Danforth: Ban on gay marriage a silly idea

Houston Chronicle ^ | April 30, 2006 | Associated Press

[steve-b]

The state is our hireling, and has no business getting uppity and demanding that we benefit it -- it works the other way around.

[Gorobei]

Ok, I see where you're coming from, but I believe that we're already at the breaking point, as another reply pointed out in the "Full Faith and Credit" clause. I am not enough of a Constitutional scholar to make a call on whether or not that would prevail over the Defense of Marriage Act, but it is worrisome that it is even a possibility.

[DLfromthedesert]

And you also agree with the indoctrination of children in public schools as the teachers in Massachusetts are doing now that "gay" marriage is legal in that state?

This was never an issue until the radical gays made it their agenda.

[dpa5923]

Call it the state or society if you desire. The point remains the same, the only reason the state or society recognizes marriages of any kind and provides benefits to it is because it (society) gets something in return.

[dpa5923]

The Massachusetts court is violating the U.S. Constitution and the Reynolds decision. If they had a governor with some filberts, and Congress would get up off their duffers, this would not be an issue.

But they won't get off their duffers and will not enforce the law of the land and will not impeach judges who over-reach their lawful duties.

Should this be an issue? No.

Do I trust Congress and judges to enforce the law and uphold the constitution? No.

Is an amendment to the US Constitution necessary to control an out of control judicial branch and a spineless congress? I believe yes.

[dpa5923]

Read up on how an amendment is passed and becomes part of the US Constitution. It can hardly be described as "the Federal Government acting like a Divine King legislating what it feels is best."

An amendment to the US Constitution is impossible without the over-whelming support of the states, no Federal fiat, no Divine King. Nice hyperbole, but completely inaccurate.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Is an amendment to the US Constitution necessary to control an out of control judicial branch and a spineless congress? I believe yes.

I think such an Amendment should also include “civil unions,” “domestic partners,” etc., etc.,... or anything remotely resembling monogamous heterosexual marriages the left can fish out of the sewer.

It is rumored Rev. Al Sharpton will wed 1000 homosexuals at the next DNC national convention and 500 portable public toilets are reserved for honeymoon suites...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The problem is the "Full Faith and Credit" clause, which would require states that did not approve, or specifically banned gay marriage to accept it.

No, not at all... read the whole thing below... notice the bold type...

Article. IV.

Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

It is strictly in the statutory domain of Congress...

Read my posts on Reynolds v. United States.

[MarkL]

It is strictly in the statutory domain of Congress...

That was my point... That there has to be a federal decision here, either through a law, or a constitutional amendment, otherwise states would be bound to honor the marriages.

Mark

[spikeytx86]

By acting like a "Divine King" I meant by legislating as if it is being ordered or blessed by god in someway. Not whether it would stand muster to our checks and balance system. And before anyone says anything I don't mean no one should legislate out of morality or religious beliefs, but it is quite another story if they think god is somehow ordained them with the right to legislate on his behalf, not only is that blasphemous it is dangerous. That is what I meant by diving king.

[spikeytx86]

By acting like a "Divine King" I meant by legislating as if it is being ordered or blessed by god in someway. Not whether it would stand muster to our checks and balance system. And before anyone says anything I don't mean no one should legislate out of morality or religious beliefs, but it is quite another story if they think god has some how ordained them with the right to legislate on his behalf, not only is that blasphemous it is dangerous. That is what I meant by diving king.

[dpa5923]

Aside from the fact the federal government cannot pass amendments without the state, this proposed amendment is not about morality, it is about stopping the unelected courts from enforcing their percieved morality on the people of the state.

If the citizens of state X want to have homosexual marriages, this amendment would not stop them. But if judge y decides that homosexual marriage should be the law of the land regardless of the desires of the people, this amendment would stop him. Likewise, if the people in state x make homosexual marriage the law of thier state, this amendment would prevent an overzelous religious radical judge from overturning the will of the people in state x because of his percieved morality.

The amendment would protect the will of the people and the right of the state.

[spikeytx86]

If it dose as you say (in which it very well might, I have never seen the wording of the proposed amendment.) I would support it. I am not one to support amending the constitution, but if this amendment can preserve states rights and restrain the SCOTUS then I think we need to act.

[Old_Mil]

Danforth, a Missouri Republican and an Episcopal priest...

Tells you everything you need to know right there.