohibit the Supreme Court from holding that the 14th Amendment prevents discrimination in the issuance of marriage licenses on the basis of the gender of the person one wishes to marry, which is what I suspect you mean when you talk about preventing "redefining" of marriage.BTW, I'm fairly certain that Bill Clinton didn't "propose" DOMA. He did sign it, but that comes at the end of the legislative process, not the beginning. Well, lest your infinite ignorance lay unchallenged, the reason nothing was ever put in the Constitution about marriage is because it's a matter for the states to regulate. Perhaps you've never come across the term "federalism." It's the idea that some things are reserved to the states to determine, and marriage is one of those things, subject of course, to the dictates of the 14th Amendment. Wow. Did you actually listen to the clip that you linked upthread, or did someone else tell you what he said and you just believed what they said? He said that any voluntary association should be protected by law, and that the question of marriage should be left to the states. In that clip, he never said a single thing against gay marriage, and his argument for the protection of "voluntary associations" can only be understood as an endorsement of the right to gay marriage. And, given the fact that he said he was against a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, I'm completely at a loss how you could conclude that he's against gay marriage, absent some neurological condition that prevents you from accurately perceiving reality.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

i'm religious, and i quickly admit that my morals come from my parents and the community around me. these seem to be in direct opposition to so many morals of so many people who are also members of my religion.your claim is clearly baseless.

are you going to respond to my post? or any of them?

quote:

---

Here are two high profile libs with their hand in the cookie jar.

---

High profile?I had never heard of these people before.

quote:

---

We also live in a Democracy where the People can cast their vote for what morals should be fixed.

---

"Majority rule" doesn't apply to our civil rights, and never has.Yet again, you are so very wrong about basic facts.

Excuse me but I think I need some clarification.Are you saying that it is wrong to provide money to defend someone charged of a crime in the US?You do know that Lynne Stewart is free on bail pending her appeal?Are you saying that people accused of terrorist acts do not deserve protection under the law?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

yes, of course. criminals is clearly criminals. damn. i'll have to write my congressman to get her sent to gitmo. damn liberals undermining our justice system. of course not, they're enemy combatants and "civies" are their uniform. they should be locked up and tortured in our secret fbi camp in azerbaijan.

I find his tax plan interesting but I have a major problem with it. He talks about abolishing income tax and replacing it with a consumption or sales tax. To make it progressive everyone would get a cheque in the amount of the sales tax up to a defined poverty level.Doesn't this eliminate the ability for any kind of social assistance. I agree that both of our countries do a poor job of targeting and assisting those who need help but I don't see any way of targeting at all with this particular tax plan.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

The tax plan he is supporting is designed to turn the US into nothing more than a Third World Labor pool. Under his program, foreign companies will be encouraged to build US manufacturing and assembly plants, exporting their products to the rest of the world, and then moving all profits off shore without taxation.It is a creative and perhaps necessary change in direction. Under the policies of Reagan, Bush senior and Bush junior, education in the US has been demolished as they desired. We are falling further and further behind the rest of the world daily.Prior economic policy was built on the basis of the US as innovator, however an uneducated ignorant workforce is unlikely to be able to compete with other nations such as India, China, Japan, Korea and so some other direction was needed. What the Education policies of the Conservative Party does prepare us for, is becoming a labor supply, a nation of Morlocks. It is the Great White Fleet in reverse.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

from what i've heard, his is a massive percentage, like in the 30s...i think a well-planned progressive consumption tax (heavy on luxury tax and no loopholes!) could be really fruitful. and, since it depends on consumption, it would encourage savings and investment, which is great for the economy. but i'm not so good with numbers. i worked up a basic plan yesterday, but it's laughable since i know nothing about business purchasing and am too lazy to look up numbers on incomes and spending habits.

generally.

quote:

---

i'll take "all talk and no game" over "all game and no talk" on stuff like the religion-in-office issues.

---

Then you'd like Dr. No.

quote:

---

He's against gay marriage. It should also be known that I happen to agree with him. He gives a great response.

---

He's also for getting government out of our lives. So what if he's against it? His long history shows he will put his foot down when other legislators want to legislate morality. He's called Dr. No for a reason.

quote:

---

This may come as quite a shock, but a persons religion defines their moral outlook.

---

For some people yes. Not all religious people have morals, not all religious people follow their morals, and religion itself is not the sole source of moral outlook. I remind you of the recent scandal where the head of a Christian College resigned because God told him never mind that he blew millions of dollars of non-profit funds on personal wants. Real moral guidance there eh?

quote:

---

By calling them "crazies" over it, you might as well indict yourself.

---

You assume I think all religious people are crazy.

quote:

---

You don't even see your own bigotry, all the while claiming bigotry against them. Its astounding.

---

Care to show me where I argued all religious people are crazy? Furthermore, doesn't my support of Ron Paul show that you are wrong? You contradicted yourself from the very beginning.

You need to show precisely how I broke the golden rule - precisely, by copy and paste, explaining howin the rule was broken. Otherwise all this amounts to is another personal smear job against Buz.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Have you no integrity? All you have done here is offer your personal opinion on what I have supported -- all of it and personally attacked me as a liar. You need to stop personal attack as per EvC guidelines and begin refuting specifics with substantive support, that which I have posted with support. You need to support your claim that my supportive data is irrevelant and innuendo, supporting your claim.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.