Posted on 12/22/2004 10:48:18 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
When you look at it, our governmental system is majority rule from the top down.
State Legislatures go by majority rule; the U.S. House and Senate are both governed by majority rule. As well, the courts, namely SCOTUS are majority rule bodies.
Think that the courts aren't governed by majority rule? SCOTUS voted 7-2 in Roe v. Wade.
The issue of abortion used to be an issue which was a states right issue, until SCOTUS federalized it through majority rule tyranny.
Unless "We the People" act soon, the majority of Americans who are against same-sex marriage may soon find that SCOTUS has forced all the states to legalize same-sex marriages, like they did with the abortion issue, and take away this institution which has been state-controlled since the founding of America.
We have already seen the Supreme Court of Massachusetts engage in majority rule tyranny by forcing the state of Massachusetts to accept same-sex marriages.
So what it comes down to is this: Will you engage in your Constitutional right and demand that the House and Senate pass the Constitutional Amendment limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman, which would ban same-sex marriage as well as polygamy, and then have this Amenment passed on to the states for ratification, or will you let the courts engage in majority rule tyranny and ram this down your throat?
Remember, the U.S. Constitution gives "We the People" the right to press for Constitutional Amendments like the one concerning same-sex marriage.
Our Founding Fathers incorporated Constitutional Amendments as a means to overcome Judicial majority rule tyranny.
What I propose is a Constitutional Amendment where the voters of each state will decide whether or not to allow same-sex marriage in their state, and those states which ban it would not have to accept same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Why not also have a Cons. Amendment which would send the issue of abortion back to the states, where it belongs? Why not put both Amend's into one?
Maybe incorporate banning of evolution being taught in schools? Let the voters decide whether or not evolution will be taught in the schools in their respective states? Add it to the other two in a Constitutional Amendment?
Those who don't want same-sex marriage, yet don't want a Constitutional Amendment stopping same-sex marriage from being forced upon the states really lack any backbone in fighting for what they believe.
Those who don't want same-sex marraige, wont fight for a Constitutional Amendment banning it, yet have no problem with the courts engaging in majority rule tyranny and forcing it upon the states, obviously prefer the view of 9 SCOTUS Justices over the view of 110,000,000 voters from around the U.S.
Are 2 heads better than one? Who knows.
But I can argue with a high degree of certainty that a total of around 110,000,000 voters from all the states are definitely better than 9 SCOTUS heads.
I welcome any input into this discussion.
That is why the United States is a "representative republic" rather than a democracy.
Why just be concerned about "gay marriage"? We need a constitutional amendment that would allow either a supermajority of the state legislatures or a supermajority in Congress to overturn SCOTUS decisions.
What I would rather see, than going through the amendment process, is congress performing one of their functions. Impeach any and all federal judges that overstep their constitutional bounds.
I am all for the overturning of SCOTUS decisions that do not refelect the majority rule will of the people of the U.S., and run counter to what our Constitution says are 'states rights'.
Marriage is a state issue, so is abortion, until SCOTUS dreamed up the decision that they did, invoking 'privacy' into their ruling.
That would also destroy the rule of law, every bit as much as the Mass. Supremos did.
One more time: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS AN OXYMORON!
The word, marriage, is already defined. Neither the courts, nor congress, nor the people have the right to destroy the definition of a word that is already legally and socially defined across continents and cultures.
If you allow it, you allow any word to be changed at the whim of any majority vote.
You're asking for chaos.
Same-sexers need to get their own word. Hijacking the word, marriage, is comparable to the islamofascists highjacking the word, Islam -- (assuming it really IS a peaceful religion.)
If majority rule were the rule of the day, in 2000 we would have feted the presidency of Al Gore.
Asking for chaos?
No, I am not. I just see no way for the proposed Federal Cons. Amend to pass. There are too many Senators and Rep's hiding behind the "this is a states right issue", when they are just doing that...hiding.
With this Amendment there would be no where for them to hide. They would have to support it, or be exposed as liars.
As well, the purpose of this thread is to expose the "that's majority rule tyranny" when the courts engage in majority rule tyranny all the time.
I would rather have majority rule by the people than by the courts, and I am showing a way for people to get just that.
