Posted on 06/06/2006 7:32:07 AM PDT by AZRepublican
In a year it is wrestling with an out-of-control budget, a war going badly, and one impasse on immigration and another on its own ethics, the Senate is taking time out to debate altering the U.S. Constitution by adding the Marriage Protection Amendment.
The amendment is widely predicted to fall short of the needed votes to amend the Constitution for only the 23rd time in its 217-year history _ 13th if you omit the original 10, the Bill of Rights _ and well it should.
At its gravest level, the amendment would make a significant incursion into federalism and state's rights, taking the Constitution into areas where it was never meant to be, family law and morality. At worst, the amendment trivializes the Constitution by involving that great document in someone's choice of life partner.
Backers say the amendment protects marriage _ not that there's any evidence that the traditional marriage needs protecting _ by defining it as the union of a man and a woman. But its real intent is to shortcut any state or local attempt to legalize same-sex marriage.
If same-sex marriages are a true problem _ and the polls show declining numbers who believe they are _ it is still a matter for the states.
President Bush, who also presumably has better uses for his time, made two addresses in three days in support of the amendment, noting that 45 of the 50 states have constitutional amendments or statutes of their own limiting marriage to a man or woman.
This would seem to settle the issue but the president invoked the tired red herring of "activist judges." This is only a way of saying the issue is still controversial and unsettled and that some of the states are still sorting it out in their own courts. Let them.
A 1996 federal law says the states are not obliged to recognize lawful same-sex unions from other states, and there is no nationwide federal court order reversing that nor is there likely to be.
And Bush said there is nothing in the amendment to stop states from enacting benefits for civil unions and "legal arrangements other than marriages." This reduces the amendment to a matter of semantics, which is outside _ and far beneath _ the purview of the Constitution.
Only once before was the Constitution used to regulate personal behavior _ banning the consumption of alcohol _ and it failed, leaving a legacy of cynicism toward the law.
In a phrase that is now a cliche, the futile vote on this amendment is designed to "energize the base," get the blood flowing in the voters, presumably Republicans, for whom outlawing gay marriage is a big deal.
It may be too strong to say that this is a cynical ploy, but it is a cold, shrewd political calculation and both the calculation and the amendment deserve to fail.
Who is planning to ban gay marriage?
Plus, it still leaves states free to make the appalling decision to legalize homosexual marriage; they just have to call it by another name, and the decision must come from their legislatures, not their courts.
It will require strict and significant constitutional process to pass. If it does pass, then it is a constitutional solution to a significant, rampant moral problem that will disallow activist judges from taking extra-constitutional means to thwart the federalism that otherwise would prevail through the states.
In opposing this issue, others use a lot of words to deter support of the amendment (and I understand the philosophical reasoning) like there is no real danger, "in the forseeable future", or that complete marital rights for gays is, "unlikely", or that we ought as a people to continue the debate on what, "priveleges and benefits that ought to be granted to same sex couples". Therefore, they argue, there is no need for a constitutional amendment.
Finally, there is this gem, some are claiming the amendment itself to be a "departure from the nation’s traditions and history.".
I'll tell you what is a departure, it is the movement to destroy traditional marriage and the traditional family which is the bedrock foundation of our society, and along with the foundational moral and religious principles that define it, represent the very reason we are free.
That is what is the true departure from our history and tradition, not the effort through use of the amendment process (which is enshrined in the constitution itself) to thwart that departure.
That amendment effort is a wholly constititional solution to that grave overriding issue. Unless it garners the necessary constitutional support, it cannot pass. If it does garner the support, it will pass...and in so doing will define that critical principle within the context of the constitution itself.
I will say this...it is sad that such a definition of something so intrinsic and fundamental is necessary. That is the real issue...but in todays world with such powerful lobby groups, with such abject activist judges, and with all the clamoring by the same for that which is immoral to be called good and moral...it has become necessary.
I support the FMA for those very significant reasons and because, as John Adams indicated,
""We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798Make no mistake...it is the moral and religious people of this nation who will decide this issue. I pray that there are yet enough who are aware of the issues of the day, to get this amendment passed and thereby punctuate the truth and effecacy of the principle Adams voiced in 1798.
Just my opinion.
A cut-and-paste of liberal cliches passing for opinion.
Well, that's an interesting statement. I rather think they've done their level best thus far, with much success.
It must be election time!
Yes, its not about a larger issue effecting this country, its just about gay bashing, yah, thats it. /sarcasm.
Wait, what if this whole "gay marriage" thingy is really about letting voters decide on policy issues? It is high time Judges stop injecting themselves where they don't belong and were never intended to go as they willy nilly re-write the constitution to enact that which the legislature never would (because the voters would throw their arses out of office).
Actually nobody. The bill will never pass anyway.
Brain fart...I just have "ban" imprinted from so much past ban talk.
Nice try. One state gives gay marriages, and all states would have to recognize those marriages. And employers would have to honor those spouse benefits.
So much for the rights of people in that no gay marriage state.
A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage would be fine if they could do it without monkeying with the other amendments. But if the rats get a shot at the 2nd amendment they will try their best to change it so that only police and military have a right to bear arms.
Instead:
1) Protect the border.
2) Make this a War for Infinite Justice.
3) Impeach the insane Judges. Then they will not be there to interpret the Constitution THEIR way.
**************
Been to MA lately, Dale?
How exactly does following the Constitutionally-mandated process for amending the Constitution, which includes ratification by 3/4s of the states, infringe on federalism and state's rights? Dumb.
You're right, which is why it will never pass.
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.