Posted on 06/14/2011 1:21:48 PM PDT by CNSNews
(CNSNews.com) - Five of the seven Republican presidential candidates participating in a debate in New Hampshire last night said they would favor a constitutional amendment to define marriage in the United States as between a man and a woman.
Only businessman Herman Cain and Rep. Ron Paul said they did not favor an amendment.
New Hampshire Union Leader reporter John DiStaso raised the marriage issue by asking Rep. Michele Bachmann whether she would come into the state of New Hampshire as president and campaign to overturn the state's law allowing same-sex marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
In both cases, they are appealing to the principle of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is a principle of social organization which states that a problem is best solved, or a goal best achieved, by the lowest level of authority possessing both the competence and resources to do so. The underlying operational idea is that decisions made and solutions developed by those closest to the problem maximize freedom and creativity, are the most effective, and provide the greatest level of respect for the dignity of those affected.
Subsidiarity the heart of Conservatism.
I believe this is one of the situations that would be best addressed at the national level. The definition of marriage is fundamental to a society, and it must be consistent throughout a nation. In the past, this was not an issue because everyone knew what marriage is. But that's not the case today, and to deal with it, we need a nation-wide solution to the question.
“Cain became a member of the board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in 1992 and served as its chairman from January 1995 to August 1996”
Call me crazy, but this bothers me.
That we have to debate whether we need a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman is indicative of the morass this nation is in, today. The tiny minority of those practicing homosexual behavior have actually accomplished their goal, making same-sex ‘marriage’, legal in a few states. All under the guise of ‘fairness’ and ‘tolerance’....and it only took about 30 years. Now, the 150 million or so Americans that are in ‘traditional’ (man/woman) marriages need a constitutional amendment to ‘define’ their union? Perhaps they do. Of course, such an amendment would have to be ratified by 38 states but that would be easy to accomplish.
The big problem with this is the full faith and credit clause of the constitution that requires each state to give “Full Faith and Credit . . . to the public Acts, Records, and juicial Proceedings of every other State.” Thus, states that don’t recognize homosexual marriage can be forced to recognize homosexual marriages performed by other states, meaning one state can, absent legislation or a colnstutitional amendment to the contrary, force homosexual marriage onto all other states.
The big problem with this is the full faith and credit clause of the constitution that requires each state to give “Full Faith and Credit . . . to the public Acts, Records, and juicial Proceedings of every other State.” Thus, states that don’t recognize homosexual marriage can be forced to recognize homosexual marriages performed by other states, meaning one state can, absent legislation or a colnstutitional amendment to the contrary, force homosexual marriage onto all other states.
Exactly! That's why I do support a marriage amendment. And I think that Cain would, too, if we had the opportunity to make the case to him. Paul, on the other hand, doesn't even believe marriage should be a legal entity.
And sooner or later, this is exactly what will happen. The ACLU and Lambda Legal will look for someone who is legally married in one state, and who moved to another state, and is now “discriminated” against. A lawsuit on this subject of whether states have to recognize each other’s same sex marriage is inevitable.
And in the California case, currently in federal court, the issue is whether the state of California, or any other state by extension, can amend its own constitution to define marriage. If eventually the final ruling is that California cannot amend its own constitution to define marriage, then presumeably the other 30 states which have done so would not be legally able to enforce their amendments either.
The gay activists are working on every angle to get to their dream of 50 state homosexual marriage.
The paradox here is that the only way to preserve each state’s right to define marriage as it determines is to deny full faith and credit to all but heterosexual marriages.
Well said.
don’t think an amendment would help anything. The Constitution is less and less regarded as a basis for judicial decisions now anyway and should be pared back to what it was meant to be, a restrictive framework for government.
That is up for much debate.
It only works to the leftists favor. Folks from states with open carry permits cannot come walk around Chicago with iron strapped to their leg for example.
The issue is not the amendment (I think it IS a states right), the issue is activist judges who legislate their own interpretations from the bench. Also, using precedent instead of Constitutionality has sent this country down a path of destruction.
