Defense of Marriage Amendment debate on CSPAN2 LIVE THREAD

CSPAN

[abnegation]

And so it begins.....

[lugsoul]

Ah, so now you are backtracking. It doesn't merely limit judges, right? It would prevent a legislature - or even the population of a state - from amending their own state constitution to grant the legal benefits of marriage to gay couples - wouldn't it?

[goldstategop]

As I said a lot of posts back, if you think it doesn't give the states enough flexibility, by all means offer substitute language. No one is stopping the Democrats from doing so.

[lugsoul]

That's not all it says, and you know it. If it is so benign, why do you keep lying about what it says?

[lugsoul]

The legislature makes the laws, the executive enforces them and the judiciary interprets (or if you like, construes) them.

In a civics book, but not in the real world.

[EternalVigilance]

Yes, your comment had some basis in ancient history, but it had no basis in this debate.

Thereby earning my rebuttal.

You still haven't made one pertinent point about why this Amendment is inadvisable.

It makes perfect sense on every level: morally, historically, constitutionally and politically.

It is the right thing to do for our posterity.

[goldstategop]

No state has voted to legalize same sex marriage. In the one state were it was made legal, it came at the behest of an activist judiciary, not the result of a vote of the state legislature.

[tjwmason]

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

Given that you have been assuming that all civil partnerships would be defined by state constitutions, I am not sure who should be hurling comments about 'Constitutional Amendment trains'.

The major difference between your proposed amendment, and the one presently begin discussed is that one provides a positive definition which has been universally accepted for thousands of years. The other does not.

The F.M.A. says nothing about homosexuals per se. It merely states that marriage consist of one man and one woman. It never states that homosexuals may not contract marriage, merely that there would have to be one man and one woman. The terms 'gay' and 'homosexual' never appear in it, for the simple reason that it is concerned with marriage, not with gays.

If there is a gay couple living together, this will have no impact on them. That is the difference between these two amendments.

[lugsoul]

DOMA is fine with me. I don't need to offer anything else, because I don't think an amendment is appropriate. As I've said a few dozen times.

[EternalVigilance]

It would prevent a legislature - or even the population of a state - from amending their own state constitution to grant the legal benefits of marriage to gay couples - wouldn't it?

Which of course would be a very good thing.

[goldstategop]

If traditional marriage isn't benign, then show us the harm in protecting it.

[lugsoul]

Not would be. Can be. Unless your amendment passes. Then you can dictate to the states how they can define it. Some conservative.

[lugsoul]

My marriage is not threatened at all by what some other couple does. If yours is, I'm sorry for you.

[goldstategop]

That's where we disagree. I don't think DOMA goes far enough and to make sure it remains legal, I want to put a constitutional scaffold underneath it.

[goldstategop]

I don't care what gays and lesbians do behind closed doors. They simply don't have the right to redefine the meaning of marriage for the rest of society.

[lugsoul]

Unless you are a Federalist. But you obviously would rather have the Federal government dominating over the states.

[carenot]

There was nothing in their Constitution about gay marriage being a right up until now.

There is nothing in the US Constitution saying anything about the Feds having any say about marraige.

[tjwmason]

Ah, so now you are backtracking.

No I am not.

It doesn't merely limit judges, right?

It primarily limits judges, and activist judges are the target of the amendment. But if marriage consist of one man and one woman, then that limits everybody from trying to make it include two men.

It would prevent a legislature - or even the population of a state - from amending their own state constitution to grant the legal benefits of marriage to gay couples - wouldn't it?

Yes it would. So what. Would it prevent a state from passing legislation (sub-constitutional legislation) recognising gay-partnerships?

[lugsoul]

They can't define it for me, regardless of what the law says. Mine is a sacrament, and a covenant, and would be with or without legal sanction. If they want legal sanction for theirs, that doesn't define mine.

[goldstategop]

The federal government leaves it up to the state legislatures. That's a pretty federalist definition to me.

[lugsoul]

Nope. And I believe that is really the point - why DOMA isn't good enough for those who MUST have an amendment. You want to make sure no state ever does.