Last Night’s GOP Debate

I also like Ron Paul though I have concerns about his foreign policy. But should he be elected, long-shot, I know, I don’t doubt that he wouldn’t accept the advice of his Generals. The conflicts in the ME are worrisome and the extremists of the faux religion cannot be trusted. Does RP know that?

As an aside, what of George Washington’s words in his farewell address? Was Washington misguided and short-sighted for expressing as he did?

“In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.

33 So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. ”

Perhaps if Ron Paul was as eloquent this wouldn’t even be an issue.

@retire05: You are absolutely correct retire05, I was wrong concerning the DoM Act and I apologize. I shall definitely do more research prior to posting. That’s what comes from relying on memory instead of verifying the facts first.

That being said….and after doing some much needed research. Let me run this past you, while the DoMA did not require one state to recognize homosexual marriages performed in another state it did define what type of marriage would be recognized on the Federal level, correct?

DoMA Section 3. Definition of marriage
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.

Now every State has it’s own laws regarding marriage right? Some States recognize common law marriages…. some don’t, some recognize putative marriages… some don’t, some States allow cousins to legally marry… some don’t, some States require a blood test… some don’t, et cetera. But prior to the DoMA if a State recognized a marriage as legitimate then the Federal government did as well. A general rule of jurisprudence is that if a marriage is valid where it was performed then it is valid everywhere. Therefore with passage of the DoMA the Feds determined that one certain type of marriage that WAS recognized by the State as legitimate would not be recognized on the Federal level. Now I know that neither the Feds nor any State recognizes any plural marriage even though biblically plural marriages are recognized as legitimate.

My point is this, if the people of a State decide that one form of marriage will be considered to be legitimate in that state then shouldn’t that marriage be recognized by the other States and the Feds as well? I’m not saying that a state should be required to allow similar marriages to occur only to recognize the legitimacy of those marriages that were legally conducted elsewhere. I see that you have assumed that I might regard marriage to merely be some simple contract or you may just be yanking my chain, I take my marriage vows quite seriously and I am also opposed to homosexual marriages, I will vote against them every chance I get and if Louisiana should ever legalize them I’ll be headed to some state that doesn’t but I will not attempt to impose my beliefs on another and if the people (not the courts) of California or Massachusetts should decide that they want to legalize homosexuals getting hitched then let the love fest begin, it’s no skin off my nose.

I still say that the Feds have no business determining what is and what is not considered to be a legitimate marriage, it is not one of their delegated powers according to Art. 1 Sec. 8 and should be considered to be a States rights issue and in accordance with the 10th amendment it should be addressed at the State level.

Sorry it took so long to respond but I have been tearing the trout up on the beaches this weekend and getting on the computer has not been a priority.

@Wordsmith: You know wordsmith you may be right, I always used to describe individuals such a Romney and McCain as “Rockefeller Republicans” I guess “moderate Republicans” would work as well… I assure you that I only used the term in a descriptive sense in order to differentiate between the conservative and moderate division within the Republican Party.

My problem is that the Republican party justifies their unconstitutional positions and agendas by claiming the moral high ground just as the Democrats do with their unconstitutional positions. I am opposed to any legislation that is not Constitutionally justifiable, be it homosexual marriage, war on drugs, DoE, Welfare, Social Security, attacking Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc… whether or not I may personally approve or disapprove of it does not matter. The only way to recapture our sovereignty is to limit the government to its Constitutionally mandated powers.

So if you want to Feds to make homosexual marriages illegal nation wide, show me the Constitutional justification for such a law. For me this applies to any federal act, clean air, child labor laws, drug war, war on terrorism…what ever. If it’s not in the Constitution then it is a matter for the People and for the States to decide. At least in my opinion.

@ilovebeeswarzone: Thanks Beezy!!

@Gary G. Swenchonis: LOL, so right, you are so right!