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.
"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?"
Maryland's law defining marriage was recently declared to be unconstituional, and is under appeal.
The DOMA in Washington state is currently being challenged in court, and we're waiting for a ruling from that state's Supreme Court.
The DOMA in California was challenged as part of that gay marriage circus in San Francisco, and is still in the legal system.
So it's not a true statement to say that DOMA laws have not seriously been challenged, or will not be.
The stated goal of gay activists is to re-define marriage in a number of states first, then approach the federal courts to get 50 state gay marriage.
"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. "
Ok, I'll issue the disclaimer first: I am not an expert on the constitution.
Having said that, I believe the Constitution is the basic framework. Not to be burdened with every squabble we come up with. The speed limit on State Road in my town is 30 mph. That's a law, shall we put it in the Constitution?
If we devolve to the state where we have to spell everything out in the Constitution, then there isn't much hope for us.
I feel manipulated.
They bring this out every election and then do nothing after the election just to use again on the next.
I'm tired of it.
Colson needs to get his facts straight. The Supreme Court struck down nothing in Romer v Evans. It upheld the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling that the law was unconstitutional. In other words the Court held that it was a state matter and refused to intervene. And what is wrong with that? The marriage question should be left to the states where it belongs.
Actually, the timing of this makes me sick. It is such obvious pandering by Bush and the Pubs to the right wing of his party who are disgusted at them all because of the immigration issue. So they pull the tried and true rabbit out of the hat, conservative social issues. Of course, Bush has done nothing about this for the first 4 years of his term, nor during the last two years, after having used the constitutional marriage amendement as a campaign issue this last time around. It's all such a phony ploy to placate the right wing of the party during a mid-term election year. And he and the congressional Pubs will throw out a few other conservative social issue bones to us in short order, to placate us for all of the other major issues, in particular illegal immigration, that they choose to push on an unwilling public. This makes me sick, as it is such obvious pandering, regardless of the value of the subject matter. And they do this, knowing the marriage amendment bill will never pass anyway. It's all so psychologically fraudulent.
"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?"
Agreed 100%. This is such obvious political pandering in an election year.
Besides, what does this do to stop the soaring hetero divorce rate and increasing #s of out-of-wedlock kids born to hetero parents...both of which are damaging to the idea of "traditional marriage"?
The problem with leaving it to the states is that it will cause migration of affected parties to compliant states. Any way you cut it, the Fed will be involved at some level. That's inevitable.
The foster parent program will be the first, followed by other entitlements like medicaid. Why would a gay couple live in a state that is not sympathetic to their needs?
They won't. We have to keep in mind that public programs are federally subsidized. Don't ever forget it.
"Besides, what does this do to stop the soaring hetero divorce rate and increasing #s of out-of-wedlock kids born to hetero parents...both of which are damaging to the idea of "traditional marriage"?"
Guess we need some more ammendments?
There are two big fat problems with your argument.
1. Your argument is predicated on what I call the Three Pigs Fallacy of Homosexual Marriage. The idea is that because we heteros have screwed up our own arrangements, we should open the door to an even more screwed up arrangement. We had a brick house, we moved into the stick house, and now you say we're gay-bashers because we aren't moving into the straw house. Sorry, not by the hair of my chinny-chin-chin is this gay-bashing.
2. If any state did away with no-fault divorce tomorrow, and on Friday a federal judge declared their actions unconstitutional, and then roughly the same thing happened with some other states, making it clear the federal judiciary would not tolerate the will of the people, I would be in favor of an amendment saying that divorce law was outside the federal purview. That is what has happened in the area of homosexual marriage. If you want to campaign for no-fault divorce in your state, bully for you and I wish you well, but right now such efforts aren't being squelched by black-robed potentates.
I suggest you read some of the stuff linked in post 1. Before you tell me this is gay-bashing, you need to tell me why I should welcome a change that has brought the end of freedom of religion in other countries that have tried it.
I'm not an expert either. Far from it. And I agree that the framework needs no tampering. In fact, I'm not sure I like the amendments we have, 14 in particular...anchor babies, my eye! That's not what the founding fathers wanted, IMHO.
But ping to post #27, if you will. I realized in 2004 that I want less government in my life. There are unscrupulous people out there and the numbers are growing. That's how the Dems have had control for a long time.
