Defense of Marriage Amendment debate on CSPAN2 LIVE THREAD

CSPAN

[abnegation]

And so it begins.....

[goldstategop]

But the VT and Mass Supremes ignored the fact federal law and the Constitution ARE the Supreme Law Of the Land. The Mass Supremes were just more honest in deciding civil unions didn't go quite far enough. And that brought us here to this debate today.

[ken5050]

"Marriage" is not about homosexuality...it's what it IS..not what it isn't..polygamy..forexample..

[lugsoul]

Ummm, no. Because states that voted against the Amendment could still have it forced upon them. That is, their definition of marriage - or, more directly, who is entitled to the "legal incidents" of marriage - would be controlled by Federal, not state, law.

[goldstategop]

A federal judge can declare it unconstitutional. All it takes is ONE to throw it out. Why do you think the ACLU is going judge shopping?

[abnegation]

Exactly and if "some on this thread" would go back and research it they would find that that MA ruled this is "the law of the land".

[lugsoul]

Get up to speed. What I quoted to you is the law of the land. Right now. There is no "if it passes" about it.

The question is pretty simple. With that provision as the law of the land, why do we need an amendment?

[goldstategop]

And how many state legislatures, absent intervention from activist judges, would have adopted civil unions or gay marriage?

[abnegation]

You are willing to let a bunch of liberal judges decide what is law for your State?

[Salvation]

You can go directly here to email your Senators and/or Representatives and ask them to support traditional marriage and family values:

U. S. Senate

U. S. House of Representatives

[lugsoul]

A federal judge can declare any statute passed by Congress to be unconstitutional. Is this a justification for making every act of Congress a Constitutional amendment?

[BureaucratusMaximus]

"Marriage" is not about homosexuality...

But it is. We wouldn't be having this conversation if gays did not want to take their "normalization" of homosexual behavior to a new level by fighting to make it legally ok to marry one another.

[lugsoul]

That's pretty funny. You obviously know very little about my state. And from what I know about yours, Idaho judges aren't exactly beating down the downs to create a liberal regime.

[lugsoul]

About the same number who have.

[johnmorris886]

No.

You sure do follow the homosexual agenda's lies and talking points to the letter. Even though the entire agenda is built on a house of cards.

Are you?

NO, but I think you already knew the answer to that one.

Homosexuality is an intolerable evil. The acts themselves are war with Almighty God's created Natural order. It is High Treason against the King of Heaven, and deserves nothing less than the most injurious of consequences.

[goldstategop]

The Supreme Court held state prohibitions of sodomy in Lawrence unconstitutional. I think it was Antonin Scalia who said any law that stands on a moral standards test can't survive. Or any law that reflects an anti-gay animus. It needs to be recalled a decade ago, the Supremes took on themselves to nullify a decision on the part of the good people of Colorado to ban PREFERENTIAL treatment for gays, adopted through a popular vote. Nunnh-Uh, can't do that, can't decide certain groups can't have preferential treatment. And we've been going downhill since then, socially speaking, ever since.

[reagandemo]

What????? Then what did the Mass. Supreme Court rule on? Not enough?. All I have to say is 9th District Court of Appeals. If for one minute you do not think they would not be all over it I waste my time. The only reason they have not is the lack of case before them. And by the way, when does a law as passed by the legislative branch of government and sighed by the President trump the Judicial? You must be delusional to believe otherwise. Activist courts are the enemy of a democracy.

[lugsoul]

Actually, neither one of those states altered or challenged any aspect of Federal law. They made state law decisions that do not change Federal law one whit. You know that.

Why a pre-emptive strike on judicial review on THIS issue, but not on every issue? You know that is the question, so just go ahead and address it.

[ken5050]

Yes..BUT..we canNOT let them define the argument that way...that's the core issue..

[lugsoul]

"Then what did the Mass. Supreme Court rule on?"

The Massachusetts Constitution. And nothing else.

[goldstategop]

If its about the fundamental things that make us a country, yes we do as a sovereign people, have the power to say the courts are wrong. Judges are not gods and sometimes they do get it wrong.