|
Posted on 05/17/2004 12:11:17 PM PDT by george wythe
On a purely superficial level, I think it sullies the spirit of the Constitution to even MENTION homosexuality. Just like it was dumb to use it to prohibit alcohol. I just wish legislators in America would grow the cajones to impeach judges that are trying to impose its legality.
Yes I agree, but how many new judges has Bush been able to appoint? You need an even greater margin (66 votes) to impeach. The constitutional ammendment will not mention homosexuality, of beastiality, or poligamy, or any other "marriages that people will soon ask for.) Only prescribing who is eligible for marriage in the US. Sad that it comes to this, but the left is a powerful lobby, and will not quit until people have no right to discriminate at all. (Soon they will go after No shoes, No shirt, No service.)
[H]ow many new judges has Bush been able to appoint?
The answer is 171. He nominated 175. Three were blocked and one was withdrawn. The three blocked nominations were:
William Pryor - 5th Circuit
Janice Rogers Brown - DC Circuit
Carolyn Kuhl - 9th Circuit
The one withdrawn nomination was:
Miguel Estrada - DC Circuit
Cheers!
Everett Volk
The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges. All Americans have a right to be heard in this debate.
FL queried rhetorically:
If there is a mistake in that statement, I'd really appreciate someone pointing it out to me.
The only mistake is to ask someone to verify a normative statement. The question of whether the original quote is flawed depends on the norms one begins with. There are some who believe that marriage is, in fact, sacred. There are others who believe that any sacramentental aspect of marriage was lost when the state began to predicate the provision of certain rights and services upon it. Can any rite be truly sacramental when given the imprimatur of a human institution? I would argue no.
Regardless, I agree that all Americans should be heard in the debate. I disagree with the idea that the debate should be around a Constitutional amendment. I am not certain that the Constitution should be amended to address prosaic concerns such as homosexuality and marriage. If all Americans wish to be heard, let them be heard by the most responsive political entities, state or local governments.
Cheers!
Everett Volk
In your estimation then, does the fact that whether or not marriage is sacred may be considered to be debateable make it acceptable for it to be redefined by a few activist judges?
Marriage is a contract enforceable by the state via the court system. Do activist judges have the right to legislate which contracts our courts will and will not enforce? Do they enjoy the power to do this in place of representative legislatures?
Personally, I think the time has come to nourish the roots of the tree of liberty once again.
There are some who believe that marriage is, in fact, sacred. There are others who believe that any sacramentental aspect of marriage was lost when the state began to predicate the provision of certain rights and services upon it. Can any rite be truly sacramental when given the imprimatur of a human institution? I would argue no.
FL queried:
In your estimation then, does the fact that whether or not marriage is sacred may be considered to be debateable make it acceptable for it to be redefined by a few activist judges?
I apologize for omitting my answer to your original question. In my opinion, the idea of marriage as a sacrament must be divorced from the idea of marriage as a state-recognized contractual relationship. Much of the uproar around gay marriage comes from people overwrought at the idea of homosexuals gaining access to sacramental rites that they feel have been biblically (or otherwise) reserved to heterosexuals. I think the tenor of this uproar and the debate in general would change if we could separate its sacramental and contractual aspects.
My opinions regarding gay marriage are based on this division. I believe that the sacramental aspect of marriage should be defined by the tenets of the religion (if any) under which the marriage is being performed. If the Koran, forbids gay marriage then so be it; if the Bible forbids gay marriage then so be it. In either case, men or women of the cloth can refuse the sacrament. I think current debate over the admittance of gay ministers to the Episcopal church is a good example of this kind of debate, if not this debate exactly.
Furthermore, in my opinion, it ought to be left up to the polity of each state to determine to whom exactly the right of marital contract should be accorded. If the polity determines through popular vote that homosexuals should be denied the right, so be it. If judges, activist or otherwise, determine that such a law is contrary to the state constitution, so be it. State laws and constitutions reflect the aggregated norms of their constituencies, and can be changed to reflect such. If those constituencies feel that homosexuals should not be given the rights that flow from contractual marriage, that's a policy decision that I can respect.
The MA decision pretty well reflects this division, I think. The court's main focus was on the benefits that flow from marriage and the fact that the state law denied those benefits, with no rational basis, to homosexuals. People are incensed because they see this as judges requiring the provision of a sacrament to homosexuals, but the MA court didn't do that. In no way, shape or form did the judges require any religious body to provide a sacrament to homosexuals. Rather, the court said that state was required under the state concept of equal protection to recognize the contractual aspects of gay marriage. Though the decision is politically and religiously charged, it's not significantly different from the court concluding that certain types of contracts are uneforceable (i.e. because they are contrary to public policy.
What we are seeing now in MA is in fact, just what we should see: the state legislature contemplating changes to the state constitution for approval/disapproval by the polity reflecting that polity's aggregated norms concerning gay marriage. If the voters of MA want to give or take away contractual marriage rights to homosexuals, that is what they should do.
Cheers!
Everett Volk
Very well then, do the people have the right to decide what contracts their state courts will and will not recognize and enforce or should it be decided by 4 of 7 activist judges operating outside of their own constitution.
I support the Constitutional Amendment as it will prevent the turd burglars from filing costly lawsuits in each of the states to attempt to used the "full faith" clause to recognize their "marriage." And DOMA won't stop them. Sooner or later, some homosexual-friendly judge will ignore the law to rule in their favor.
You forgot Pickering. Recess appointments are temporary and the Demonrats are still blocking the Senate from exercising their "advise and consent" duties.
Oops. Yeah I did. Sorry.
I think I've answered that question. The people do have the right to determine whether certain contracts are valid. That's why states can and do pass anti-gay marriage laws.
I assume your 4 of 7 reference is to the Goodridge case, and that you believe that the judges in that case were "operating outside of their own constitution." If that is the case, I have answered that question as well. If a state supreme court interprets the state constitution in a manner abhorrent to that state's citizens, those citizens are fully capable of amending the state constitution to suit their aggregated political desires. Sure, constitutional amendments generally require supermajorities (thought not always), but they're not impossible. If the issue is actually one that citizens care about, they will amend the constitution.
I'm afraid that with regards to the federal marriage amendment, we'll have to agree to disagree. To me, protecting the state fisc seems to be a fatally weak reason for amending the federal constitution. Given your characterization of homosexuals as "turd burglars", I'm going to suggest that you're willingness to amend the Constitution is likely driven by animus against homosexuals rather than any great concern about the fiscal well-being of individual states.
I'm of the opinion that federal Constitutional amendments should not be taken lightly. Our Constitution serves as the defining document for our federal system and the touchstone for individual rights and liberties. Amending such a document to define common law terms for the use of state legislatures seems like a foolish undertaking.
Cheers!
Everett Volk
Also, libertarian leaning Republicans will not support it either. It's not going to even come up for a vote for a long, long time. This was, IMO, a calculated risk on President Bush and Rove's part, they figured he could bring up the call for an ammendment, at the same time knowing he would probably never have to act on it, and risk alienating the minority that support gay unions. Rove is good at watching all of the angles before having the President announce a position or propose legilation.
I heard that it was going to a vote of the full Senate sometime in July; but who knows what the truth is. It would be nice to have a list of those who voted "no" in time for the November election. My bet is that the there will be no vote this year, although it might be bad for the RATs if the Senate Majority leader could bring it up for a vote.
but there is enough support in America to use this amendment to un-elect libs like Dashcle and others which will get us the judges we want, thereby protecting marriage
OK, that's all we needed to know.
|
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.
