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.
Carl Jung had a theory that homosexuality is the product of an urbanized society. His look at history showed that it was caused by a confusion of sexual roles in such a society. In any case, its rate of incidence rises as one moves from rural to urban environments.
From your lips to heaven, I prefer impeachment too. But, not a chance.
I agree with you..This is a ploy to steer clear of the important business of abolishing the IRS. Anything they do that does not put that first is a ploy in my book. After abolishing the IRS, I will let them impeach every nutcase liberal judge. Then, I will let them arrest Hillary for using the IRS against her enemies while she was in the Whitehouse. That is my list right now.
Well, since abolishing the IRS was not any legislative agenda that I saw, was there anything else that seemed important to you?
Sin is a mystery. Another question is why was Sodom 99 percent gay and is there such a thing as a stable percentage of gays. I'm wondering if the 3 percent number that we keep hearing will start to creep up as they get more and more acceptance.
Obviously, you have not read,until now, my legislative agenda.
(Dale McFeatters, SHNS) The Senate will try to amend the Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. 350. (Scripps Howard News Service Budget, 5 June 06.)
Wrong, Mr. McFeatters - the citizens of the country, through their elected legislators, are attempting to amend the Constitution to define the institution of marriage as the union of one man to one woman. Since this seems to be a point of contention the founders did not foresee, apparently it does need to be addressed.
“…taking the Constitution into areas where it was never meant to be, family law and morality.”
Wrong again, sir, in fact you could not be more wrong if you tried – “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, 1798) Since Mr. Adams was one of our founders and was there during the birth of our nation, I have to lend some credibility to his statement. You see, a certain degree of morality was assumed by the founders.
So, you say this is not a Constitutional matter? I say:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (Preamble, US Constitution)
A more perfect Union cannot be attained by condoning openly immoral and unnatural acts anymore than it can be attained by condoning anarchy.
Domestic Tranquility cannot be achieved by forcing morally sound people to condone the immorality of others, because to not do so would be against the law - which will happen if the several states are allowed to ‘acknowledge’ homosexual marriage.
The general Welfare of the people is never achieved by submitting to fringe or special interest groups – period.
Since three of the six tenets of our Constitution, the vary foundation and premise on which it was formed, are threatened – how can it NOT be a Constitutional matter Mr. McFeatters?
(Contact Dale McFeatters: McFeattersD@SHNS.com )
Thank you for that.
Would it were that easy!
Impeachment is a divisive
process at best. The heart
of the Constitution is:
"in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity...
"Therefore, simply reinforces my (and many others') view that this was simply a ploy and a weak attempt to galvanize base and perhaps, get some to take our eye off ball re: ILLEGAL IMIGRATION."
Wait. Let's not go overboard.
Not all gays/lesbians/whatevers
are militants, demanding special
recognition or desiring exposure/
publicity.
There are many who prefer to
remain in that hypothetical closet,
avoiding contact with any group
that would force them to take a stand
on this issue of marriage or even
civil unions. And there are the
median radicals who, while advocating
marriage unions, would never cavort
in parades or show up at DisneyWorld
for the Gay Days.
And no, I'm not of any of these groups
myself, but I do know several of the
more "timid" group who conduct themselves
with quiet and unobtrusive dignity in
the social environment of my community
and my church. Once again, it is a
matter of rights: We must be careful
not to label or castigate all for the
reprehensible grossness of the few.
Nope still takes power away from the states. What if 1/4 of the states don't agree with it? By your argument they will be required by federal mandate to accept the standard. Let's take it past marriage, let's put up something you don't like whose power to control or maintain originally fell under the power of the states. Will you again be so ardent to subvert the ideals of federalism then?
Once again, the Founders created this mechanism, complain to them. 3/4s of all states agreeing to a change is hardly depriving them of their rights.
Yes they did. To amend the powers and limitations on the federal government not the states. The Constitution, or the limitations therein, was not intended to apply to the states except in very specific instances
Please show that qualification in the Constitution. After all, the Constitution itself both grants powers to the fedgov and places limitations on the states, among other things. Amending the Constitution to enlarge federal power if 3/4s of the states agree is hardly out of line with how the document is crafted.
Article V 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, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Funny, I do not see any mention that amendments can only limit the power of the federal government.
Maybe you're one of those folks who have extra-special vision that can see penumbras that others cannot.
No, I can read
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.--Federalist 45
Would you not agree that the simple act of marriage falls under the 'ordinary course of affairs' and 'concerns the lives, liberties, and properties of the people'?
That's the Federalist papers. I posted Article V. Once again, show me where the Constitution limits amending the Constitution to limiting federal power.
Knew it. That's where statists, especially social 'conservatives', always go. For the last time, the Federalist Papers were written for the express purpose of alleviating the concerns of the citizens of the respective states. To explain to the citizens what they meant when they were writing the document. The original intent of the document was to limit the federal government. Only after the passage of the 14th, and its first misreading in 1925, did the Constitution begin to apply to the states in a meaningful way. Any doubts of this see Barron (1833)
Secondly the Constitution in 1791 was amended to make it crystal clear what powers the states did have. The 10th Amendment
So what do we do now? Appointed for life Judges have usurped the authority of all elected officials as well as the Constitution it's self. Are you suggesting that we bow to judicial tyranny and be ruled by what they say the Constitution says, even though we know damn well that it says no such thing?
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.