Imagine regulating the dating behavior of African American men who use liquor stores in Harlem. Studies (however dated) can prove that the men in Harlem do or did, in fact, abuse alcohol, drugs and their wives more than the national average.
If you can regulate men who use dating sites, you must also regulate any other subset of Americans that can be identified as being more abusive to women than normal.
And you must not stop there: Studies have shown that gay men are more likely to have Aids so they must be stopped from saying hello at www.gay.com
and bus stations and bars to unsuspecting naive young gay males arriving in the big city from thousands of miles away without friends and family as "support structures".Another big problem is that IMBRA violates liberal principles like crazy as well.
Remember that the essence of why EC lost their challenge is because of the principle (from US vs Carolene Products 1937) that Congress can regulate commerce as long as it can be shown that they were behaving rationally, regardless of whether they were acting on correct information or not.
You have proven that the Republican politicians in Congress were acting irrationally because they were going against everything they have ever believed in (and what they said in 2003 to reject the same law).
But we can also prove that the Democrats were acting irrationally because IMBRA contradicts many of their most cherished positions:
Liberal Principle #1
Punishing legitimate, legal businesses because some of their customers abuse their services. Therefore, it must be the fault of the business ("trafficking" in women and girls), and not that of the actual abusers. Using Anti-Capitalist politics.
Non-IMBRA example: Suing the tobacco companies because people were too stupid to know that smoking causes cancer, and when they got sick it was the manufacturer's fault, not their own. Every conservative host and pundit ranted and raved about this during the entire tobacco litigation.
The Democrats are otherwise fighting tooth and nail to maintain anonymity on the Internet and they are fighting tooth and nail to stop background checks for men who use American domestic dating sites.
In addition, the Democrats (especially the hypocrite Judge Clarence Cooper) are fighting tooth and nail to maintain the rights of jailed convicts to have MySpace accounts and for registered sex offenders to use bus stops near schools (kids have to wait for the bus too).
Judge Clarence Cooper struck down the law against sex offenders using school bus stops.
Liberal Principle #2
Maintaining a criminal justice status quo that doesn't punish real criminals, and therefore creating laws that punish the multitude of honest, law-abiding citizens for the heinous and irresponsible acts of the few.
Non-IMBRA example: Our revolving door criminal justice system, and laws that sanction everything from the use of public park property to how you are allowed to start your car in the morning (some places actually ban leaving your car running while you go inside because it might get stolen. It is your fault the car was stolen, not the criminal's). Many conservative and moderate hosts complain about these things.
Admittedly, the liberals are into punishing the masses and letting the actual criminals get a pass should they break through the barriers put up for everybody.
Liberal Principle #3
Presuming that the government has the right to monitor and control the personal, private, social and family lives of individual citizens. Creating "Big Brother" government
Non-IMBRA example: Laws that sanction everything from the car you drive, the way you heat and cool your house, and where you can purchase land and build a house; in the name of "saving the environment" and controlling "global warming". If you want to hear a rant about this, listen to the Mark Levin show, or any of Rush's environmental updates.
Again...because this is a typical Democrat "posítivist law" attitude, we cannot say they were being irrational voting for IMBRA on this account.
Democrats believe that a democracy can take away anyone rights as long as the majority agrees...and since the US is not a democracy but a Republic...it follows that our Republic can allow Democrats like John Conyers to slip an outrageous law into the back of VAWA at the last second and get Congress to vote on it without reading it.
Liberal Principle #4
Using sensational stories, tear-jerking rhetoric and appeals to the emotions as the impetus to actions whether or not they adhere to the Constitution. Finding loopholes and ways to change or "get around" the Constitution in order to pass an agenda because "Failing to do so may cost the life of one more poor, helpless victim". Using "Poster Child" politics
Non-IMBRA example: Run away gun control legislation after the tragedies at Columbine and other schools. People like Rush, Sean Hannity and Tony Snow complain about this incessantly.
Columbine may be a bad example here because it highlighted a real problem, unlike IMBRA. Columbine was IMHO an advertisement to arm a few teachers at each school.
Here again, it is normal for Democrats to use "failing to make a new law will cost a life".
I guess you are correct that it was more irrational for Republicans to vote for IMBRA than for Democrats to do so...based on the examples you gave.
But I can come up with some more reasons why the Democrats completely violated some more important principles of their faith:IMBRA makes it illegal to cheat on your wife. It is the first federal law against marial infidelity.
IMBRA almost makes it illegal to lie to another human being socially. The reason I say "almost" is because IMBRA makes a point of making it not a crime if a man lies on the dating site IMBRA forms about who he is and what states he has lived in and whether he has any arrests or convictions.