Its time to crush the power of the courts who have consistently given the numerical minority what they want and have spit in the faces of the numerical majority on issues like abortion, evolution, etc.... This will do just that.
Asking for chaos?
No, I am not. I just see no way for the proposed Federal Cons. Amend to pass. There are too many Senators and Rep's hiding behind the "this is a states right issue", when they are just doing that...hiding.
With this Amendment there would be no where for them to hide. They would have to support it, or be exposed as liars.
As well, the purpose of this thread is to expose the "that's majority rule tyranny" when the courts engage in majority rule tyranny all the time.
I would rather have majority rule by the people than by the courts, and I am showing a way for people to get just that.
Its time to crush the power of the courts who have consistently given the numerical minority what they want and have spit in the faces of the numerical majority on issues like abortion, evolution, etc.... This will do just that.
Asking for chaos?
No, I am not. I just see no way for the proposed Federal Cons. Amend to pass. There are too many Senators and Rep's hiding behind the "this is a states right issue", when they are just doing that...hiding.
With this Amendment there would be no where for them to hide. They would have to support it, or be exposed as liars.
As well, the purpose of this thread is to expose the "that's majority rule tyranny" when the courts engage in majority rule tyranny all the time.
I would rather have majority rule by the people than by the courts, and I am showing a way for people to get just that.
Its time to crush the power of the courts who have consistently given the numerical minority what they want and have spit in the faces of the numerical majority on issues like abortion, evolution, etc.... This will do just that.
What a quaint, '60s expression.
The less messing with the Constitution, the better.
Remember the femi-Nazi sponsored "Equal Rights Amendment?"
Leave the Constitution alone. It's already gotten amended too many times.
Not only that but limiting the jurisdiction of such courts as they are allowed to do in the Constitution.
Who cares if it was a quaint 60's expression. The word food has been around for as long time as well. Is that a quaint 2000 year old expression.
Quit dodging the issue.
If Constitutional Amendment's are so antithetical to our Representative Republic, then why did our Founding Fathers place them within the Constitutiuon a provision for them, moron.
E Pluribus Unum wrote: "The less messing with the Constitution the better"
Our Founding Fathers placed within the Constitution the right to Amend the Constitution, so I guess they thought it would be necessary from time to time to mess with the Constitution, moron.
Just because the femi-nazi inspired equal rights amendment was a bad idea doesn't mean that one stopping same-sex marraige or sending itto the sattes is a bad idea.
Sorry, sometimes we have to stop majority rule courts with a littlemajority rule of our own.
Please, you are just one of those that has no problem with the courts stepping all over the majority of people who don't want same-sex marriage by them engaging in majority rule tyranny.
Either that, or you are one of those who lacks the backbone to fight for waht you believe.
What you are advocating is government by voter initiative, the very thing the founding fathers were striving to avoid.
Lucky for us, Constitutional Amendments are extremely difficult to ratify, especially those initiated by shrill, annoying, know-it-alls.
This "Definition of Marriage" argument is ridiculous. I don't care what it's called, I don't want my tax money supporting a lifestyle that is a choice.
That's the issue here.
As for SCOTUS, I think that a if a referendum can be overturned, like when the people voted against gay marriage in California in 2001 or 2002, then why not overturn who we elect, since our electors "know better?"
Difficult to oust supreme court justices. Best to remove the marriage issue from the venue of the courts - state and federal. Congress can do that.
Then the people would have a stronger voice from state to state. The majority would trash any move to destroy the insitution of marriage, realizing that to change the meaning would create a chaotic situation where other paired, or tripled couples, a reduction of age limits allowing child 'marriage' and other strange and unconventional relationships would be able to claim equal protection and bennies under the blanket protection of marriage -- a word whose meaning is un-ambiguous and well-defined already.
If the same-sexers were only interested in obtaining legal recognition and protection so far as financial benefits were concerned, there would be no reason for them to steal the 'marriage' word. Other designators have been offered, but they refuse them.
They want the 'marriage' designator to claim morality, even if only by the gummint. Wanting to hide behind the skirts of the honorable institution of marriage only reveals their lack of pride in who they are and what they do -- otherwise they would use another word to define their status and couplings.
Then there is possibly a more devious reason for wanting to hijack the 'marriage' word. Has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with destroying the strength of America -- the family unit.
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.