US Constitutiona Amendment to Save Marriage...NOW!

Self | 11-18-03 | Always Right

[Always Right]

Now that the Mass. Supreme Court has acted to force the legislature to adopt gay marriage, the time is now for Republicans to act to save this most basic institution of this country. We need a US Constitutional Amendment to save us from activist courts who assult religion and basic family values. The public will be outraged over this and the GOP must capitolize on it. The GOP must put the Democrats in a bind. Oppose the Amendment and lose their base, or support it and expose themselves as the radicals they are.

Now is the time to act. Put this issue at the forefront for the next election. Don't just make it an issue, make it a real topic with real Amendments that are gonna be passed.

[concerned about politics]

Check thisout!! (posted by Antoninus)

[concerned about politics]

[concerned about politics]

[gridlock]

Govt has been overseeing the marriage contract for centuries.

And if we just tinker with the machinery a little bit more, we'll get it right, fer sure!

[familyofman]

"Your comments are like saying you dont need 'consumer protection' laws because you only frequent honorable businesses!"
We were married in a very nice Lutheran church, thank you. And I meant every word of the vows I took - no need for the government to get involved. If my wife & I ever feel the need for the government to make our vows any more meaningful, we'll let them know.
The government has no business/need to protect my marriage, I can do that myself. Keep the feds and others out.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Get into a mistaken marriage where a women dumps you and tries to take it all and get reamed by the family law courts and your mythical "i dont need protection" would get washed away. I've seen men destroyed by divorce that was not of their own making.

Maybe the "defense of marriage" act we need is one which raises the bar on divorce. Easy divorce has harmed more families then any other cause. Divorce is what has weakened marriage in this country, not homosexuality, incest, or bestiality.

But nobody wants to deal with the divorce problem. All this ranting about gay marriage weakening the institution reminds me of the story of the drunk looking for his lost keys under the streetlight. Someone comes along and offers to help, asking "where did you lose them?" "In the alley," the drunk replies, "but it's too dark to see anything there."

Like the drunk, so-called "defenders of marriage" are not addressing the hard problem, but are searching for a solution in a place that won't do them any good.

[Protagoras]

They need to have it in clearly in the constitution that they can do that. That's what the f I'm talking about. They will fix it. But not before you die from hyperventiling about it.

Your idea for a federal constitutional amendment is goofy.

[Snidely Whiplash]

Here is a clue - if the gay activists wanted govt 'out of the way' they *wouldnt* be taking these things to court and demanding NEW LAWS and NEW COURT RULINGS! So the simpler answer is this - get them out of the court.

The gay-marriage cases I've seen don't have anything to do with new laws; rather, they've fallen into a couple different categories:

1) Gay couples wanting to get civil recognition of their marriages, but the state not allowing it. The gays sue, since many marriage laws heretofore didn't define what marriages would be recorded, or because they contend the current definition is unconstitutionally discriminatory.

2) States passing "defense of marriage" laws that specifically write gay marriage out of the equation. Gays & civil liberties groups sue, claiming that they're being illegally discriminated against.

The ability to be married without Govt recognition exists - today!

Most of the gays (activists and others) who I've seen/heard talk about this issue claim that what they want are the automatic legal benefits of marriage - inheritance, property rights, control over the other's medical care, etc. Right now, they have to contend with legal paperwork to get anywhere, which costs a helluva lot more than just getting hitched at the courthouse, and has the added disadvantage of being subject to challenge by one party's family if they're feeling spiteful.

I have yet to be convinced that civil recognition of some form of legal partnership for homosexuals will have any real impact on heterosexual marriage, except in the minds of its opponents. BTW, your comparison w/ common law marraige fails - even common law marriage confers rights upon a spouse that gays do not automatically receive.

Snidely

[Always Right]

If FR is a sample of the right half of the political spectrum, then the ammendment stands no chance I am sorry to say.

LOL, I don't think FR has even had a normal distribution of the political spectrum. There are quite of few Libertarians and Constitutionalists. I respect where their are coming from, but neither of those groups seem to ever recognize reality.

[Always Right]

Interesting! I'd love to see the announcement of this finding. It's pretty difficult to prove a negative. Further, you'd need to be able to trace the source of a complex behavioral pattern to environment and choice.

On the flip side, the gay agenda relies on their belief that gayness is all genetics. How can anyone deny that environment and choice play a significant role? I would not doubt that there is some genetic influence, but to try to pin gay behavior purely on genetics is a joke. Behavior IS complex and any sciencetist/psychiatrist/doctor who pronounces its all genetics should be removed from their profession.

[Belial]

Behavior IS complex and any sciencetist/psychiatrist/doctor who pronounces its all genetics should be removed from their profession.

What you say is true. Psychology is attempting to pick up where philosophy left off with such questions as being, nature and will.

No one has answered these questions conclusively yet. Still, a lack of understanding has never stopped human beings from branding each other as wrong, evil, sinful, etc.

[Always Right]

Your idea for a federal constitutional amendment is goofy.

The only 'goofy' part about it is that it is almost a neccessity because the courts have gone so overboard in their rulings. You are right it is 'goofy' to need a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage, but its not me who is being goofy, but the courts.

[Always Right]

They need to have it in clearly in the constitution that they can do that.

Yes, apparently they do, which is unfortunate. This court will not accept any definition written by the legislature defining what a marriage is unless it includes gays. A constitutional amendment is the only way around this idiots, unless you have a realistic way of impeaching these clowns.

[Protagoras]

Marriage is not a federal matter.

[Protagoras]

A constitutional amendment is the only way around this idiots,

Incorrect.

[Always Right]

Marriage is not a federal matter.

It is if it goes in the Constitution.

[richtig_faust]

Interesting! I'd love to see the announcement of this finding. It's pretty difficult to prove a negative
MONOZYGOTIC TWIN STUDIES. It was found that only 51% of the cases where one of the twins was queer that the other one was also. The researchers also admitted that the statistics were probably skewed high because they sought out the people in the studies in such places as san fran. ie: where the atmosphere was pro-queer. If it was genetic the findings would have been closer to 100%

[MainFrame65]

"... The real solution is to impeach...."

Impeachment cannot work for several reasons. First, the offenses meriting removal are pride, arrogance, and a contempt for societal opinion, none of which are impeachable offenses. And second, impeachment is a legislative process that must be carried out by people little better than the offenders.

As was just proved in California, the necessary process is recall. Unfortunately, only a minority of states now offer this option, and none that do not provide for it now are likely to offer it in the future, unless there is a voter revolt of volcanic proportions. Is anyone else out there ready to explode?

[richtig_faust]

But see, it's bad to have government interfering in our lives, except when we're after a certain sort of social engineering


You mean like not allowing me to marry my mother, a sheep or a child ??? I love you "liberatarians" and far lefty's who spout garbage without thinking.

[richtig_faust]

I have yet to be convinced that civil recognition of some form of legal partnership for homosexuals will have any real impact on heterosexual marriage


It redefines the role and definition of mother/father. It opens the door to a whole host of other ills -- much like Scalia warned about. You see, liberals are incrementalists. first this queer recognition crap then lowering the age of consent, queer adoption etc. etc. It WILL redefine marriage hence hurt it.