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.
"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."
This is true....however....the rest of the story is more important: the Constitution never contemplated that the judiciary would be a super-legislature, unaccountable, but with crushing authority to knock down state statutes which deal with issues of health, safety and morality.
So now...after judges have thrust the gay agenda upon us, they are conveniently resorting to federalism. What other option do we have?
It is sort of true that this doesn't belong in the federal Constitution. But the other side, the judicial activists, have given us no choice.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!
This is absolutely nothing more than the standard vacuous liberal cliche being pawned off as common opinion.
Oh please. How is it not a ban on gay marriage?
There is absolutely no need for actions like that of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, except to impress the opinion of the elite on the populance. Gays can have everything they want, except respect in domestic partnerships. That is why in Scandanavia, where gay marriage is legal, there are so few.
So why the brouhaha, Because the real purpose is to silence all criticism of the gay "lifestyle." If gay unions are sanctioned by law, then that makes it legally risky to speak out against their behavior, and socially it makes everyone who does seem like a bigot. That's Teddy Kennedy's ploy. Let us not debate about the rightness of wrongness of homosexuality. I don't want to hear your arguments.
So we are engaged in a great social experiment, where the norms of Christian morality are dumped into the trash can. We will see how things work out down the roads, but mostly likely the negative results will be ignored, just like the consequences of fault free divorce.
Seems to me that the constitution was designed to allow changes via amendment. It does not get any more clear cut than that. If this idiot thinks its not an important issue, fine. The rest of us disagree.
Never is a long time. If you had predicted fifty years ago that voting would banned so widely as it is now, I would have scoffed. Things change.
The 1996 DOMA approved overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by Clinton also contained the language:
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
The Federal government needs a definition of marriage to administer its programs and benefits, e.g., Social Security, Medicare, pensions, and survivor benefits. If DOMA is challenged in the courts and overturned, there will a significant impact on federal programs, more than likely increasing expenditures and costs. There needs to be a detalied study on the financial impact of same sex marriage on government programs.
This is just a diversion by D.C. in an attempt to cause everyone to forget about their inadequacy of securing the border...
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.
IMO this thing is a trojan horse to open a convention......we'd best FEAR this clause of article 5 of the Constitution:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes,......."
once open, BEWARE - " valid to all Intents and Purposes "
I'd expect one of the first things they'd do would be to make the US, Canada, and Messico into one megastate.
Funny how they want to leave this to the states to deal with...yet when it comes to abortion, it's a different story!
Which explains all those people sued for criticising marriage, and the behavior of married people?
The Senate doesn't have the votes. The issue is DOA.
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.