You could use some global warming ...

Just a couple things here ...

Keynesian Economics, be it under FDR or Obama (& to some extent Bush), has come to be viewed by many contemporary Americans the same way man made global warming has. It was once scripture, but now because of objective treatise of both historical and contemporary economic data it is has been abandoned as a solution by all but those far to the left of the ideological aisle. It didn't fulfill its' mandate in the 30's or 40's nor is it working in the 2000's, because when it comes to "economic stimulus" in order for the government to inject money in to the private sector it must first take it out of the private sector (in one form or another), and there is no money in the private sector that isn't already being used for such. The notion that government can create (or save) jobs and spur economic growth by removing money from the private sector, then reintroducing it via government benevolence, is quickly joining communism, Marxism and other failed notions in the trash bin of history's failed ideas, and should have long ago. I contend that your admiration of the FDR version yet condemnation of the Obama version demonstrates quite nicely what I couldn't in a 1000 posts - show that you have an emotional connection with the former that is impenetrable (I should have known as much when you described your tender caressing of a WPA stamped hand tool you own).

And I'll just leave it at that.

The issue of confederate marriage ...

I do not defend "interventionism" as necessary... but I have in the past and will continue to defend the Keynesian economics employed during the several FDR Administrations between 1933 and 1941. And I have NEVER advocated that the Government should regulate SEX... do you advocate that? Do you actually think that the regulation of SEX is something within the purvue of the US Federal Government beyond the aforementioned determination of the age of consent? When did that come into the discussion? Are we back to making homosexual activity a felony crime?"

First off, the portion of your statement which ends with "1941" should be proof to any objective observer that you "favor" FDR's economic spending on an emotional level. Oh just he got it right ay? Uhuh, I see. "Whatever" my friend. I'm not rehashing what should be obvious to everyone now, and as such I will digress ...

The "sex" question. Seriously? You truly are all over the board with this issue. 1st its a Constitutional matter, then basic fairness, Amendments that wont "work" because of the courts ... etc etc. Did you not realize in a discussion about "gay marriage" that I was referring to "sex" as in the "sex" of the individual, male or female? What is this, an Austin Powers bit? To this day you still conjure up homophobic, sexist, racist images at the presentation of the phrase "Reagan-conservative", don't you? Sheeesh.

My reason for bringing up the New Deal was from an ideological standpoint - that of proposing or opposing government intervention into the individuals life. I hear you, within the marriage discussion, making a conservative if not Libertarian philosophical point about the need for government to not inject itself into the individuals private life concerning marriage, nor invoke its power in "areas not specifically delineated by the US Constitution", and I burst with laughter. How could you have written such a sentence and still defend New Deal? Or the Department of Education, the EPA, etc, etc etc? Do you understand? Where are they "specifically delineated in the Constitution?" I can have a rationale discussion with someone whom wants the government to recognize same sex unions as "marriage" because they are arguing what they perceive to be a "right." But your argument thus far was that the government had zero Constitutional authority to regulate marriage at all. And you wanted citation of where in the Constitution it specifically states a mandate for that government regulation. Do you see my problem with your argument? There are multiple departments, legislation, mandates, and interventionism of the government into the private sector and individuals life that you full well support, but suddenly with marriage you want specific line and verse cited before you'll accept it! Look, if you want to make the argument that the government must also recognize gay unions as marriage or be guilty of discrimination, then fine. You are wrong in my opinion (get to that in a minute), but fine. But you only made that argument in your last post. In all posts prior you were citing the unconstitutionality of the government regulation of marriage at all, because it wasn't specifically delineated in our supreme legal document and that supporting an Amendment was foolish because the courts would eventually overturn it ... hehe (sorry, that makes me giggle a bit is all). Now on the latter you have recanted. What about the former? Where is the consistency in defending New Deal, the existence of the DOE, etc, or the wide breadth of multiple other historical and contemporary mandates and laws not cited by name or line but when it comes to marriage you oppose its' regulation because it is not "specifically delineated in the Constitution?"

