Posted on 06/05/2006 1:18:01 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Today Mark Earley and I will be at the White House, meeting with President Bush and leaders of the pro-family movement. The president will then speak to the nation in support of the federal marriage amendment [Marriage Protection Amendment]. Thank God we have a president who supports this. I have discussed it with him several times, and I can tell you that he understands fully the social, cultural, and legal reasons why amending the Constitution is the only way to protect marriage.
Unfortunately, a lot of politicians don’t get it. They argue that we do not need a marriage amendment. If we want to keep marriage between one man and one woman—which they say they do—then all we have to do is pass state referenda. Nineteen states have already done so. So amending the U.S. Constitution is unnecessary.
Well, these politicians apparently do not understand the inexorable logic of a series of cases that make it virtually certain that when state statutes barring gay “marriage” reach the Supreme Court, they will be struck down. Other politicians understand all too well, and when they claim that we do not need a marriage amendment, they are being disingenuous.
Let me explain the precedents that make it inevitable that the Court will uphold gay “marriage.” In the 1992 case Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Justice Kennedy affirmed the right of abortion with a sweeping definition of liberty as the right of a person to determine for himself the meaning of life.
Many feared this definition could embrace anything. Soon enough, it did.
In 1995 the Court struck down a democratically enacted state referendum in Colorado denying special civil rights based on sexual orientation. Kennedy wrote the opinion, Romer v. Evans, saying the vote of the people demonstrated “animus,” that is, bigotry, against homosexuals.
Then in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law banning sodomy. Again Justice Kennedy, who could have used a very simple Fourteenth Amendment guarantee argument, resorted instead to his holding in Casey and in Romer v. Evans. By legislating against homosexual behavior, the state was guilty of bigotry or prejudice.
Justice Scalia delivered a blistering dissent. “Today’s opinion,” he said, “dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted the distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions . . . ” He went on to charge that the case meant the end to the possibility of all legislation concerning morality.
Now, what all of this means is that the Supreme Court, following its own precedents, will declare any law restricting the right of homosexuals to marry unconstitutional. The die is cast. An appeal is already coming up from a Nebraska case in which a judge threw out a statute banning gay “marriage” as unconstitutional. Within two years this will be at the Supreme Court, and the axe will fall.
Just as with Roe v. Wade, the Court will take away the states’ rights to legislate.
The time to act is now. Don’t let politicians deceive you and tell you this is a state issue. The Supreme Court has already closed the door on that. The federal marriage amendment [Marriage Protection Amendment] is coming up for a vote tomorrow or the next day. Call your senators right now. Tell them this is the time to vote to protect the most important institution in American life.
Take action:
Call your two senators today and urge them to vote FOR the Marriage Protection Amendment. The vote is expected to take place June 6 or 7. The Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121, or learn your senators’ direct lines by visiting www.senate.gov.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
_________________________________________________________
Before supporting (or even failing to oppose) gay marriage, you might want to check these out:
Gay Marriage? What could it hurt?
Results of gay marriage in Scandinavia.
Results of gay marriage in Holland. (Note: Written before the Dutch decided to legalize polygamy.)
Where it will lead sociologically.
Let's be nice, live-and-let-live libertarian types, just like in Canada.
(In Sweden and Canada gay activists got parts of the Bible made "illegal," and a Canadian printer was recently prosecuted for refusing to print stationery for a gay organization. Do we want to encourage those sort of activists in the USA?)
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Why we don't need one: It'll give conservatives a rallying point to get out the vote. It'll give Rovians the option to encourage swing states to hold a referendum on Presidential election year elections. An amendment would just give the left their Alamo.
I'll take Low Cost Demagoguery for $500, Alex.
Elaborate, please.
Hoo boy; if you didn't get that, you won't get the explanation either.
That's one way to look at it. Globally speaking, we left the kinder gentler era in the dust some decades ago, wouldn't you say?
I am glad to hear that Pres. Bush and the Senate are trying to do something concerning this issue. However, I knew the social liberals on FR would be very upset....
More on the FMA - Marriage Protection Act
bttt
The country is going to he** in a handbasket, and they pull this out. Please!
I agree marriage is a man and a woman. Not a man and man, or man and goat or man and automobile... er, maybe the last one... nevermind.
Anyway, I created a list of priorities, things I worry about. Such as illegal immigration, the war on islam, the federal budget being out of control, offshore outsourcing.
Defining marriage is not on that list. And to put it in the constitution seems to be a bad precedent.
Isn't this a little like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?
Perhaps that's only because you have no problems with the definition. If I change nouns, your arguement could be that breaking the law need not be in the constitution; since we already have laws, it would be redundant.
Unless you consider that people are walking without paying for their crimes. Andrew Selva, various teachers...
I'm not a social liberal. But I also know where the Framers intended for the issue to be decided, along with every other issue 'which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people'
This is nothing more than pandering by an out of control spending party that never truly understood nor respected federalism from its inception. You won't get the Amendment, but pat yourselves on the backs for raising a moot point will you? DOMAs exist in several of the sovereign states. They have not been challenged seriously as of yet, nor more than likely will they. But if it will garner some partisan votes, let's all jump on the party wagon eh?
The Constitution should not be changed over this issue.
This conservative won't be fooled a second time.
An amendment would just give the left their Alamo.
I'm sorry...are you actually saying that a marriage amendment would help Dems win? If so, how does that square with the massive landslides state amendments have been receiving?
I wish this could be left up to the states, as that is where I think it belongs, but the courts won't allow that, therefore, we must act.
However, I do agree with you that the Republicans have become an "out of control spending party".
Marking for later references...
Ah, refreshing, people who understand that this is not the federal government's job. People who support this are for big government and against state sovereignty, they're just "conservative" instead of liberal.
Let me explain the precedents that make it inevitable that the Court will uphold gay “marriage.
Let me explain a simple law that could say they won't. It's called Congress using its constitutional authority to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
In 1995 the Court struck down a democratically enacted state referendum in Colorado denying special civil rights based on sexual orientation
As an aside, I remember that referendum. First, it didn't deny "special" civil rights. It invalidated laws guaranteeing basic civil rights (laws that I thought were overreaching into private affairs, but that's not the point). I have a problem with the "democratically enacted" part too. The referendum on the ballot was worded so that even people in the gay movement could think the law was meant to protect gays. I had to read it three times before I deciphered what the proposed amendment was really about.
Personally, I voted no on it. Not anything to do with the gay issue, but I never vote yes unless it's something I'm personally strongly for, and I don't really care about gay issues.
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.