marriage.
Posted on 06/06/2006 7:32:07 AM PDT by AZRepublican
In a year it is wrestling with an out-of-control budget, a war going badly, and one impasse on immigration and another on its own ethics, the Senate is taking time out to debate altering the U.S. Constitution by adding the Marriage Protection Amendment.
The amendment is widely predicted to fall short of the needed votes to amend the Constitution for only the 23rd time in its 217-year history _ 13th if you omit the original 10, the Bill of Rights _ and well it should.
At its gravest level, the amendment would make a significant incursion into federalism and state's rights, taking the Constitution into areas where it was never meant to be, family law and morality. At worst, the amendment trivializes the Constitution by involving that great document in someone's choice of life partner.
Backers say the amendment protects marriage _ not that there's any evidence that the traditional marriage needs protecting _ by defining it as the union of a man and a woman. But its real intent is to shortcut any state or local attempt to legalize same-sex marriage.
If same-sex marriages are a true problem _ and the polls show declining numbers who believe they are _ it is still a matter for the states.
President Bush, who also presumably has better uses for his time, made two addresses in three days in support of the amendment, noting that 45 of the 50 states have constitutional amendments or statutes of their own limiting marriage to a man or woman.
This would seem to settle the issue but the president invoked the tired red herring of "activist judges." This is only a way of saying the issue is still controversial and unsettled and that some of the states are still sorting it out in their own courts. Let them.
A 1996 federal law says the states are not obliged to recognize lawful same-sex unions from other states, and there is no nationwide federal court order reversing that nor is there likely to be.
And Bush said there is nothing in the amendment to stop states from enacting benefits for civil unions and "legal arrangements other than marriages." This reduces the amendment to a matter of semantics, which is outside _ and far beneath _ the purview of the Constitution.
Only once before was the Constitution used to regulate personal behavior _ banning the consumption of alcohol _ and it failed, leaving a legacy of cynicism toward the law.
In a phrase that is now a cliche, the futile vote on this amendment is designed to "energize the base," get the blood flowing in the voters, presumably Republicans, for whom outlawing gay marriage is a big deal.
It may be too strong to say that this is a cynical ploy, but it is a cold, shrewd political calculation and both the calculation and the amendment deserve to fail.
Who is planning to ban gay marriage?
Plus, it still leaves states free to make the appalling decision to legalize homosexual marriage; they just have to call it by another name, and the decision must come from their legislatures, not their courts.
It will require strict and significant constitutional process to pass. If it does pass, then it is a constitutional solution to a significant, rampant moral problem that will disallow activist judges from taking extra-constitutional means to thwart the federalism that otherwise would prevail through the states.
In opposing this issue, others use a lot of words to deter support of the amendment (and I understand the philosophical reasoning) like there is no real danger, "in the forseeable future", or that complete marital rights for gays is, "unlikely", or that we ought as a people to continue the debate on what, "priveleges and benefits that ought to be granted to same sex couples". Therefore, they argue, there is no need for a constitutional amendment.
Finally, there is this gem, some are claiming the amendment itself to be a "departure from the nation’s traditions and history.".
I'll tell you what is a departure, it is the movement to destroy traditional marriage and the traditional family which is the bedrock foundation of our society, and along with the foundational moral and religious principles that define it, represent the very reason we are free.
That is what is the true departure from our history and tradition, not the effort through use of the amendment process (which is enshrined in the constitution itself) to thwart that departure.
That amendment effort is a wholly constititional solution to that grave overriding issue. Unless it garners the necessary constitutional support, it cannot pass. If it does garner the support, it will pass...and in so doing will define that critical principle within the context of the constitution itself.
I will say this...it is sad that such a definition of something so intrinsic and fundamental is necessary. That is the real issue...but in todays world with such powerful lobby groups, with such abject activist judges, and with all the clamoring by the same for that which is immoral to be called good and moral...it has become necessary.
I support the FMA for those very significant reasons and because, as John Adams indicated,
""We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798Make no mistake...it is the moral and religious people of this nation who will decide this issue. I pray that there are yet enough who are aware of the issues of the day, to get this amendment passed and thereby punctuate the truth and effecacy of the principle Adams voiced in 1798.
Just my opinion.
A cut-and-paste of liberal cliches passing for opinion.
Well, that's an interesting statement. I rather think they've done their level best thus far, with much success.
It must be election time!
Yes, its not about a larger issue effecting this country, its just about gay bashing, yah, thats it. /sarcasm.
Wait, what if this whole "gay marriage" thingy is really about letting voters decide on policy issues? It is high time Judges stop injecting themselves where they don't belong and were never intended to go as they willy nilly re-write the constitution to enact that which the legislature never would (because the voters would throw their arses out of office).
Actually nobody. The bill will never pass anyway.
Brain fart...I just have "ban" imprinted from so much past ban talk.
Nice try. One state gives gay marriages, and all states would have to recognize those marriages. And employers would have to honor those spouse benefits.
So much for the rights of people in that no gay marriage state.
A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage would be fine if they could do it without monkeying with the other amendments. But if the rats get a shot at the 2nd amendment they will try their best to change it so that only police and military have a right to bear arms.
Instead:
1) Protect the border.
2) Make this a War for Infinite Justice.
3) Impeach the insane Judges. Then they will not be there to interpret the Constitution THEIR way.
