Posted on 07/20/2004 4:56:20 PM PDT by wagglebee
To fans of theater, last week's U.S. Senate debate about same-sex marriage was a genuine farce.
Yet with straight faces that would make John Kerry envious, Democrats repeatedly invoked "states' rights" -- traditionally a Republican imperative -- as the linchpin of their opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
Simply stated, states' rights in this case really mean full power to state courts, which are being allowed to create (rather than interpret) laws in defiance of the democratic process and in contempt of the clear preference of a majority of Americans, including both presidential candidates and most elected officials.
Opponents of the FMA also argued that there is no urgency for such drastic action and charged that the amendment was strictly a political move. The timing was political in part, of course -- an attempt to force Democratic presidential candidate Kerry and running mate John Edwards to declare themselves. But as was clear to anyone who listened to the debate, there also was a substantive element.
Since when are substance and politics assumed to be mutually exclusive?
Moreover, there is legitimate cause for concern as courts move apace according to a national strategy to make same-sex marriage the law of the land. A recent lawsuit filed in Massachusetts gives evidence of that strategy and of the fallacy of the states' rights argument.
The suit seeks an injunction against enforcement of a 1913 state law prohibiting marriages in Massachusetts that would be illegal in couples' home states. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who opposes same-sex marriage, invoked that law as his final legal straw to stop out-of-state couples from coming to Massachusetts as a marital safe haven, a kind of legal loophole around the clearly expressed will of the people in their own states.
The suit was filed by eight out-of-state couples, who claim the law is discriminatory (because it hasn't been enforced in recent years and was dusted off only to use against gays and lesbians) and violates both state law and the U.S. Constitution. What the suit makes clear is that there is in place a national strategy to ratify same-sex marriage, state by state, through court challenges rather than through legislation by officials accountable to the people.
So there you have it: The Senate killed the FMA for this session in a 48-50 vote. Republicans say they'll keep fighting for the amendment, but state courts in the meantime will continue to create laws most Americans don't want.
Whatever ultimately happens, one thing needs to be clear: The FMA stands as the only certain way Americans can be assured a voice in determining how the American family -- and ultimately American culture -- are defined.
I think the time has come in this country for the national and various state executives and legislatures to begin to challenge the authority of courts in their abusive attempts to adjudicate laws.
State's rights was last week's Democrat talking point. As noted in another thread, the lawsuits to force states to accept gay marriages entered into other states have already begun.
The state legislatures around the country should start passing resolutions calling for a constitutional convention.
States Rights....
Full Faith and Credit Act....
Cool, so a CCW permit issued in AZ should be valid in NYC or DC, right Kerry?
Hello?
*crickets*
Yeah, the states'-rights talk is only a cynical topical anesthesia being applied to conservatives by Rat mouthpieces right now. They lie in their teeth -- as you say, federal lawsuits are in preparation as they prepare to trump states' rights themselves with appeals to the Supreme Court and Article IV of the Constitution.
I disagree... in this case the ammendment process is forced due to the fact the U.S. Supreme Court has failed to defend the most basic definition of marriage.... if the founding fathers had ever dreamed this would become an issue they would have had it placed in the ORIGINAL document....
I am not saying that this congress has the votes to pass it right now, because the fact is they don't... but those who would like to vote against the ammendment should vote FOR cloture, and make an argument, and cast their vote.. what we now have is a bunch of senators who can play both sides of the issue.... we need to keep the pressure on...
How odd! In your anger with the U.S. Supreme Court, you choose to alter the our Constitution, and not the justices themselves. Amending the Constitution should be the last resort, not the first. Exercise the Constitution given us first.
Impeach the judges that will not uphold the law. The Constitution already has this remedy in place. Why do you feign anger with the court on the one hand, yet do not seek to correct the court with the power of Impeachment vested in Congress by the Constitution? How will adding an an amendment defining marriage keep this and future courts from irresponsible behavior on all other matters before the court? Impeachment could and would correct the court. Adding an amendment is like crossing the street to avoid a bully. It won't make the bully go away. Moreover, it's already constitutional to impeach, and requires no amendment. The Constitution given us is a powerful document as is, but worth little if not adhered to.
This last spring the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case on same sex marriage, despite the fact what Massachusetts did challenged the laws of all other states. Impeach the entire court if necessary, and enforce the laws given us before adding new ones.
the problem is that when these groups make it a "civil rights" issue instead of a moral one (Protection of the definition of marriage).... the constitution needs to address the fact that there is a difference.... and there is a difference... this would settle the issue and we can move on rather than debate this forever....
And the Republicans don't. Go figure.
Michael Medved made a really good point about this...If the dems REALLY supported states rights, they would be supportive of the FMA, because for the ammendment to pass, it must be approved by 3/4ths of state legislatures, and a super majority in congress. Ammending the Constitution requires overwhelming approval on a state by state basis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.