Mr. Silverback : Elaborate, please.
I could be wrong, but I suspect what he's saying is that the President risks very little ("low cost") as he pushes for something with zero chance of passage ("demagoguery").
I agree.
Too bad for them. Where homosexual marriage has gone, religious persecution has followed. It's time to draw a line.
Before the Georgia referendum went on the ballot, it was challenged for a procedural (single-subject rule) violation. That challenge was denied due to a lack of ripeness. After the referendum passed, it was ripe. It was struck on this procedural ground, and will be given an expedited review by the Georgia Supreme Court. There will sort out the one bill v. two bills issue (i.e. can a single referendum ban both gay marriage and any kind of legal arrangement i.e. civil unions? - or are two separate laws required). That is the only issue. Not a right to gay marriage, but whether our legislature had the sense to enact it in the right way. If you know anything about how they work, you know it is not a stretch to conclude they didn't do it correctly - especially when they were warned of the problem by their own lawyers before putting the bill on the floor for a vote.
I am right there with ya....and social conservatives are a force to be reckoned with and the Republicans would do well not to forget that fact!
Huh? Who is being persecuted? Will churches be forced to perform same sex marriages?
I'm 99% sure I know what he means, but I want to hear it from the horses mouth, thank you.
Question: If this is useless demagouery, why are the Dems so ticked off?
Answer: Because when the GOP acts like freakin' conservatives, Dems lose. (Credit to Rush Limbaugh for that wording)
Deeee----eyeeeeee---double teeeeeeeee-----ohhhhhhh!
What is a nation built out of? If it were a building, what would be the "bricks?"
Where homosexual marriage has gone, religious persecution has followed. Are you saying that protecting the freedom to worship and freedom of association are rearranging deck chairs?
But this bill has no chance of passing.
I see your point. An addict has to hit rock bottom before he can reform. We are addicted to the 2 party system. I guess conservatives will have to accept liberal leadership and wait for their bottom to be rocked (wait that didn't come out right) before they'll lend a hand to help rebuild.
You haven't been paying attention, obviously.
No, you just side with the Dems on every issue of any consequence.
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'
States have changed their own constitutions on this issue, and federal judges have slapped them down. This is no different than the feds trying to decide for the states what a valid corporation charter is in their state, or how their nurses are to be licensed. What if every time a state tried to change that, a federal judge slapped them down? This is an effort to correct federal judicial abuse of states, and I see no reason why protecting the states from the black-robed potentates is anti-federalist.
This is nothing more than pandering by an out of control spending party that never truly understood nor respected federalism from its inception.
Yes, isn't it great how the other party has done so? [CHORTLE!]
You're howling in the wind. You can't convince those who 1) Have no interest in a subject unless it directly affects them 2) Can't see cause and effect past the end of their nose.
I agree. Although I don't like the idea of gay marriage, it's a distraction but the most important issues that the Republicans have been failing conservatives on. This is pittance from Rove and I ain't biting.
"Where homosexual marriage has gone, religious persecution has followed. Are you saying that protecting the freedom to worship and freedom of association are rearranging deck chairs?"
Ok, you're going to hate this:
You can not legislate morality.
If the majority wants something, moral or immoral, it has a chance. If the vast majority wants it, count on it. This is a magician's trick, move the right hand so the audience doesn't see what the left is doing. We have bigger problems. MUCH bigger.
That said, I think an acceptable amendment for this would be that the current "full faith and credit" clause does not apply to state laws on marriage. That should go a long way to defuse the matter, since the direct impact is that a State Supreme Court like in Massachusetts can declare what marriage is for the rest of the country. Take away the "full faith and credit" and the other states are not obligated to recognize the marriages in Massachusetts.
It does create another can of worms, but different worms.
-PJ
Make sure your U.S. Representative knows it won't work.
Got any cites, or is that just a nifty catchphrase?
Fair enough. Now, what's your plan for making sure that the federal judiciary stops squelching the right of the states to change their constitutions on this issue? What's your plan to protect the freedom of religion in states that adopt homosexual marriage, or in the whole nation if it becomes the law of the land as in Roe vs. Wade?
What keeps the SCOTUS from throwing out DOMA and making us all adopt Massachusetts' marriage law?
Would the Supreme Court do that? I don't think they will, not with the current makeup.
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.