A Shotgun Amendment (Why We Need An Amendment To The Constitution In Respect To Marriage)

Wall Street Journal ^ | 10 March 2004 | EDWIN MEESE III

[shrinkermd]

For thousands of years, every society, and every major religious faith, has held that marriage is a unique relationship by which one man and one woman are joined together for the primary purpose of forming and maintaining a family.

Then along came the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts -- following in the footsteps of a trial court judge in Hawaii, a superior court judge in Alaska, and the Vermont Supreme Court -- proclaiming in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that marriage is "an evolving paradigm." Traditional marriage is out of step with the times, we're told. It's arbitrary, irrational and inherently discriminatory. The institution must be reformulated to accommodate homosexual couples that are legally entitled to marriage under the Massachusetts state constitution.

[shrinkermd]

"Perhaps this isn't what the Supreme Court intended, but what advocates of same-sex marriage have in mind is clear: to deconstruct marriage, in the name of an invented right, so that it includes and publicly affirms homosexual unions

This is the crux of the conflict--what the homosexuals want above all else is to be declared normal. This is why this issue has been seized by them in spite of many not having the slightest interest in any form or manner of marriage.

[longtermmemmory]

For those who have not seen it:
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26
Amendment Text:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law,
shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon unmarried couples or groups.

[Steve_Seattle]

We need to be very clear that homosexuals do not just want equality; they want their position to be morally and legally normative. Their ultimate goal is that all of society be forced to accept their own view of themselves, and to punish those who won't go along. Anyone who doubts this should ask the Boy Scouts, and anyone who doubts the goal of the neo-pagan movement to force its will on others should pay heed to last week's California ruling that Catholic charities must provide contraceptive benefits contrary to their own moral principles. There is no neutral ground here.

[Democratshavenobrains]

The problem is that the average person doesnt completely understand the problem with judges interpreting the law a different way than the legislature wrote it. If we could get them to understand that an amendment is the only way to stop these lawless judges, support would inevitably go up.

[longtermmemmory]

the ultimate goal of homsoexuals is mandatory homosexuality.

[El Gato]

If we could get them to understand that an amendment is the only way to stop these lawless judges, support would inevitably go up.

Even an amendment doesn't always help. "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me, yet we have several tens of thousands of federal, state and local "gun control" laws, the vast majority of which do exactly that.

[NY.SS-Bar9]

Three percent of the population is homosexual.

Of that, probably fewer than 25% would consider marriage.

I fail to see how this will threaten society.

The gay community is using the marriage issue in an adolescent attempt to get attention. I say let them get married, but with all the legal ramifications and responsibilities that implies.

My guess is that given their proclivity for promiscuous behavior, few gays will marry when there is no shock value.

[texgal]

Democratshavenobrains wrote:

The problem is that the average person doesnt completely understand the problem with judges interpreting the law a different way than the legislature wrote it. If we could get them to understand that an amendment is the only way to stop these lawless judges, support would inevitably go up.

How about removing some of the activist judges? It would certainly be easier than amending the Consitution. A mistaken concept is that federal and supreme court judges serve for life. The Constitution says that they serve for as long as they exhibit good behavior. If they choose to ignore the law then they are not exhibiting good behavior and should be removed. We need to get judges who will follow the letter and intent of the law and not make it up as we go along. If it holds for Roy Moore shouldn't it be the case for the rest of them?

[jimt]

I fail to see how this will threaten society.

The gay community is using the marriage issue in an adolescent attempt to get attention.

No, they're using this contrived issue to force others to "celebrate" homosexuality as normal and desirable.

The problem is - it's not normal or desirable. It's bad for the vast majority of those who engage in it. It's one thing to live and let live - it's another to try to force acceptance. The same logic they're using to promote "marriage" between homosexuals can just as easily be used to to justify multiple partner "marriages", human-animal "marriages" and human-inanimate object "marriages".

Degrading the institution does threaten society.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[King Black Robe]

Nice job Edwin Meese (and Matthew Spalding)!

[tahiti]

"""...to deconstruct marriage, in the name of an invented right, so that it includes and publicly affirms homosexual unions"

Two observations.

When did the institution of marriage become so fragile, when did the moral abhorrence against homosexuality become so hollow that the constitutional acknowledgement by a secular government of homosexual marriage could "deconstruct" both them?

Does the U.S. Constitution have no meaning to conservatives? Doesn't the name conservative implied the conservation of something?

Amendment IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Why is it an "invented right" to exert a right, that is clearly "...retained by the people" and that is to be married to the person of your choice?

FYI: I am not a homosexual. I find the homosexual lifestyle and behavior very, very repulsive, dangerous, and doomed to a life of unhappiness.

I have also raised three sons converying that same attitude to them.

But citizens have the "retained" right to make all the mistakes they wish to in their lives.

[longtermmemmory]

The the sanction it confers upon the homosexual sex act. It will force schools to teach it as "normal" beacuse they can "marry". It will define marriage as based on a sex act, not the production of a family.

[nightdriver]

"A constitutional amendment is the only sure and democratic way to stop activist judges from imposing their will on the people."

That depends on whether the judges happen to be in the mood to obey the Constitution on that particular day or not.

They have trouble that way after they get infected with their delusions of omnipotence.

[longtermmemmory]

That wacko judge example does not mean we should just give up to the soddomites.

[carola]

A good world for homosexuals would be one in which homosexuality were seen by a large chunk of the population as a different but equal choice to heterosexuality. Think how many more partners they would have to choose from. In a way, that's already happening, especially among young women. The Washington Post has run a couple of full-page articles which describe the popularity of homosexual experimentation among teenagers and it is not unusual to find young girls who are proudly bi. If you can't get a date with a guy, you've still got options. Whatever.

[Labyrinthos]

The the sanction it confers upon the homosexual sex act. It will force schools to teach it as "normal" beacuse they can "marry".

I asume that you're worried that children might learn to be gay. If that were the case, then I would have switched sides a long time ago. Despite the fact that many of my friends and members of my immediate family are gay, I remain as straight as a lazer beam, and I have absolutely no desire to act gay for even a moment. I don't believe a person can learn to be gay because in my opinion (and don't waste your time asking for scientific proof) a gay person becomes gay the moment the egg and sperm decide to dance.

It will define marriage as based on a sex act, not the production of a family.

Since when is marriage dependant upon the desire or ability to naturally procreate? If that's your position, then you really need to stop drinking so early in the afternoon.

[conserv13]

Thanks, I agree.