Posted on 04/18/2015 6:32:20 PM PDT by kindred
As Cliff Kincaid noted in a recent column,
Only six of 54 Republican members of the Senate signed a pro-traditional marriage legal brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that was submitted on Friday. USA Today noted, “By contrast, 44 Democratic senators and 167 Democratic House members filed a brief last month urging the court to approve same-sex marriage. The brief included the full House and Senate [Democratic] leadership teams.”
Who were these six Republicans who were actually willing to stand up for the documented Republican value of marriage? ◾Senator Ted Cruz of Texas ◾Senator Steve Daines of Montana ◾Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma ◾Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma ◾Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky ◾Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina
Office for Emergency Management. War Production Board, circa 1942-1943 Office for Emergency Management. War Production Board, circa 1942-1943
It’s a pity that the newly announced presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) did not defend marriage. At least we have a presidential candidate in Senator Ted Cruz who is willing to go to the mat for Republican values.
The ratio was a little better in the House, with 51 representatiaves, or about 20% of Republicans, signing on. Twenty percent is still pretty pathetic, though.
The Republican Party is the conservative party of record, and the Democrat Party is the liberal party of record. All things being equal, one would expect virtually all Republicans to work hard to promote conservative policy positions (i.e. protecting marriage from homosexual activists), while virtually all Democrats worked hard to promote liberal policy positions (i.e. promoting sexual anarchy and destroying the family).
So why the disparity here, where most Democrats did indeed level their guns on marriage and family, while only a little over 10% of Republicans went to bat for marriage and family?
The experiences of the past six years or more have produced two basic answers: (1) A great number of “Republicans” are little more than Democrats with an “R” after their name, otherwise known as liberal RINOs, and (2) most of the remaining Republicans who actually do believe in the documented conservative values are either incapable of arguing their way out of a wet paper bag or pee their pants at the thought that bad people might say something bad about them.
As a South Dakotan, I’m very pleased that South Dakota’s Rep. Kristi Noem was one of the 51 House Republicans who signed onto the defense of marriage; sadly, the “Republican” Speaker of the House was not a signatory.
For all his faults, in the Senate, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did sign onto the defense of marriage.
But as a South Dakotan, I’m wondering: Where were Senator John Thune (R-SD-61%) and Senator Rounds? Were they out of town when this brief was put together? Couldn’t reach them by email or cell phone? Smoke signals weren’t working? Telegram impossible?
After all, weren’t we told all last year that Mike Rounds was really a conservative (despite his record of liberal betrayals), and that even if Rounds had some, um, “issues”, we could count on John Thune to nursemaid him to do the right thing?
Anyone still believe either of those claims (if anyone believed them to begin with)?
Is it time to get rid of any and all “Republicans” who refuse to defend Republican values, before the values that made America great are completely ground to powder beneath the heel of the Left? Can pro-family people and groups legitimately support politicians who won’t support family values?
They’re not supporting SSM, they’re destroying marriage. Give them civil unions and then they can practice as they please, but that was never enough. They’re doing the devil’s work for him.
Normal marriage is:
1) Permanent. No divorce except for adultery, and no remarriage, period.
2) Sexually exclusive. Adultery is not just a tort, it's a crime.
3) Children born of the wife belong to the husband, in exchange for his commitment to support only children of his wife's body.
NOBODY (Almost) supports normal marriage. Marriage between men and women that is:
1) terminable at will, with no recourse to the counterparty
2) Prone to cheating, with no damages for the offended spouse and no sanctions by the state
3) Children belong to the mother.
is homosexual marriage in all but name, and the fact that the parties are of different sexes.
The fight for normal marriage (and it wasn't much of a fight) was over by 1970.
If the 17th Amendment had never been ratified then the entire Senate would probably have fired a “warning shot” over the heads of the Supremes by reminding activist justices that the Constitution’s silence about marriage means that marriage is a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue.
The Senate could also be expected to clarify that attempting to legislate the so-called “right” of gay marriage from the bench as justices did with the so-called “right” to have an abortion could result in their removal from the bench and a possible new amendment to the Constitution clarifying that no marriage other than traditional one man, one woman marriages are acceptable.
Actually, if the 17th Amendment had never been ratified then there would likely be all different faces on the Supreme Court today, conservative justices probably deciding not to accept the case in the first place because marriage is a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear.
Dr. Charles Stanley is divorced. Marriage really doesn’t mean anything anymore.
Do you believe that a State cane declare, and compel adherence to, the proposition that two men or two women are "married" to each other?
Normally I’d say yes, but I also have reservations.
On one hand, the states have never amended the Constitution to prohibit anything but traditional one man one woman marriage. So in that way, there’s no clear prohibition of gay marriage in the Constitution.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court seems to have relied in part on English common law when it decided Reynolds v. United States (Reynolds) against the Territory of Utah in 1878. That case tested the constitutionality of polygamous marriage that Mormons were practicing in that territory.
The problem with Reynolds is that it was not a 10th Amendment issue since Utah was still a territory, not a state. But since common law is referenced in the 7th Amendment to the Constitution for example, I don’t know what trumps what between common law and 10th Amendment-protected state powers.
Insights welcome.
Regarding my previous post, it dawned on me that it can be argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Reynolds v. United States established a precedent for the federal government concerning traditional marriage that lawless Obamas is now ignoring concerning his pro-gay policies.
Also note that if it weren’t for the 17th Amendment, that there would probably be enough senators who respect traditional family values who would be working with the House to override many of Obama’s pro-gay policies.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear.
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.