Posted on 05/30/2006 10:54:43 AM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
Senators who oppose a federal constitutional marriage amendment often contend that it’s too early, that there is no need for such a measure. Wait until something really big happens, they say.
But events over the past two years clearly illustrate that a federal amendment is overdue. The law is in turmoil. Lots of “big things” have happened.
Massachusetts – May 17, 2004: After a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the state begins issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples. This leads directly to schools openly promoting homosexuality and to Catholic Charities being forced to stop placing children for adoptions.
In 2004, the mayors of several cities, beginning with San Francisco, issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples (Sandoval County, New Mexico; New Paltz, New York, and Multnomah County, Oregon). State courts rule those “marriages” invalid, but appeals are pending.
Nebraska – May 21, 2005: A federal judge overturns the state’s constitutional marriage amendment, which had been enacted by a ballot vote of 70 percent. California – September 6, 2005: The legislature becomes the first in the nation to pass a law mandating legalization of homosexual “marriages.” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) vetoes the bill, but proponents say they’ll be back.
Connecticut – October, 2005: Connecticut becomes the sixth state (after California, Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Vermont) to offer some form of legal recognition to same-sex couples. Maryland – January 20, 2006: A Baltimore city judge strikes down the state marriage law, and then stays her order pending appeal.
Georgia – May 16, 2006: A county judge overturns the state marriage protection amendment enacted in 2004 by a 76-percent ballot vote.
Utah – May 16, 2006: The state Supreme Court upholds the bigamy conviction of a former police officer, Rodney Holm. He had challenged the marriage law after being convicted in 2002 upon his third “marriage.” Chief Justice Christine Durham dissents, saying the state law violates the “privacy of intimate, personal relationships” and religious freedom.
Washington – The state Supreme Court will rule soon on a challenge to that state’s marriage law, as will the high court in New Jersey. Both courts are dominated by liberals. Unlike Massachusetts, neither Washington nor New Jersey has a law barring marriages to out-of-state couples whose own states do not recognize “gay” marriage. Thus, if either state begins issuing marriage licenses to couples from the other 49 states, the recipients will return to their own states and file lawsuits challenging not only their state laws but the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Lawsuits filed by homosexual activists seeking to overturn state marriage laws are pending in 10 states: California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma and Washington.
Why wait? Folks are leaving the Gay State here in droves and it ain't just because of the taxes and the weather!
The Gaybats will never admit it though.
I don't think the Constitution should be changed over this issue.
I agree. Federal Marriage Amendment NOW.
I don't think the Constitution should be changed over this issue.
___________
That makes at least 2 of us.
There are more important constitutional amendments (e.g. repeal of the income tax) to be worked on.
You might think differently if you lived in MA and saw what is going on in our schools!
I don't care what people do in private. I sure as hell don't like my tax dollars being spent to teach homosexuality to kindergarteners or any publicly schooled children of any age.
These folks are aggressively agenda driven and have permeated every level of public life in this state.
Overall, I am happy with this but why do I feel like they are just throwing us a bone for all the BS we have had to put up with lately. I don't believe they even have the heart to really pass this. I think they are bringing this up to shut us up so that we will vote for them in November. They think this is going to give them an "all is forgiven". Don't we all feel used?
So, it's ok with you that judges can overide a 78% vote by the people of a state, but not ok to overide a judges decision over the people's decision. And since federal judges are appointed, not elected, you have given over this nation to government of the judges, for the judges, and by the judges. I think the judges have already changed the constitution by fiat judgements.
"Senators who oppose a federal constitutional marriage amendment often contend that it’s too early, that there is no need for such a measure."
What they really mean is that this is hard and they'd rather not do anything hard if it's okay with you.
Why? It seems effective to me.
Why not have each state vote on it?
I don't see how letting gay people get 'married' is 'treading on me'.
More than that.
Since the Judicial branch of our government has seen fit to make law rather than enforce present law, then the Executive Branch should take it upon itself to overule the Judicial Law, and arrest activist judges who decide to overide their authority, thus corrupting that branch of gov't to promote and forcing their liberal agenda by MAKING new law. All activist judges should be impeached.
unless the SCOTUS tosses the federal defense of marriage act - that will instantly federalize this issue (which correctly should be left to individual states).
if that happens, the only choices are the amendment, or gay marriage everywhere.
Massachusetts is having a constitutional convention to rectify this issues with which the judge tossed out the amendment. It is within the powers of those states to keep gay marriage illegal.
Connecticut has the right to whatever form of relationship it wants to legalize.
The Georgia law was struck down because it was unconstitutional. It covered multiple topics against the Georgia constitution. The people of Georgia will rectify the problems and reinstitute a constitutional amendment.
Washington – The state Supreme Court will rule soon on a challenge to that state’s marriage law, as will the high court in New Jersey. Both courts are dominated by liberals. Unlike Massachusetts, neither Washington nor New Jersey has a law barring marriages to out-of-state couples whose own states do not recognize “gay” marriage. Thus, if either state begins issuing marriage licenses to couples from the other 49 states, the recipients will return to their own states and file lawsuits challenging not only their state laws but the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
This is completely inaccurate. There is no evidence that the DOMA is under any serious challenge, as it has been legally implemented pursuant to Article IV of the Constitution. No state has to recognize a nontraditional marriage from any other state. If a judge struck down DOMA, it would not survive either a Circuit Court appeal (9th excepted), nor a USSC review. No chance with the current makeup of the Court.
Every state has the ability to amend its constitution correctly to keep gay marriage legal or illegal as it chooses. No state has to recognize another's marriage if that marriage is nontraditional.
This is nothing more than election year pandering. The Republican base is very vocal about staying home this year, and something needs to be done to excite it. But this kind of non issue is not the thing. There are many important issues for the Congress to address....and for Republican hopefuls in the fall. This is not one of them.
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.