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.

[Always Right]

I see a Republican landslide comming in the NE.

I even noticed one DUer had the right take on this. Most were thrilled with the decision, but one pointed out that Rove will be happy with this. This offers a great opportunity for next election.

[Always Right]

No, no, and no again. Enforce the Amendments already on the document and you won't have this problem...

That would be great, but how do you propose doing that. The only way I see it to make enough political hay out of this so we can get decent judges who will actually read the Constitution.

[gridlock]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Government tinkering with marriage will only make matters worse. Government tinkering with just about anything only makes matters worse.

It is time for social conservatives to realize that government involvement of marriage will inevitably lead to the destruction of the institution, and that it is time to get government out of the marriage business.

The natural tendency is to try to use government to fight a tendency in society that we oppose. But every time we grant government power, that power will eventually be used against us. The only way to save marriage is to eliminate the ability of the government to define it. Once the government is able to define marriage, the destruction of marriage is inevitable.

Heterosexual marriage will always predominate in society because it makes sense. The benefits for the purposes of raising a family will always make heterosexual marraige an attractive life-style. Marriage of people in non-family situations will always be an echo of that predominant social institution. But the echo cannot be stomped out without destroying what makes the echo in the first place.

Social conservatives must resist the temptation to use the power of the state to stomp out what they do not like. Remember that the state likes us a lot less than anybody else. Better to let marriage be an arrangement between individuals, and heterosexual marriage will inevitably win in the marketplace of ideas.

When did social conservatives become so timid that they feel the need to have Big Brother Government fight their battles for them?

[WOSG]

I'm with you... this fleeing to a Constitutional amendment at the Federal level is a mistake; the perfect political posture that is guaranteed not to succeed (rest assured that there are enough Democrats on the left in power to stop *any* conservative amendment). This just plays into the hands of the Leftists. More letters on paper that LEFTIST JUDGES WILL IGNORE is not the answer.

Here is the cure: TAKE BACK THE THIRD BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE LEFTISTS.

Use this issue to destroy the Democrat party in Massachusetts - The Democrats have now put in the bench judges that override common sense and the law.

Take it back by getting more conservatives in the US Senate. Take it back by knowing who you vote for in state and local races. Take it back by impeaching judges.

Anything short of that will not work. The Leftist Judges will destroy ANY LAW THAT IS WRITTEN and pervert it to their own ends. Their tyranny is now unbounded!

Want proof? Look at how California voters did what this man in Massachusetts tried to do. It didnt stop the leftists from creating "civil unions" which is marriage in all but name ... simple end run.

THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION: TAKE BACK THE COURTS FROM THE LEFTISTS.

[armadale]

Yes, as long as marriage can also be protected against such marital travesties as Liza & David and the like.

[rovenstinez]

"IF" the State steps outside of it's moral jurisdiction and gives marriage certificates to 2 or more people from the same sex to be legally married, SHOULD THEY (The State) be entrusted to give licenses that are really bonafide and legitimate? It's kind of like doctors in any given hospital in one room doing abortions, (killings) and on the other side of the wall, in the same hospital heroic rescue efforts to save a child born at 6 months! (That's why we chose home birth! Why even go to a hospital where abortions were practiced? in the same room where babies are suppose to be delivered to loving couples?)Could private citizens just do the 'church' licenses, like they do here in Mexico, "What's the point" getting a license if anything or anyone wants to marry? Can I marry my mule?

[gridlock]

Marriages should be registered by the civil authorities, since there are civil legal issues involved like shared property and child custody. But they should be performed by somebody else, like a church.

That way if two men wanted to get married, they could register with the civil authorites, but the marriage itself would be a matter between themselves and whatever outside institution they chose to involve.

If two people want to be married by their plumber, well so be it. But if two people want to be married in a church, and make promises to each other in front of families and friends and God, what purpose does the state serve there?

[elfman2]

"Can I marry my mule?"

A half dozen times here I’ve outlined the reason that gay marriage (right or wrong) in simple to differentiate from bestiality, pedophilia and polygamy. I’m unable to devote the time now to the multitude of volleys it generates each time. But in summary, it has to do with need (with some evidence of biological origins) verses a simple desire to push boundaries, frequency of that need in the population, and the destructiveness of the practice.

I apologize, but I have some important things to complete so I won’t be engaging in this debate now.

[WVNan]

Amen! This needs to be a primary issue for Free Republic to address. We need to be educated about judges from the bottom to the top. We can start at the local level and work our way up. KNOW WHO YOUR JUDGES ARE AND HOW THEY ARE ELECTED/APPOINTED. GET INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS.

