McCain nixes marriage measure

The Washington Times ^ | 6-22-06 | Robert Stacy McCain

[Aetius]

McCain nixes marriage measure By Robert Stacy McCain THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published May 22, 2006

Sen. John McCain said yesterday he would vote against a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, saying to do otherwise would be to act from "political expediency." "I will vote against it because I believe very strongly ... first of all, on the sanctity of a union between man and woman, but I also believe that the states should make these decisions," the Arizona Republican said. "The states regulate the conditions of marriage. And unless there's some decisive overruling by the federal courts, then I will continue to believe that the states should decide."

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I really don't think this is an issue the federal government should be involved in unless it is forced on it.

You did not read the Constitutuion... pay special attention to the words in red...

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.

Congress is perfectly justified to act...

Here is a perfectly logical wording for a U.S. Amendment...

“Neither the United States, nor shall the States recognize any legal status for the cohabitation of homosexuals.”

[zbigreddogz]

What's your point?

The SC hasn't ruled if the full faith and credit clause overrides the DOMA. I would say it doesn't, because I don't think a state sponsored marriage is a right, and clearly just because one state gives you benifits, it doesn't mean another one needs to.

And you didn't read my arguement very carefully. I said that I think Congress should act, and amend the Constitution if necessary, if the court strikes DOMA down, or if they find the 'right' to gay marriage in the Constitution, but not before. Then, I said that I'd perfer to amend the Constitution to explicitly give that power to the states, but that I'd vote for an outright ban if there was no other viable alternative.

[DBeers]

This whole idea of opposing the proposed Federal Amendment on the grounds of states rights, or federalism, is not in my opinion w/o merit.

Determining if such an amendment is errant in such regards is rightly the domain of the Supreme Court AFTER such is if ever realized and IF challenged. It is not the domain of the legislature to become impotent defenders of doing nothing claiming as reason a fear of Constitutional shadows.

[DBeers]

Homosexual Agenda Ping!

If you oppose the homosexualization of society
-add yourself to the ping list!

To be included in or removed from the
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PING LIST,
please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2k.

Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search [ Add keyword = homosexualagenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

McCain nixes marriage measure

McCain = RINO never to be elected President...

[Antoninus]

McCain's position would make perfect sense if we didn't have egomaniacal, mentally-ill, tyrannical boobs on the federal and state benches--or if Congress would see fit to impeach a few of these Caesarojurists.

Since our judicial system is loaded with black-robed dictators, and the Congress is too impotent to do anything about it, McCain's position amounts to surrender.

FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT NOW!

[Dante3]

McCain's reasoning sure is muddled. And his stance on immigration issues is even crazier. He and Kennedy act as if they are senile or in a frenzy to harm this country.

[gidget7]

---"If," McCain said, "the Supreme Court of the United States rejects the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional; if state legislatures are frustrated by the decisions of jurists in more states than one, and if state remedies to such judicial activism fail; and finally, if a large majority of Americans come to perceive that their communities'values are being ignored and other standards concerning marriage are being imposed on them against their will, and that elections and state legislatures can provide no remedy, then, and only then, should we consider, quite appropriately, amending the Constitution of the United States."---


Well I guess MA (the "jurists in more states than one," If you don't count VT) don't matter to Mr. McCain. Nor do the legislative imposition of same in CT, matter, or the citizens who have been forced to accept this atrocity.

Not to McCain, it is already more than one, and one is one too many. In addition, other states have had their amendments declared unconstitutional. A Federal Amendment DOES give the authority back to the states where it belongs. Back to the citizens, in the process of a vote, and prevents the judges from overturning or ignoring those votes once a measure passes! Their communities values HAVE been ignored!

[gidget7]

And what about what this Fed. amendment really addresses, that no state shall be forced to accept homosexual marriage. That has been the case in MA and VT via judges, and CT via the legislature. All those people are being denied their right to vote. Those people ARE the states.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The SC hasn't ruled if the full faith and credit clause overrides the DOMA.

There is more to just the “full faith and credit” part of that section...

Pay attention to the words in red:

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.

This is just the trouble with a lot of these issues... nobody bothers to read the whole thing...

The court has no jurisdiction, it is a Constitutional function of Congress, not the courts...

Now, I do favor a strict wording (also to exclude civil unions, domestic partners, etc., etc., ad nausea) as a Constitutional Amendment.

[okie01]

I wonder which group McCain falls into.

Would he favor, for example, a constitutional amendment that forebade the judiciary from overruling a decision made by the people -- via referendum or through their elected legislators?

Simply stated, McCain is simply expanding his political portfolio -- adding expediency to opportunism.

[zbigreddogz]

Yes, in other words, DOMA, which congress did pass.

This would seem to say that the court will rule that it is Constitutional, and thus, a Constitutional amendment is not necessary.