I am of the same opinion. It was an attempt at the ole shellgame -- try to change the debate and get the base support back. It failed.
Posted on 06/06/2006 7:32:07 AM PDT by AZRepublican
I'm glad someone get's it.
The same Senators who opposed the so-called gay marriage amendment would likely stand against an amendment that would restrict the Full Faith and Credit clause in the U.S. Constitution. If a future Supreme Court were to support a lower court ruling that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional, homosexual marriage, or for that matter polygamy and incest, would be the law of the land as much as Roe v. Wade is now.
The main criticism I have concerning the proposed Constitutional amendment is that it is only a band aid applied to a major wound, the unrestricted power of the courts to enact legislation from the bench. Part of the solution is to appoint conservative justices to the bench, especially the Supreme Court. The remainder of the problem lies with the power of judicial review, which is a real "third rail" of American politics.
There is virtually no restraint on the power of the Federal judiciary. They are appointed with lifetime tenure, and the one tool given Congress to discipline the courts, the power of impeachment, has been seldom used - less than 20 times in the last 215 years. The most significant reform could be done without a Constitutional amendment, by Congress restricting the jurisdiction of Federal courts in the areas of the Constitutionality of acts of Congress or the state legislatures. Another reform would be to establish a set term for Federal judges, as exists in most states. This is another reform that could be accomplished by Congressional action. Finally, the Constitution should be amended so that Congress, and not the Supreme Court, will be the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution. Additionally, such an amendment should specifically instruct Congress or the courts to rely on original intent alone as the determinant of the meaning of a particular subject covered by the Constitution.
The back of judicial tyranny must be broken and the judicial branch of government put back into a coordinate and not the dominant part of our tripartite form of government.
Flame on.
If homosexuals are a race, they are a race headed for extinction, because evolution can not invent a way for them to reproduce, in time to save them from the diseases their self destructive behavior brings upon them.
That's true. It would put yet another instutution of the state under the Federal umbrella, where the FedGov is already having trouble funding much of its activity because it is doing too much such as warring with islamics and rebuilding New Orleans at the same time, as well as going to the moon and sitting on vast mineral and other economic deposits.
Truth is not subject to a majority vote. - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)
This is an extremely important and necessary step by the feds because if the courts continue unchecked all others will see a loss of their constitutional rights such as fredom of religion, speech and association.
Marriage, in the government's eyes, has never had anything to do with love, it has had everything to do with building society. Children are best off in a two parent home, they end up costing the less, to the state, if they are raised this way. That's why the government has anything to do with marriage. And that's why the government should conitnue to reward those couples.
Touchy! I never said I didn't support the marriage amendment.
English should have been made the national lauguage years ago and maybe the division brought about Multiculturalist would not have been so successful with such an amendment.
It's been quite a while since I studied the procedure for amending the Constitution, but I think the alternative to holding a Constitutional Congress is to have 3/4 of the state legislatures ratify the amendment. I welcome any correction if I'm mistaken.
If they need to reproduce to exist, then why do they exist?
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.
The Massachusetts courts struck down the same sex marriage ban because (in their opinion) it conflicted with the state's constitution. A remedy was written but cannot get through the legislature. The courts are not stopping it, the legislature feels it does not have enough popular support. That is clearly within the power of the people of Massachusetts to remedy.
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.
But if in fact there is no danger to the definition of marriage, then are they not right? Two state amendments were struck down because they broadly included language not only barring gay marriage, but essentially any other such relationship. For various reasons to be found in the First and Fourteenth Amendments, that would never fly. There is no chance that a redefinition by an activist judge will survive an appeals court challenge as even the 9th Circuit agrees that a state has a legitimate interest in maintaining marriage for heterosexual couples.
Finally, there is this gem, some are claiming the amendment itself to be a "departure from the nation’s traditions and history.".
I suspect they would say that most of the amendments were designed to ensure that the rights of persons were not endangered by state or federal governments. This one is somewhat different in that respect, but I don't argue that because each amendment stands on its own and doesn't owe any explanation nor does it require any standard of similarity to any other.
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.
I certainly don't disagree with that, but then we must also consider that marriage is under attack by the one million divorces each year and the fact that 10 million heterosexual couples are living outside of marriage. I really doubt that the 6,000 homosexual marriages in Massachusetts will ever come remotely close to these staggering statistics.
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.
You are correct, it will do that. In addition though it will by definition cause a constitutional crisis in any state that it imposes traditional marriage on. If the courts in that state were correct in finding that the constitution was being violated, but the cure could not get through the legislature, the constitution of the state would remain as it was, while the federal government forced the state to operate outside of its constitution rather than remedying it.
Make 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.
Well written, but I don't want anyone to try and suggest that those who oppose it do not have the same degree of morality and religious beliefs as those who do.
Thanks again for the well written post.
They exist for the same reason that drunks exist.
I would like to keep rump riding out of the courts.
"then why do they exist?"
You tell me.
Hey stupid have you ever heard of the "Full faith and credit" provision of the real Constitution, not the one the liberals make up?
Nevertheless, it is nice to have people like this explain to us why we don't want what we want.
I understand your reasoning and arguements...and believe from a moral perspective and an understanding of the foundational importance of the traditional family and marriage that we are probably on the same page. Despite that, I support the enactment of the FMA. Time will tell if it has the support necessary to pass the constitutiopnal muster it requires.
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.