Marriage and the Constitution: Why We Need an Amendment

Meridian Magazine ^ | 22 March 2004 | Richard G. Wilkins (Professor of Law, Brigham Young University)

[Spiff]

Richard Wilkins is a professor of law at Brigham Young University. An internationally recognized expert on legal issues related to marriage and the family, he is also the managing director of BYU’s World Family Policy Center. Professor Wilkins is also the founder of Defend Marriage, (www.defendmarriage.org) a group organized to defend marriage and the family in the political arena.

[Spiff]

Ping

[cajun-jack]

why can't the queers still be charged with "crime against nature" like they used to be??

If "booty bumpin" was "against nature" 20 years ago, the technique, as i understand it, still has not changed, so why isn't it still against the law??

[GrandEagle]

I would disagree that we would even want and amendment for the above listed reasons and:
1)It will never pass, meanwhile the judging elite continue to make law illegally. 2)Congress has the power by a 50.1% vote to pass a law defining marriage, then remove authority for any federal court, including the supreme court, to have any jurisdiction relating to the law, or even the topic of marriage in general. - that is doable

[Ancesthntr]

The judges are now so powerful that they feel free to invent the Constitution as they move along. (If the definition of marriage – an understanding as old as time – violates constitutional strictures, one wonders what centuries’ old legal notions the “mysteries of the universe” will invalidate next.)

I'm laying a big wager on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The main difference, though, between eviscerating the concept of marriage and doing the same to people's RKBA is that in the latter there will have to be some kind of mechanism to enforce that decree and actually confiscate property from people. Oh, and BTW, it just so happens that this particular property is uniquely suited to, shall we say, "confounding" just such an effort.

[Ancesthntr]

2)Congress has the power by a 50.1% vote to pass a law defining marriage, then remove authority for any federal court, including the supreme court, to have any jurisdiction relating to the law, or even the topic of marriage in general. - that is doable

The exact opposite can and will happen whenever the political winds change. The reason for a Constitutional amendment is to make certain that the law doesn't change so rapidly. A society with no definite laws is an anarchy, and since people inherently don't like to live in such a state, then such a society would be ripe for a dictator or oligarchy.

[sergeantdave]

I like with your 50.1% idea. Here's the problem -

What happens when the Rats get back in power and 50.1 % decide to ban centerfire cartridges and tell judges this decision is outside the court's purview? Could a court step in and declare the edict unconstitutional even though the Congress said the courts cannot review it?

[beavus]

The environmentalists are trying to change it so that instead hetsx is considered a crime against nature as part of their evil plot to promote the extinction of the human species.

[GrandEagle]

I do understand your point. We are currently ruled by an oligarchy and have been for many years. Congress, the most powerful branch of our Government, refuses to do it's job.
I'll agree that a very good case can be made for the amendment but I am far more fearful for the current ruling oligarchy having any legal basis to have an opinion on marriage. At least what they are doing now is Illegal, and we do have recourse if enough people choose to take it; and that is to require that our congressmen do their job
We should impeach and remove from the bench judges who had expresses their disdain for our Republic by expressing their intent to put us under the jurisdiction of other countries rulings.
We should vote out any congressmen who vote for a law that deals with a subject that "we the people" have not given them authority to legislate on.
This two party system has killed our republic. The point has become having your "side" win instead of what is legal to do by our Constitution.
While time is quickly passing where we will have the capability to regain a Constitutionally functioning government, we still do have the means.

[GrandEagle]

(see post #9) I agree, but that is out fault for not requiring that our elected representatives do their job.
Try writing them on a Constitutional issue. You will get a response something like "I understand your concern and appreciate what the Constitution says but I Feel yada yada yada...
Like what they feel over rides the authority and responsibilities that we have given them in the Constitution.
I am far more fearful of a runaway Supreme Court given the ammunition of a statement about marriage.
I have to add here that I believe that we both want to accomplish the same thing here and each are fearful of the others solution.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[GrandEagle]

Could a court step in and declare the edict unconstitutional even though the Congress said the courts cannot review it?
No not a Federal court, but a STATE court could declare it unconstitutional and no prohibited federal court could address the issue.

[King Black Robe]

then remove authority for any federal court, including the supreme court, to have any jurisdiction relating to the law, or even the topic of marriage in general

Which would just lock in super-power status for state courts.

We need a solution that will restore representative government, and we need a uniform definition of marriage. Federal benefits and taxes rely on the definition of marriage. Also, the SCOTUS has made it a federal issue with their Lawrence decision in which they mentioned marriage, thereby aiding the Massachusett's high court decision mandating gay marriage.

It shouldn't have come to this. It shouldn't be necessary. But it's not our fault. Blame the judges.

[GrandEagle]

Article III
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;-- between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

[GrandEagle]

Which would just lock in super-power status for state courts.
Which is exactly where this kind of stuff should be decided.

[King Black Robe]

In the courts? Try the state legislatures. You know, the place where the people's representatives are supposed to make state laws? It isn't supposed to happen in the courts. That's the problem. Your idea would give the state courts even more power to legislate.

[GrandEagle]

It shouldn't have come to this. It shouldn't be necessary. But it's not our fault. Blame the judges.
I almost completely agree here with the exception that it is our fault for not requiring that our representatives do their job and remove judges who try and make law.

[Naspino]

I believe in rule by the majority -- and an amendment is the way to do it. I'd like another amendment to reign in the powers of the corrupt judiciary as well. Perhaps term limits or an IQ test or something.

[GrandEagle]

In the courts? Try the state legislatures. You know, the place where the people's representatives are supposed to make state laws? It isn't supposed to happen in the courts.
Ok, I'll conceed that I mis-stated the State position a bit. The point that I was trying to make is that Marrage has always been a state issue, governed by state laws. Marrages have been declared void, for example, when one state allows 14 year olds to marry and children from one state go to that state and get married, then return home.

[King Black Robe]

You're right. Good point.