**************
Been to MA lately, Dale?
How exactly does following the Constitutionally-mandated process for amending the Constitution, which includes ratification by 3/4s of the states, infringe on federalism and state's rights? Dumb.
You're right, which is why it will never pass.
"At its gravest level, the amendment would make a significant incursion into federalism and state's rights, taking the Constitution into areas where it was never meant to be, family law and morality."
This is true....however....the rest of the story is more important: the Constitution never contemplated that the judiciary would be a super-legislature, unaccountable, but with crushing authority to knock down state statutes which deal with issues of health, safety and morality.
So now...after judges have thrust the gay agenda upon us, they are conveniently resorting to federalism. What other option do we have?
It is sort of true that this doesn't belong in the federal Constitution. But the other side, the judicial activists, have given us no choice.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!
This is absolutely nothing more than the standard vacuous liberal cliche being pawned off as common opinion.
Oh please. How is it not a ban on gay marriage?
There is absolutely no need for actions like that of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, except to impress the opinion of the elite on the populance. Gays can have everything they want, except respect in domestic partnerships. That is why in Scandanavia, where gay marriage is legal, there are so few.
So why the brouhaha, Because the real purpose is to silence all criticism of the gay "lifestyle." If gay unions are sanctioned by law, then that makes it legally risky to speak out against their behavior, and socially it makes everyone who does seem like a bigot. That's Teddy Kennedy's ploy. Let us not debate about the rightness of wrongness of homosexuality. I don't want to hear your arguments.
So we are engaged in a great social experiment, where the norms of Christian morality are dumped into the trash can. We will see how things work out down the roads, but mostly likely the negative results will be ignored, just like the consequences of fault free divorce.
Seems to me that the constitution was designed to allow changes via amendment. It does not get any more clear cut than that. If this idiot thinks its not an important issue, fine. The rest of us disagree.
Never is a long time. If you had predicted fifty years ago that voting would banned so widely as it is now, I would have scoffed. Things change.
The 1996 DOMA approved overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by Clinton also contained the language:
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
The Federal government needs a definition of marriage to administer its programs and benefits, e.g., Social Security, Medicare, pensions, and survivor benefits. If DOMA is challenged in the courts and overturned, there will a significant impact on federal programs, more than likely increasing expenditures and costs. There needs to be a detalied study on the financial impact of same sex marriage on government programs.
This is just a diversion by D.C. in an attempt to cause everyone to forget about their inadequacy of securing the border...
A 1996 federal law says the states are not obliged to recognize lawful same-sex unions from other states, and there is no nationwide federal court order reversing that nor is there likely to be.
IMO this thing is a trojan horse to open a convention......we'd best FEAR this clause of article 5 of the Constitution:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes,......."
once open, BEWARE - " valid to all Intents and Purposes "
I'd expect one of the first things they'd do would be to make the US, Canada, and Messico into one megastate.
Funny how they want to leave this to the states to deal with...yet when it comes to abortion, it's a different story!
Which explains all those people sued for criticising marriage, and the behavior of married people?
The Senate doesn't have the votes. The issue is DOA.
Excuse me. That's Dale.
Not dumb at all when you consider the original intent of the Constitution was a limitation on the federal government only. In effect what you are doing by passing such an Amendment is limiting the states to handle their internal affairs as they see fit. Some states will pass DOMAs, some will not. However passage of an Amendment requires the states to adhere to the federal standard, thereby limiting the rights of the separate and sovereign states.
Of course even the most inept conservative would understand this by reading the Federalist Papers and the promises made by those three authors. But who said social 'conservatives' and Republicans were conservative at all? They just want their way.
"At its gravest level, the amendment would make a significant incursion into federalism and state's rights, taking the Constitution into areas where it was never meant to be, family law and morality. At worst, the amendment trivializes the Constitution by involving that great document in someone's choice of life partner."
The amendment would NOT make a significant incursion into federalism and state's rights. The amendment would affirm the base and intent of our Constitution. It is a shame that something as fundamental as the marriage between one man and one woman would have to be formally stated. But it must. I strongly support the Constitutional amendment that affirms that marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman.
The state's rights incursion is nothing but an attempt to muddy the water by those legislators funded by the powerful and rich gay and lesbian lobby, IMHO.
Sorry, but 3/4s of the states have to assent to an amendment. So it is a willful agreement between the states and the fedgov, unlike most regular federal legislation which I doubt the author has a problem with.
If such a situation threatens, you then advance a Constitutional Amendment that states that the Full Faith and Credit Clause will not include the definition of marriage and such an amendment will ratified in a heartbeat.
In the meantime, I would rather keep the subject of buggery out of the Constitution.
Defining marriage as one man and one woman keeps polygamy out of America too.
I do think a sanctity of life amenment is more pressing.
And just as likely....
You are absolutely right and 2 of the worst RINOs (McPain and Spectator) have already made it public they will NOT vote for it.
Cannot believe that Frist did NOT know (thus Pres as well) that they could not come up with enough votes.
Therefore, simply reinforces my (and many others') view that this was simply a ploy and a weak attempt to galvanize base and perhaps, get some to take our eye off ball re: ILLEGAL IMIGRATION.
The states' rights response is just political cover for the politicians who don't want to be on the record against same sex marriage and for a constitutional amendment defining marriage. It is just another way to kick the can down the road and be on both sides of the issue.
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.