Defense of Marriage Amendment debate on CSPAN2 LIVE THREAD

CSPAN

[abnegation]

And so it begins.....

[EternalVigilance]

There is nothing wrong with letting two consenting adults get married.

Now we get to the root of things, eh?

The Word of God, the founders of our country (you do know who passed the original laws against sodomy, don't you?), and all of western civilization until this depraved generation of liberals have called it wrong. The vast majority of modern Americans still know it is wrong.

The destructions wrought on the practitioners and those around them by this 'lifestyle' are well-documented and well-known.

I think I will follow my conscience and the wisdom of the ages, thank you very much, and ignore your lack of a moral compass and historical ignorance.

[lugsoul]

Go back to con law class. The judiciary is not the only branch that interprets constitutions.

And the law would obviously prevent construction of state constitutions in various ways. For example, if a legislature purposefully drew a legal distinction that could not survive an equal protection challenge, the amendment would prevent any construction that allowed such a successful challenge.

[carenot]

Homosexuality is an intolerable evil. The acts themselves are war with Almighty God's created Natural order.

So was a woman stoned to death. But not the man. :)

[bluecollarman]

You know... being a Homo ain't natural. It is no different than Goatlovers. So until you can marry a goat, your sister, brother or mother. No weirdos should get special privileges.

This is a winning issue and we need to push it as hard as we can. Lord knows, IF the liberals has any issue that was this popular with the majority of voters you would hear about it 24-7. Fortunately, they are on the wrong side every major issue.

[EternalVigilance]

Phones must be quiet at Keyes' office today.

Whatever that means.

Must be a slow day over there at NAMBLA, eh?

[lugsoul]

Point me to the language that limits the application of the amendment to the judiciary, or stop repeating this blatant lie.

[3AngelaD]

Zell Miller is a co-sponsor.

[lugsoul]

I wouldn't know. Never set foot in NAMBLA. Wouldn't know where it is.

Are y'all workin' the phone hard over at Keyes' office? How do you have so much time to post on this topic.

[EternalVigilance]

This is a winning issue and we need to push it as hard as we can.

Yep.

You couldn't be more right.

To fail to do so would be a failure of political leadership of the highest order.

[EternalVigilance]

You're showing your ignorance.

I haven't worked for Alan for quite some time.

Who you working for, the DNC?

[bluecollarman]

So was a woman stoned to death. But not the man.

Homos are in a class by themselves. Evidently, homos offend God more than hetero adultery.

[tjwmason]

The amendment, as written, denies the "legal incidents" of marriage - [SNIP] - to those in legal partnerships which are not marriage between a man and woman.

Where?

It merely states that anarcho-leftist activist judges may not read those 'rights' into constitutions.

If your own state of Georgia passed a bill which created a legal civil partnership, and endowed that partnership with rights (including all of the incidents of marriage which you defined), then this amendment does diddly-squat. Please learn the difference between a positive legislative action, and a constitution.

[3AngelaD]

Those two guys have the right to live as they chose, but they don't have the right to re-define the institution of marriage for our entire society.

[lugsoul]

MY ignorance? At least my comment on your location had a basis in fact.

Yours was just a slur, like most of your posts.

What's next on the Constitutional Amendment train? How about a Constitutional Amendment that prevents homosexuals for having legal custody of children? You like that one?

[goldstategop]

Its in the provision about construing Federal and State Constitutions. The legislature makes the laws, the executive enforces them and the judiciary interprets (or if you like, construes) them. So the courts are forbidden from interpreting marriage to mean anything other than between a man and a woman. Nothing obtuse with that reading. It doesn't say anything about the laws the state legislature can make, as long as it doesn't call marriage something it isn't.

[carenot]

And if there's smoke, we wait til it becomes a fire and burns down the house? Or do we snuff out the smoke before it becomes the fire that consumes the building?

No, we just ban smoking. :)

[bluecollarman]

"How about a Constitutional Amendment that prevents homosexuals for having legal custody of children? You like that one?"

I like that one.;)

[tjwmason]

The judiciary is not the only branch that interprets constitutions.

I never said that it was. I merely stated that the activist elements of the judiciary are the targets of the amendment.

The point is that if a state wishes to create a civil partnership (or whatever term) they can do so - as long as it is not part of the constitution.

[lugsoul]

Where are judges mentioned?

Since you are all hot and bothered to pass a Federal constitutional amendment, you probably haven't even stopped to think about this: If a state chose to amend its own constitution to provide all the legal benefits of marriage to gay couples, this amendment would prevent it from being construed in that way. Directly thwarting the legislative and constitutional process.

Oh - con law I, again. All three branches interpret the Constitution.

[goldstategop]

No one is for taking away rights from gays and lesbians and you know it. All that's under discussion today is an amendment that means exactly what is says - that marriage is between a man and a woman only. Nothing more and nothing less.