[Always Right]

It is time for social conservatives to realize that government involvement of marriage will inevitably lead to the destruction of the institution, and that it is time to get government out of the marriage business.

Good idea, but it will never happen. It sounds great on paper, but it is not reality.

[concerned about politics]

but one pointed out that Rove will be happy with this. This offers a great opportunity for next election.

Yep. That's why politicians (both left and right) are overwhelminly supporting heterosexual marrage. Otherwise, they wouldn't admit it in front of the cameras. It's a safe move. We CAN use this one.

[FrankR]

"Traditional marriage has 3 elements:
1) It is permanent (no divorce)
2) It is sexually exclusive (adultery is a felony) >br> 3) It is between a man and at least one woman."

Well, young people are already shying away from "traditional" marriage in droves...you elements will run them into caves.

Permanent marriage? A woman marries a guy who beats her and won't support the kids, and she has no way out? A man marries a gal who turns out to be a floozie, and he has no way out? I don't think so.
However, I do agree that it should take at least 6 months of paperwork, licenses, and waiting periods, so the interested parties will be sure they WANT to get married.

Adultry, a felony? Aren't the prisons full enough for you now? While I'm sure this "law" would slow down the adultry rate in this country, it just might make them that much more careful to not get caught.

Between a man and at least one woman? So, I suppose that it would be ok to have a harem? With all of your other proposed amendment, having more than one woman would be awful.
Say you had one wife...well, through the normal channels of courtship, you would probably commit adultry on wife #1 while you are courting wife #2...therefore you could never marry wife #2 because you would be in prison.
If wife #1 decided to cheat on you, and you had 2 other wives, you could not divorce wife #1 therefore you would have to continue to support her, and her new honey, for the rest of her life.

I think I'll pass on your set of amendments....

[azhenfud]

It's the beginning of the end for the Mass. Supreme infidels. It is now the job of the legislature to reign in their court judges, and possibly impeach those who sit on that bench.

The judges ruled in favor of perverting the institution of marriage, as was elloquently stated concerning another case, let's see them enforce their opinion.

Those judges should be impeached, disbarred, and made the laughing stock of old Mass., because their credibility just performed a CFIT.

[concerned about politics]

"What's the point" getting a license if anything or anyone wants to marry? Can I marry my mule?

Sorry. Next step is to give them your boys. They want the age of consent lowered to around 10 years old.
Your mule will have to wait in line.

[gridlock]

Good idea, but it will never happen. It sounds great on paper, but it is not reality.

So is it better to add on yet another governmental authority that will ultimately be used against us?

The only way social conservatives can lose is by empowering the institutions that oppose us. The fight over a marriage amendment to the Constitution will do just that.

Better to limit the power of government and then predominate in the marketplace of ideas. If we cannot predominate in the marketplace of ideas, then we don't deserve to win.

Courage!

[Sam Cree]

"Besides, what harm does it do?"

Well, IMO, the family, which is based on heterosexual marriage, is really the cornerstone of society, always has been, in any society. That is why heterosexual marriage has always, throughout the history of man, enjoyed a special status.

Granting the same status to homosexual marriage may damage the special status of traditional marriage, since it's suddenly no longer quite as special, and in turn, damage the family, and therefore, society.

[rudypoot]

The constitution is about limiting government and recognition of our natural rights, not about social issues. Marriage is not a right, it's a privilege. If you want a specific definition of marriage then get congress to pass a federal law.

[concerned about politics]

A half dozen times here I’ve outlined the reason that gay marriage (right or wrong) in simple to differentiate from bestiality, pedophilia and polygamy.

There is nothing "normal" about homos. Even the wild animals know better (Except male goats. They're really filthy).

[gridlock]

Well, IMO, the family, which is based on heterosexual marriage, is really the cornerstone of society, always has been, in any society. That is why heterosexual marriage has always, throughout the history of man, enjoyed a special status.

Is this institution, this veritable cornerstone of society, so fragile that it cannot survive without governmental protection?

Get government out of the marriage business, before it is too late!

[Always Right]

THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION: TAKE BACK THE COURTS FROM THE LEFTISTS.

And until we get a few more Senators so we can stop the filibustering, it just won't happen. In order to win additional seats, you need specific issues that will resonate with the people. I think this issue only can help get 2-5 seats in the Senate and also help Bush kill Howard Dean. The GOP must take this issue by the horn and win. We are still paying the price for the damage FDR inflicted on the court system to this day. The only way I can see fixing it is to win more elections and get the courts packed with conservative-thinking judges. You propose several things, but really have no means of getting there.