First, of course marriage should be left to the states. Stopping federal courts from intervening is a wonderful idea, but hardly needs an amendment. Stopping state courts is completely outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government. If a state court finds it unconstitutional then the people of that state should change the constitution. To force a state to accept an unconstitutional law defies every principle of federalism.
As for number 2, it is irrelevant that the FMA writes discrimination into the constitution. Every single court challenge on this including the infamous 9th Circus concludes that a state has a compelling and legitimate interest in maintaining traditional marriage for heterosexual couples. As for No. 3, There is no, I repeat NO chance homosexual marriage will ever see the light of day in any state that does not desire it. Massachusetts has the ability to change its constitution, just as does every other state.
Then why this amendment? The president sees himself as weak in terms of his traditional base, and so in spite of the fact that this ludicrous amendment has no chance of success, and it is likely he would never push it by himself, he is doing it merely to placate the radical right. What he doesn't understand is that this pandering isn't going to help his ratings a bit. Good news out of Iraq and movement on the immigration issue are the two things that most intelligent conservatives want.
A tiny homophobic element in his base is driving it, and the rest who support it actually believe the lies being told. Wait until someone tells him that tiny element wants a hell of a lot more than just the marriage ban....
If 3/4 states agree to the amendment, than it's completely okay, since the states are the ones making this decision.
A tiny homophobic element in his base is driving it, and the rest who support it actually believe the lies being told.Further: It seems to be that after your introduction, to wit: "Totally illogical" I might expect some argument. But unless I'm missing something, all I get is assertions:
Stopping federal courts from intervening is a wonderful idea, but hardly needs an amendment.I don't get this. Federal courts have prohibited laws about abortion and laws against homosexual "sodomy". Why does it hardly need an amendment to stop them from prohibiting laws preventing marriage between people of the same sex, or what not?
Stopping state courts is completely outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government.That's a new one to me. At least theoretically the Constitution is all about saying in what areas the Feds and their courts may stop or limit the government organs of the states.
To force a state to accept an unconstitutional law defies every principle of federalism.That statement is almost a tautology, isn't it? But the problem is who gets to say it's unconstitutional.
There is no, I repeat NO chance homosexual marriage will ever see the light of day in any state that does not desire it. Massachusetts has the ability to change its constitution, just as does every other state.I watched how the Episcopal Church "decided" that priests who were, as they say, practicing homosexuals were not on that account subject to being deposed or any penalty of canon law. There was no explicit statement in the canons that homosexual practices were immoral or unbecoming or what not. So those who thought that it had "always" been understood that such behavior was worthy of canonical penalty, suddenly found themselves bearing the burden of passing a canon which said so explicitly. Because it takes a "super majority" to be sure one can pass a new canon, no such canon was ever passed.If some state supreme court decides that suddenly, after a couple of centuries of agreement that the opposite proposition was so obvious that it did not need to be stated, decides that whoever wants to have a legal relationship which grants him or her or whatever access to those rights and privileges available to the "married" ought to have the same access -- as long as there are more than one of him, her, or whatever. Then the people of the state will have to put together a super-majority to preserve what the founders intended a super majority to change.
-and yet given the futility of the effort that you espouse I see you repeatedly and persistently arguing against quite vigorously?
The president sees himself as weak in terms of his traditional base, and so in spite of the fact that this ludicrous amendment has no chance of success, and it is likely he would never push it by himself, he is doing it merely to placate the radical right. What he doesn't understand is that this pandering isn't going to help his ratings a bit. Good news out of Iraq and movement on the immigration issue are the two things that most intelligent conservatives want.
A tiny homophobic element in his base is driving it, and the rest who support it actually believe the lies being told. Wait until someone tells him that tiny element wants a hell of a lot more than just the marriage ban....
You present here an argument devoid of substance, one dripping with vitriol and contempt -one not worthy of seeing the light of day even where darkness is light and conservatism is enemy -DU...
Go away.
Your true motives were revealed in that one statement. Your three points were poorly made, and perhaps the reason is that they were dishonestly made.
You just showed your true colors. Are you also a NAMBLA member?
Let me ask a candid question. Since you constantly crow about state's rights and your opposition to gay marriage, tell us if you have voted or would vote for a state marriage ammendment in your state uncategorically defining marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman?