[thecavemaster]

I believe you're absolutely correct, only off on the timeframe. I believe it will happen much sooner than that.

Here's the deal, a more detailed belief for ya, the government should have absolutely NO power at all, at ANY level, NOW or 2 millions years from now.. to tell two consenting adults that they can be married. There is only 1 reason, and 1 reason only that the government cares about who is and isn't married. Power. Marriage is a religious institution that may or may not have came from the almighty God. So therefore, with that out of the way, I'm a firm believer in of the closer-further arguement. The closer a government is to you, the more in tune with your beliefs it usually is. The further the government is away, the more power it needs to control you. This is why I believe in limiting the power of the federal government in accordance with the constitution and providing for smaller, closer, and less powerful entities to have the control it needs to effectively govern its citizens/inhabitants.

I believe in equal protection under the law, probably much more strongly than you do, in fact. I believe in equal protection under federal law, 110%. I believe in equal protection under state law, and even local law. 110%. But the fact is, the federal government does NOT control marriage, and it would take a constitutional amendment to BAN a form of marriage. This is obvious, because making a law against it at the federal level would have worked and passed in place of the constutituional amendment that failed numerous times in the past. States have the power to regulate marriage, and thus do not fall under the equal protections of federal law. This has been the typical view of the courts on most issues when the equal protections clause has came up. Slavery however is a federal law, backed back the constitution. Do you see where this is going? You're right. Equal protection this, and equal protection that. But these don't apply to state laws, unless they violate a federal provision in either the law or the constitution. But this entire point is quite moot with the unrestrained courts we currently have. They use commerce laws to deal with topics like racism, and with SINGLE STATE MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS, ect.

I dunno how to get my point across to you. I believe that the constitution is the supreme law of the land (unless because of a treaty, it isn't), and the way it is written, the way its been interpreted more often, and the way that the founders definately wanted it to be, based upon their own writings and speeches... provides for a limited federal government that forms from a union of the soveriegn states, and has a specific list of duties to perform, and a small list of god given rights it shall defend and protect. The states were to be the ultimate rulers of peoples day to day life, and surely not some regulatory agency centralized in the most crime ridden city in the United states. Having the most powerful form of government so close to the people it worked for, provided the ability to reshape how they wanted their state ran when things weren't pleasing to them... now compare that with trying to change the federal landscape, which currently is the most powerful and ineffecient body in your life. See how that makes sense?

Listen CM, I'm not out to argue with you. And definately not about to argue with you about what I believe myself. I'm putting it out there, and from your PM, it seems you know what you believe. Others may benefit from hearing those things as well. We see things completely different. I believe in the original intent, and you take a literal approach. This is what led to denominationalism and 35,000 divisions within the church of Christ. It destroyed Christianity's original intent... and it will destroy this nation. The founders had it right. The rest of man.. has almost always got it wrong.

So where does this leave us? The same place we began. I want MORE state rights, and less federal intervention. I want to repeal the 17th amendment and once again give the state itself actual representation in Washington, like nearly 200 other nations currently have. I want to get rid of every mandate that unfairly punishes a state for not doing as the federal government wants, and I want to end the practice of twisting the commerce clause to control anything it deems wrong, even those that happen within a single state.

So cavemaster, what does that make me? A bad guy? a cold hearted person? uneducated? a radical? What you see as possibly some of the preceeding things, I see as a guy who wants to give an opportunity to the people to regain control of their lives, via regaining control of their government, and resulting in regaining control of the future...

"A government big enough to give you everything you need... Is surely STRONG enough to take everything you HAVE"

STRIP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWERS!!!!! REPEAL THE 17TH AMENDMENT NOW!!! STRENGTHEN THE 10TH AMENDMENT!!!! REISSUE E.O. 12612!!

I think Orwell had legitimate concerns about power vested in the hands of a centralized authority. However, what is it that you personally would like to do, Congressman, that mean ol' Big Brother won't let you? Governments are made up of men and women, and, therefore, share the same vices, thus, a need for "watchdog" citizenry. However, unregenerate human nature needs a strong, principled government, or else, for instance, the panting majority has its vices enthroned.