'A coming storm': Amendment may be only way to head off church-state clash over same-sex marriage

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11926 ^ | Lynn Vincent

[mugs99]

The question is whether or not we really have a representative republic

In our representative republic marriage is decided by the states, not the federal government. A marriage amendment to the Constitution erodes the right of self determination of the states and increases dictatorial powers of the federal government.
.

[MichiganConservative]

I remembered what I read slightly incorrectly. The licenses were to allow miscegenation in certain US states in the mid 1800's. Then states realized they could require a license from everyone and make money from the license fee. Then the welfare state was created and now the marriage license is used as a criteria in doling out confiscated wealth. I can't find which states right now.

[SAJ]

An amendment would be entirely in keeping with basic constitutional principles. It is the granting -- voluntarily and democratically, in that supermajorities of both the Regress and the legislatures of the several states must approve -- of more power to the United States in a specific named area.

The things that are utterly unconstitutional are the occasional 'Defense of Marriage' Acts that are proposed by one or another grandstanding Regresscritter. As currently written, the constitution grants exactly NO power to the Regress to legislate on this and related subjects.

[muir_redwoods]

As currently constituted, there is no way 2/3 of the congress will vote for a protection of marriage amendment. This will never get to the states for ratification for years to come. It is being proposed now as a simple sop to the right wing base the republicans worry about losing.

People of traditional values are being led by the nose on this one so that they can be induced to forget the immigration issue, McCains treachery on free speech and the out-of-control spending of what I thought were fiscal conservatives.

We're being had

[mugs99]

An amendment would be entirely in keeping with basic constitutional principles

So would an amendment establishing a president for life. At what point do we stop the BS?
.

[SAJ]

Considering that there have only been 27 or 28 amendments (one of which was to repeal a previous one) in 217 years, one can hardly make the claim that the amendment process has been overused.

If 2/3rds of both houses of the Regress and 3/4ths of the state legislatures agree that the US should have a president for life, then -- speaking constitutionally -- we should have a president for life. Won't happen, of course; your example is the most pathetic of straw men.

It's called 'playing by the rules'. What's your problem with obeying the Constitution, again?

[Salvation]

**In a separate development, the Vatican issued a statement declaring that the placement of adoptive children with same-sex couples violated Catholic teaching.**

Gotta lovoe Benedict XVI!

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

"The truth of the matter . . . is that on the question of marriage, the Constitution will be amended," Mr. Frist said in a recent floor speech. "The only question is whether it will be amended by Congress as the representative of the people, or by judicial fiat."

..where does the power to make law reside?

[thomaswest]

Re 24: As currently constituted, there is no way 2/3 of the congress will vote for a protection of marriage amendment. This will never get to the states for ratification for years to come. It is being proposed now as a simple sop to the right wing base the republicans worry about losing.

You are 100% correct. Frist knows perfectly well that there will never be 67 votes for this in the Senate, and there may not even be a majority of Republicans. It will probably not even pass the House with 2/3.

The entire exercise is a waste of time and money, simply for playing to the grandstand. As with religious opposition to inter-racial marriages, religious opposition to couples living togther "without benefit of clergy", opposition to women getting the right to vote, etc.*, in another generation or two, people will look back and wonder what the fuss was all about.

*(My father recalls that when he was a teen, preachers were railing against baby carriages, because "God intended that mothers' arms were meant for carrying babies"!)

[GSlob]

He should be rendering unto Caesar.

[Uncledave]

The same argument could be made about contracts, though. A contract requires (at least) two people, yet no one would seriously argue that there is no such thing as the right to enter into a contract.

There's no "right" to enter into a contract, as you do to your life and property. A contract is just a legally enforceable agreement under the civil code. Somebody under 18 can't enter a legally enforceable contract, yet has the same rights to their life as you. A contract to do anything illegal is not enforceable.

[fwdude]

Gain control of the southern border first!

Government leaders are well able to handle several issues at once - they can multitask with little problem. Besides, the MPA should take the least amount of time and effort to get it into effect. At the same time, they can be securing our borders.

[heights]

This is a dog and pony show too divert our attention from their fooling the country with illegals. I really could give a damn what the gays are doing.

[heights]

FLOODING. And maybe fooling also.

[MichiganConservative]

Saying you have a right to marry someone is like saying you have a right to a recording contract. If a record company thinks you are a good singer, they have a right to offer you the contract and you have a right to accept. But you do not have a right to any specific recording contract, nor do you have a right to be offered a recording contract.

[thomaswest]

Re 36:

You win the prize for the most inapt and ridiculous "analogy" posted in the last year.

[MichiganConservative]

How so? They're both contracts. And these days, they have about as much permanence.

[RobbyS]

Of course he does. What is wants is the power to cause, or least witness, a legal union between two persons who are naturally incapable. Maybe it is that we have been ao psycologized that we think that defintion is merely a subjective matter.

[RobbyS]

It is basically conferring the right to contract to persons incapable of contract.