Now, lets say you were to recant the Constitutional argument as well. That you realize that in your supporting other departments, programs and mandates not specifically delineated in the Constitution you undercut any legitimacy on wanting a specific mandate cited in the Constitution for marriage licensing and regulation, ok? Lets say you do that ... we are still left with your contention that recognizing 1 form of marriage and not another is just plain discrimination. Let us now deal with that:

"I am simply and plainly stating that I don't think the Federal Government should be regulating "morality", be it who can or can't get married, who can or can't have this or that kind of sex, as long as they are both consenting adults that aren't hurting anyone else via their actions... period. Why is this so wrong?"
First off, this has always been a matter of state law when it comes to licensing marriages, not the feds, and gay marriage has only now moved into federal territory. But in any event here is where you are misguided. In the matter of marriage government already "regulates morality." You are making the classic "two consenting adults" argument, fine. But do you not realize by that very statement you are advocating your version of morality? What about 3 consenting adults? The outlawing of plural marriage IS BY DEFINITION regulating "marriage." You can't say "its already illegal", and thus has no place in the discussion or your argument because gay marriage is "already illegal" too in most places, and at the very least in the places where this is being fought. Do you not see the inherent flaw in your argument of fairness, of the government regulating morality? A man and two women, or vice versa - lets say the precepts laid down in their religion mandate plural marriage. Ok? Where do you get the moral authority to advocate the government regulate, via its illegality and prevention, the actions of 3 "consenting adults that aren't hurting anyone else", yet inform me that I have no moral authority to demand the government regulate, via its illegality and prevention, the actions of 2 same sex consenting adults? Do you not see this problem inherent within your argument? Where do you draw the line? Whose is the "final" definition of "marriage" we all go with if we abandon its meaning of the last 5,000 years? Yours? Mine? Whose? By declaring that plural marriage, etc, should be illegal you have asked your government to "regulate morality", right then, at that moment. So what makes your regulation request any less legitimate than mine or your demands any less discriminatory?

The government, state and federal, have curbed various acts in order to maintain a healthy, functioning society. We have freedom of speech as our first amendment, yet one can not yell "fire" in a crowded theater, nor make libelous statements in public about another. We have freedom of religion, yet one can not conduct human sacrifice, or practice polygamy to satisfy religious dogma, etc. We recognize the 2nd Amendment but one can not own a Howitzer. And what I am telling you is that I feel the same argument can be made for the government limiting marriage to one consenting adult male and one consenting adult female. If you disagree, fine. But this means your only avenue to avoid the hypocrisy of your own demands that government regulate morality via pluarl marriage is to advocate the complete and utter deregulation of marriage up to and including all acts between "consenting adults not hurting anybody." I have a specific definition of marriage that I believe is a healthy, protective and fruitful way to organize society around. I have made my judgment on the matter. However, you can not describe that judgement as "discriminatory", unfair or unjust because you have made those exact judgments on plural marriage, underage marriage, etc. Those laws are in fact regulating "marriage", plain and simple. Those laws help to define what marriage is and is not, plain and simple. And I use plural marriage in particular because there you have consenting adults (again, not hurting anybody), perhaps simply practicing their religion. Yet Titus has made a moral judgement upon them, demanded the government prohibit their desired action, supports perhaps even their criminal punishment, all because he wants his version of morality regarding marriage "regulated" by the government. So I ask you sir, how could you condemn me for precisely the same action when I am merely drawing my government enforced moral line in the sand a few steps before your own?

Oh ... I am curious. Should each state decide its' own abortion laws? Would you be a proponent of that? While your anwering that, please consider answering this - an amendment would be legal and binding in all 50 states and impervious to the whims of future courts. Given that, would you support a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage between 1 consenting adult male and 1 consenting adult female? How about an abortion amendment? Now careful - you'll be demanding your government "regulate morality" with an Amendment to prohibit abortion. Can you do such a thing? I mean, know how you oppose the regulation of morality by our government so I was just wondering. And if not, what is the point of opposing its legality at all? Isn't the opposition of its legality in and of itself asking your government to "regulate morality?" To enforce your version of morality?

Like I said, just curious.