Cain and Paul, and folks like Mark Levin, and many others subscribe (as do I) that more federal laws, based on precedence are what is destroying America. I think Paul is a kook most of the time, but I do think he and I would agree on reforming our judicial system and federal powers back to where they belong.
Also, almost no state recognizes the same sex marriage of other states, and it has yet to be tested by the SC.
Further, even if this amendment was passed, every court that leans left (9th for example) would be clamoring to rule it unconstitutional (they only use the Constitution to strike down things they disagree with, otherwise it is precedence), and our current rogues gallery that sit on the SC would probably refuse to take it up, or stall on it for years, allowing the 9th to dictate federal policy.
Always remember, that allowing the feds to over-ride states, even when it is something you agree with, is a two-edged sword. It has to be stopped at all costs, or the feds will continue to write policy that you DON’T agree with. We conservatives are always on the losing end of that sort of arrangement. We might get a marriage amendment, but we further open the can of worms to allow the fed to erode those states rights that we do hold dear. Roe v Wade is the most glaring one that comes to mind as I think about how the fed has overstepped its authority over states.
But then again, I’m one of those goofy folks that believes in less federal authority, and more independent statehood.
full agreement here
Yea, you are goofy. Sort of like Madison, Jefferson and those of that ilk. Goofy. Limited government? Get serious! We must change with the times!
/sarc
Can't prove it, but it tracks with her politics so far.
Anyone know if she has opined on this matter?
Correction: Palin supports DOMA so it’s not much of a leap for her to support an Amendment.
In spirit I agree with almost everything you say. See my comments about the principle of Subsidiarity. Sometimes, however, there are problems that can’t be solved, or decisions that can’t be enforced at the local/state level. My strong preference would be for the question of marriage to be dealt with at the state level. However, because there are so many nut cases pushing for same sex marriage in so many states, and because of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, and because of the fundamental nature of marriage, in my judgment, this calls for a uniform resolution throughout the nation. And a law won’t be good enough. It needs to be written right into the constitution, just like the freedom of speech.
I don’t see how you can say that a constitutional amendment would be declared unconstitutional. It becomes part of the constitution. A Defense of Marriage Act, on the other hand, could easily be declared unconstitutional by a nutty court.
I would be extremely fearful of convening any Constitutional Convention, because we have a bunch of p*ssies on the GOP side, who would allow the Convention to give away more of our rights at every level, and if convened, there would be a sweeping power grab by politicians that we would never recover from.
I am sorry, but I don’t trust those in DC to hold a Constitutional Convention without some “mavericking” and “reaching across the isle” going on.
The dems would never agree to such a convention unless it gave them something HUGE, like allowing everyone who steps foot on American soil to be granted full citizenship, like giving over our military to the UN, like unionizing the US military or other some such garbage.
No thanks. I quake in my boots at the thought of dems and republicans getting together in a Constitutional Convention. Remember, it is only a 1 party system that we have for the most part (in my opinion), and they sure as hell seem bent on working together to sell this country down the tubes (all in the name of big tent unity).
No, at this point, I would rather see civil war than a convening of a Constitutional Convention with the jokers we now have running our nation.
But I do get your drift, I’m apparently just a whole bunch less trusting of our current government than most.
I never said I support a constitutional CONVENTION! Absolutely not! And for all the reasons you state. I said I support a constitutional AMENDMENT defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.
It would be the only way (there are 2 ways) to get a constitutional amendment.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
The link provides how to amend the constitution. The judicial branch would have to step in w/o the above 2 methods, and declare a re-defined amendment. That is not going to happen, and if anything, they would change the amendment to reflect “the changing times” as the above link describes.
So even if all went perfect, and we got a constitutional amendment, in 2 years, some SC joker would just say “it’s a living breathing constitution, that shouldn’t be taken literally, and we are now going to redefine the meaning” as they have done in the past.
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.