Replies

Sure you do. Now you are just being obtuse.

I'm going to assume you know enough about "Federalism" to know that this ain't it. Please don't prove me wrong.

As I said, I have no use for brick walls. I'm done. Enjoy your windmills.

237 posted on 07/12/2004 12:30:08 PM PDT by lugsoul (Until at last I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside.)

As I said, if the Democrats have a better alternative, they should put up or shut up. And if 75% of the states want to preserve traditional marriage, it seems to me they should be able to exercise the prerogative to do it.

243 posted on 07/12/2004 12:32:42 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)

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.

261 posted on 07/12/2004 12:40:32 PM PDT by tjwmason (Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.)

"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.

262 posted on 07/12/2004 12:40:40 PM PDT by abnegation (If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose righteousness TR)

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.

265 posted on 07/12/2004 12:43:45 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))