Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: spikeytx86

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.


152 posted on 05/04/2006 10:40:01 AM PDT by dpa5923 (Small minds talk about people, normal minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies ]


To: dpa5923
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.
153 posted on 05/05/2006 8:07:43 PM PDT by spikeytx86 (Pray for Democrats for they have been brainwashed by there fruity little club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson