Defense of Marriage Amendment debate on CSPAN2 LIVE THREAD

CSPAN

[abnegation]

And so it begins.....

[tjwmason]

Your post amounts to "why not let the states debate a Federal amendment, then they've had their say - and if 75% of the states decide that your state can't give inheritance rights to domestic partners, too bad - you lose."

Could you please show where the proposed F.M.A. would prevent any state changing the law regarding inheritance in any way.

The answer is that it does not. Rather it says (this is all that it says) that marriage consists of one man and one woman. Civil partnerships can be created; specific exceptions to inheritance can be created - they are not marriage.

[abnegation]

"The power of construing the laws according to the "spirit" of the Constitution will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legistlative body. This is unprecedent and it is dangerous." Hamilton in "The Federalist Papers" No. 81: The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicary Authority.

[goldstategop]

If its civil unions, the Democrats can offer an amendment. Then every one can vote for it. Or am I missing something here? The irony is the Democrats do not want to have to vote on preserving traditional marriage since it reveals they are not in the same place on the subject where the American people are. I'm not sorry about the sarcasm nor am I apologetic for my defense of age-old values.

[goldstategop]

Exactly. And it leaves that decision up to the state legislature concerned. That's all there is to it.

[AFPhys]

Your post amounts to "why not let the states debate a Federal amendment, then they've had their say - and if 75% of the states decide that your state can't give inheritance rights to domestic partners, too bad - you lose."

Just in case you are truly worried about that, you will be happy to know that the amendment being debated will not bar any state from doing so.

I suspect you're not really concerned about that, though.

[goldstategop]

Alexander Hamilton never saw Marbury V Madison coming. <sarcasm

[carenot]

With that comparison, NAMBLA should be able to do whatever they wish without a fear of prosecution becuase it would be "bigotry".

Where do you get that?

[AFPhys]

Unfortunately, if a DOMA case ever does come before a court, it will be ruled unconstitutional - not only by the 9th court and other liberal appeals courts, but even by Scalia and the conservatives on the USSC.

That is why the constitutional process must be used to defend marriage.
.

[EternalVigilance]

Simple. Just start with the Federalist Papers.

Yeah, right.

You are purposely obtuse...vague...because you don't have a rhetorical leg to stand on.

The founding generation legislated against all forms of evil...far beyond what modern society deems acceptable...that is the simple fact.

Their concept of liberty...which I share...is that men have the God-given unalienable right to do good...but that liberty never encompasses the right to do evil.

All men and women know in their hearts that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil.

Those who have hardened their hearts to that knowledge are about as close to being unredeemable as men get.

[goldstategop]

"Legal incidents." Effects that are not marriage. A civil union or domestic partnership is NOT a marriage. Its a different form of social relationship in the eyes of the law and so does not have the name or the status of marriage for the purposes of benefits and court proceedings.

[j_tull]

Then, when and if that statute is stricken by a judge and the appeals are taken, it can establish a NEED for a constitutional amendment.

Oh, you mean like they did in Mass? The only problem is the activist court that struck down the ban ordered an IMMEDIATE overturn of the ban; a fast tracked amemdment to the state constitution will take two years. Condescend elsewhere!

[goldstategop]

My thoughts exactly. It better to act early than it is to act when it is too late.

[reagandemo]

Thank you abnegation! The details are a real pain in the you know what for some people aren't they!

[abnegation]

He did say go read "The Federalist Papers" didn't he? (g)

[goldstategop]

And in the meantime, irreparable injury has been done to the people of Mass and their rights under the law. Injury also the health of society that simply cannot be undone after the fact. None of this was of any concern to the MASS Supremes though when they catered to a minority in order to sooth their hurt feelings.

[johnfrink]

If we can discriminate based on a person's age, then I don't see why we can't discriminate based on whether or nor a person is a sexual deviant.

Are you serious, or just joking around? Everything we know about the human body tells us that motor skills deteriorate once a person reaches a certain age. A 90 year old has far less reaction time and coordination than a 30 year old. So it is common sense to pass certain restrictions against older people. That's not discriminatory since it follows what we know about the body. There's no such comparison with sexual orientation. So, BZZZZT, sorry, try again.

[johnfrink]

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.

Yawn.

[lugsoul]

Then they are debating one other than the language posted on this thread.

[lugsoul]

What are the legal incidents of marriage?

[lugsoul]

Limited government. Probably too difficult a concept for you.