What marriage has always been? I don't claim to know enough of the background on the legal definition of marriage, and I'll agree that personally, when I think of marriage, I think of something between a man and a woman, but at the same time, a Constitutional amendment would preclude voters and legislators from defining it as they wish. Marriage is something legislated and conducted by states, not by the federal government, and if voters in a particular state decide they want to allow gay marriage, why should that suddenly be made illegal, due to federal intervention?
This is what I mean by big government; you can say that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, but more importantly, it has always been a state issue. You want to make it a federal issue for no good reason, simply because you happen to dislike the notion, on a personal level, of gay marriage.
I asked, and I'll ask again, what legal or rational justification is there for this becoming a Constitutional amendment?
So, shall we repeal the 14th to be sure what happens in Mass stays in Mass and isn't forced on other states?
Voters approve constitutional amendments, not space aliens.
Legislators write the constitutional amendments, not space aliens.
Therefore, a constitutional amendment will not preclude voters and legislators from defining anything.
Answer my questions, or you will out yourself as a lefist troll.
Which I believe you to be.
So you like 4 judges deciding that two homosexuals practicing sodomy together can be called a "marriage" which is against the desire of the majority of the American people, against reason, against morality of every single monotheist religion and many that aren't, and has been proven in Europe to help dismantle what is left of the natural family.
Do you like the idea of a referendum letting the people decide for themselves, like they did in Hawaii? You must know the outcome there.
I reiterate - what is your view of homosexuality? Spell it out for us so we know your loyalty - are you a homosexual? Do you think same sex behavior is unchangeable or people are born "that way"? Do you think homosexuality is values neutral? Do you consider the normalization of same sex acts to be a good thing for society?
What about kids? Should kids be adopted by homosexuals and should homosexuals be foster parents? Should kids be taught in schools that homosexuality is normal and natural?
What about "hate speech" crimes? Should the US enact laws forbidding criticism of homosexuality like they just did in Canada?
In short, to trump the decisions of a few rogue judges in a few states - and the Supreme Court of the United States - from foisting gay marriage on the whole nation. The dynamics in play are that states are bound to honor marriages performed in other states. There are puny legal structures in place now to try to prevent just that, but eventually the Supreme Court will decide. It may come down on the side of gay marriage and dictate to us all to comply.
That should be prevented by any means possible. The Constitutional amendment route would not normally be considered a good one, but the magnitude of judicial activism currently in play necessitates it.
"a Constitutional amendment would preclude voters and legislators from defining it as they wish."
They're precluding voters and legislators from defining it as they wish TODAY. Doesn't seem to bother you much.
"You want to make it a federal issue for no good reason"
No good reason? Okay, oh brilliant one, if gay marriage is legal in MA, and not legal in NH, does the federal government send a different tax form to each state? How about social security benefits? Can they just hop over the state line, get them, and come back? And what happens if the couple who was married in MA moves to NH in June? Can they file as a married couple or not?
Fact is, federal government interacts with married couples even -more- than States do, and that's why claiming there's "no good reason" for the federal government to have it's own position is simply ridiculous.
Qwinn
Because the way the constitution was written, federal laws will require each state to recognize the other states marriages. The cuurent federal law that supposedly stops marriage from being recognized by other states won't hold a challenge to the constitution. Everyone knows this.
Could you explain WHY you joined FR today,please?
Unless gay marriage is prohibited by Constitutional amendment the day will come (sooner rather than later) when a liberal SCOTUS will extend the judicially-fashioned Massachussets rule on all states via the 14th Amendment, including states that have passed laws and constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage. It is destined to be an all-or-nothing contest. Your laissez-faire solution merely eviserates the state legislatures that are opposed to gay marriage.
Federalism will not work in this instance. Liberals courts will not allow it to work. So, you can't have it both ways. Gay marriage will either be forced on all 50 states, or it will be banned in all 50 states. Do you really prefer the former?
Do the majority of Americans who are opposed to so called 'Gay Marriage' qualify?