Posted on 05/14/2006 5:03:17 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
The 18th amendment tried to restrict our rights and we repealed it. Of course don't hold your breath on the 16th amendment being repealed any time soon.
sigh,,,,
The federal marriage amendment is actually one of those rare laws which puts government OUT of peoples lives.
It takes the issue away from the courts and away from politicians.
Not all forms of discrimination are bad.
That's exactly what an amendment would do: restrict the government from granting recognition to gay marriage. It would not restrict people from doing what people do.
How would an amendment prohibiting the government from forcing the rest of us to recognize gay marriage restrict anyone's rights? What rights would it restrict?
Chelsea Clinton is the daughter of a President, who is also against altering the Constitution to defend the institution of marriage.
Can't you see that gay marriage would result in GREATER government involvement in people's lives? The government would become an active policing mechanism in each gay marriage, and it would force the rest of us to acknowledge and accept gay marriage.
An amendment IS to restrict the power of govt! It restricts the power of COURTS to impose pseudo marriage on people, who have not voted for it, or have voted and are overridden by the courts.
It IS NOT discrimination.
Nice play with words. Here let me try it too:
"The 18th amendment restricted the government from granting liquor licenses."
"The 16th amendment restricted the government from granting people tax free status"
That was fun...
Homosexual activity IS a behavior - a non-procreative disordered behavior that ANYONE can choose to engage in one time or many times.
Re: "None of the kids are gay" -what exactly does this mean? How did you verify this?
In this case -the men in Black Robes...
What "right" would an amendment abridge?
"It is writing discrimination into the constitution and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong."
Well too bad... It is kicking activist judges to the curb and, as I say, it is fundamentally right.
Privately living in delusion is one thing -politics though deals in reality --consensus is political power...
As such, "homosexual marriage" will never be accepted let alone allowed -it just takes some time to clue in all the delusional ones as to who is really in charge...
Laws are written in very general terms.
If gay marriage is legalized,the law will not say "if you're gay and you want to marry your gay partner, it's okay". The law will simply say "if a person wants to get married, they can either marry someone of the opposite sex or someone of the same sex". In other words, the government will be making no distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality, as far as considering one to be normal and the other to be abnormal. So the goverment will basically be telling people "don't think of yourself as either straight or gay, keep an open mind to going either way".
Such a society would be a return to the decadence of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece, where there were no rules regarding sexual conduct,
where soldiers had sex with
young boys before going off to battle, orgies were commonplace, and prostitutes were considered "holy".
I'm not worried about gay people getting married. I'm worried about straight people being indirectly encouraged by the government to engage in sexual experimentation (otherwise known as sexually deviant behavior).
This is the slippery slope that gay marriage will take us down.
Now if a same sex married couple in Mass decides to move out of state and challange the new state's law against same sex marriage based on something like the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, then they have a number of huge hurdles to overcome, least of which is the fact that SCOTUS probably would not allow it given its current state.
If you REALLY want to restrict the power of the courts, then write a REAL amendment that does exactly that. Congress can draft an amendment that puts restrictions on how the courts interpret the constitution. Heck it could repeal the 14th amendment and write a new one that supercedes it if it wanted.
In other words, solve the REAL problem, which is courts are interpreting the constitution in ways that are way beyond its intended meaning. Otherwise, you will be writing amendments until doomsday trying to restrict one small thing after another.
I like the way you think and I agree.
What "right" would an amendment abridge?
What right would an amendment abridge?
The law is obviously not yours. Please read my post #75.
The real problem is the courts can interpret the constitution as broad or as narrow as it wants... irregardless of intention of the article or amendment. Why not solve that problem instead of going through the very expensive ordeal of adding an amendment that restricts just gay marriage?
What right would an amendment abridge?
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.