marriage.
Posted on 06/06/2006 7:32:07 AM PDT by AZRepublican
"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.
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.