marriage.
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.
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).
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.
**************
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.
"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.
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.
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...
The Senate doesn't have the votes. The issue is DOA.
"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."
The amendment would NOT make a significant incursion into federalism and state's rights. The amendment would affirm the base and intent of our Constitution. It is a shame that something as fundamental as the marriage between one man and one woman would have to be formally stated. But it must. I strongly support the Constitutional amendment that affirms that marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman.
The state's rights incursion is nothing but an attempt to muddy the water by those legislators funded by the powerful and rich gay and lesbian lobby, IMHO.