Posted on 05/24/2006 5:13:34 PM PDT by Aetius
Marriage, like slavery, is too important to leave to the states.
And this isn't even remotely akin to legislating by constitution. What an absurd and rationally impoverished thing to say! The amendment would RESTRICT the power of government, not expand it. Restricting and limiting the power of government is an eminently proper application of a constitution.
How can you people keep missing this obvious point? I believe it must be because you're social liberals and the idea of prohibiting gay marriage and other cockeyed liberal social experiments offends you. It actually excites you to have small cabals of liberal judges rewrite the traditions of society to fit the morally bankrupt liberal model and force everybody else to abide by it.
Put it to a vote before the people. One more reason not to vote McCain.
Okay, but assuming you have not been living under a rock, you are aware that our imperial Supreme Court has a penchant for usurping power from the people, the states, and its fellow two inferior federal branches, right?
What you say is technically correct, but surely you don't think that the behavior of our courts and their judge-kings is in line with the intended structure of our govt, do you?
Now, if you think its a cheap 'trick' because it has no chance of passing, then fine, but to argue that some form of Amendment won't eventually be necessary is to ignore the past 50+ yrs of judicial activism. The only other way would be if the other branches simply ignored the SCOTUS imposition of gay marriage/civil unions when it comes, but I don't think there is any chance at all of that.
Your line that an Amendment is not necessary because the public opposes gay marriage is bizarre. Its puzzling because, again, we live with activist courts where public opinion only matters when the justices use it to bolster whatever leftwing decision they are handing down. Otherwise, it is completely meaningless...as it will be once marriage finally reaches the Sup Court. Do you really think that Souter, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy will take into account the twenty or so overwhelming popular statewide rejections of gay marriage?
I don't.
Exactly!
How many strikes is that now for him? Baseball players only get three, and that's just a game. What he's doing is serious business. Throw the bum out!
i.e. - John McCain wants to be president really, really, really, lots and lots. He thinks he's appealing to the 'center'. He's really appealing to no one except the MSM, and only then as the fall guy for Hillary. He's just not smart enough to figure out that last part.
McCain better forget about the GOP nomination.
But it won't be. Sooner or later a federal court will overturn a state ban on homo marriage and it will go to the USSC for a final decision. Unless Bush can get another originalist Justice on the court before a Democrat or a Rino like Giuliani or McCain gets into the White House in '09 the USSC would probably uphold the lower court.
It will take 2/3 of both houses of Congress and ratification by 38 states to amend the Constitution to ban homo marriage. And public opinion of homo marriage is gradually being changed from unfavorable to favorable by the intense, concerted effort of the leftist media and Hollywood. That's why we need the amendment NOW, before the growing trend toward toleration of homosexual perversion by the public grows into a substantial bloc of favorable opinion for homo marriage so that an amendment couldn't be passed and ratified by the requisite super majority.
Once the amendment is made part of the Constitution it would take 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to repeal it, and I don't believe there would be enough support for homo marriage to get that done anytime soon. IOW time is on the side of those who oppose such an amendment.
Interesting discussion on the marriage amendment. Didn't have time to read every word (usually don't these days....)
I can't imagine anyone with a valid reason to be against the protection of marriage. And since when is Guiliani a conservative? (Rhetorical ?)
The most important thing about the measure is that it would protect states in which folks had voted FOR a Defense of Marriage act, from wild-eyed liberal judges who decided on their own to throw out the decision of the people as unconstitutional.
Well, that is one thing we can all agree on.
/me ducks
Whats with the strawberry references to mccain? I see a lot of freeper references to it but never figured it out.
I think very few people would consider rudy a conservative...
I actually think his position is right on. I really don't think this is an issue the federal government should be involved in unless it is forced on it.
If the SC found DOMA unconstitutional, I'd favor amending the Constitution to let the states decide, and make it so other states wouldn't have to recognize marriages it doesn't agree with. If the only proposal on the table was to ban it outright for all 50 states, I'd vote for it, but grugingly. It really seems to me that, in a perfect world, the Government wouldn't be involved with marriage at all. I recognize that this isn't practical because of all the legal ramifications, but it is what I'd perfer.
I agree 100 percent!
Actually, this issue might make me stay home in 08. Or vote 3rd party.
McC will never get the GOP nomination....tooooo Dean like!
Julie-Annie? He is no different...
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.