Leave the Constitution out of this (gay marriage ban)

Rocklin & Roseville Today ^ | 6/6/06 | Dale McFeatters

[Beckwith]

Excuse me. That's Dale.

[billbears]

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.

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.

[olezip]

"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.

[dirtboy]

In effect what you are doing by passing such an Amendment is limiting the states to handle their internal affairs as they see fit.

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.

[Polybius]

One state gives gay marriages, and all states would have to recognize those marriages. And employers would have to honor those spouse benefits.

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.

[weegee]

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.

[linda_22003]

And just as likely....

[namvet66]

"The Senate doesn't have the votes. The issue is DOA."

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.

[kabar]

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.

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.

[massgopguy]

So the MA SJC violated federal law in the Goodridge decision.
I am not in favor of changing the Constitution for intransigent causes, but the government defining marriage encroaches on the 1st Amendment as Marriage was a sacrament in the Catholic Church centuries before there was a United States of America. Gay advocates have scoffed at the idea that they would challenge the 503 c status of the church. I was born at night . But not last night.

[atomicpossum]

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.

The author seems to offer nothing for this view but wishful thinking. Why should I believe that such a thing would not be a certainty should an activist movement find an activist judge willing to provide it?

[MineralMan]

Wow! You can tell he's gay from that one, small photo? I'm really impressed.

[Grendel9]

That's right. And those who wrote
the Constitution never dreamed that
the Justices upholding the laws would
venture into CREATING the laws. The
Libs keep saying we have outgrown the
narrow view of society laid down in
the 1787 document. NOW, they say
those on the right are

"taking the Constitution into areas where it was never meant to be, family law and morality."

So, we're to roll over and accept THEIR
view that any kind of behavior should
be acceptable without question since
any restriction would infringe on an
individual' RIGHTS to choose. And as
we have seen, that includes child sexual
abuse, adultery, porn, and any other
licentious behavior short of murder.
Check that, they also support abortion
by choice.

Yeah. The Constitution is dated all
right! And with NO reference to God
except in those final lines...
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent
of the States present the Seventeenth Day of
September in THE YEAR OF OUR LORD one thousand
seven hundred and Eighty seven...

[F.J. Mitchell]

Okay! Let's not go the Constitutional amendment route to cure all the evils forced upon us by activist judges. Let's instead, demand that our elected officials do their duty under the Constitution and impeach every judge that has legislated from the bench and nullify every obviously unconstitutional ruling they ever made.

[Joan Kerrey]

It must be election time!

This is the shortest and best reply I've seen. Good post and one that says it all.

[RobbyS]

I suggest you look what is happening in British Columbia. Gay activists are zealots who brook no contradiction. The gays have defined themselve as a race and have made the same claims to immunity and protection as blacks.

[kabar]

It is far better to have state legislatures and state referenda decide this issue through the constitutional amendment process than have the courts do it. Some suggest that the amendment should just say that the state legislatures have the right to determine the issue and not the state courts.

It is interesting to note that everytime this has been put to a vote, the traditional view of marriage is upheld. 19 states already have constitutional amendments defining marriage and only eight have no legislation or constitutional amendment on DOMA.

[RobbyS]

Yeah, that is going to happen. When Hell freezes over and I am not talking about Hell, Michigan.

[Joan Kerrey]

I understand that Sen. Frist will be proposing a $100 check to all heterosexual married couples soon. That'll solve this whole issue just as the gas rebate check solved the gas price problem.