Posted on 03/19/2004 7:44:58 AM PST by veronica
According to a March 10 editorial masquerading as a news story in The Washington Post, the paper's most recent poll found that a majority of Americans "reject(s) amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriages in favor of allowing states to make their own laws." Having just seen a CBS News poll suggesting an entirely opposite public sentiment, my first reaction was to compare the wording of the respective questions. My suspicions were confirmed. The Post led respondents to its desired answer by manipulating the question.
CBS News straightforwardly asked: "Would you favor or oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow marriage only between a man and a woman?" By a wide margin, 59 percent favored such an amendment; 35 percent opposed it. The Washington Post put the question this way: "Would you support amending the U.S. Constitution to make it illegal for homosexual couples to get married anywhere in the U.S., or should each state make its own laws on homosexual marriage?" Worded that way, 43 percent favored an amendment; 54 percent opted for state laws.
The devil is in the false dilemma posed by the Post. The choice they offer is tendentious and misleading, exploiting the fact that most respondents probably aren't sufficiently informed on the nuances of the issue to recognize the ploy.
Supporters of various versions of a federal marriage amendment aren't proactive. They're reactive. The fight was initiated by gay activists plying liberal judges to force the issue. The first counterattack was the Defense of Marriage Act, passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996.
The Defense of Marriage Act didn't ban same-sex marriage at the state level, but defined it under federal law as the union only of a man and a woman. The Defense of Marriage Act also sought to inoculate individual states from the provisions of the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution which might be interpreted to require every state to recognize same-sex marriages certified in any state.
The Defense of Marriage Act is the next target of gay activists, who will seek to have it overturned in the courts. In anticipation of that, the federal marriage amendment is a goal-line defense to protect individual states from being forced by federal or local courts to legally recognize same-sex marriages imposed on other states by their local courts.
The recent spate of same-sex marriages, in blatant defiance of local law, performed by sympathetic mayors in places like San Francisco is intended to further escalate the battle in the courts, the only venue where gay activists feel they can win. At the same time, this has heightened the sense of urgency for federal marriage amendment supporters.
The wording of the question in the Post poll gives the false impression that individual states are making laws to legalize same-sex marriage.
This isn't true. In every case, its unelected liberal judges, inventing constitutional rights that have never existed, who are setting aside laws and mandating that legislators codify same-same marriage. When courts did this in Hawaii and Alaska, the legislators and voters promptly amended their state constitutions to overrule the activist judges. That's what's going on in Massachusetts at this very moment.
While a reasonable case can be made, under the principle of federalism, for crafting an federal marriage amendment that would allow each state to decide this for itself, that decision should be made by state legislatures, not state courts. And Colorado citizens should certainly not be subject to the whims and ideology of Massachusetts courts.
In place of the shifty wording in The Washington Post poll, do you suppose a different result would have been obtained if the question had been posed as follows: "An amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been proposed that would prevent activist judges in some states from forcing other states to accept the legality of same-sex marriages. Would you favor or oppose such an amendment?"
Or, if you think that has too much spin, how about this: "Would you support amending the U.S. Constitution to clearly define marriage as a union between a man and a woman under federal law, while allowing the legislature of each state the autonomy to make its own laws regarding marriage or civil unions within that state?"
Rosen Bump
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda ( www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1076476/posts ) |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) ( www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1026551/posts ) |
|
|
| The Stamp of Normality ( www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1085090/posts ) |
Really.
Washington Post is an anagram for "Pathetic Exponents of Mendacity".
Or "Sovietizing Power Junkies".
I forget which.
Actually, it has been. When Utah was up for statehood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.