Posted on 06/09/2006 7:03:26 AM PDT by flixxx
On Wednesday the Senate fell 18 votes short of the two-thirds majority that would have been required to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The mainstream media joined Sen. Edward Kennedy in calling the entire debate a distraction from the nation's business and a wedge with which to divide Americans.
Since the main business of Congress is to devise ever more ingenious ways (earmarked and non-earmarked) to waste taxpayers' money, any distraction from the main business is welcome. As for dividing Americans, who came up with the idea of radically altering the most ancient of all social institutions in the first place? Until the past few years, every civilization known to man has defined marriage as between people of opposite sex. To charge with "divisiveness" those who would do nothing more than resist a radical overturning of that norm is a sign of either gross partisanship or serious dimwittedness.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
From the article: "Since the main business of Congress is to devise ever more ingenious ways (earmarked and non-earmarked) to waste taxpayers' money, any distraction from the main business is welcome."
____________________________________________________
Sometimes, Charles K can say it so perfectly.
That Teddy Kennedy should oppose the marriage amendment should come as no surprise. His whole family, from father through sons, has had little use for the institution. Marriage is like their Catholicism -- a sometime thing.
DUDE!
When I click on your screen name the filters on my system block it. Reason: Pornagraphy.
Really, I'm serious.
I don't see the need for an amendment to ban a marriage, the consummation of which (sodomy) is illegal in all 50 states.
Just enforce the laws we already have!!!!
BTW, here in VA, it is illegal to have a sexual live-in relationship outside of marriage.
I'm for it.
Who peeks in the window? Where do I apply?
And this is bad? How?
He was incorrect on one point. Nebraska and Georgia had much more in their amendments than the banning of gay marriage. Both can and will cure that problem.
But for those who think bringing this amendment up by the Senate leadership was courageous and necessary, let me help you back down into the world of political reality. The Senate had no intention of actually voting on the measure. Both the Democrats and Republicans used this as so much sugar candy to get the blood circulating in their respective "base" groups.
The cloture vote was the way out of actually having to vote on the thing. Now, no one can use it for or against anyone this Fall. The key for me was Graham voting for cloture. That was important for him to be seen as more conservative than he has at times appeared. If it had come to an actual vote, he would very likely have voted no. This was clearly a win-win. The bases feel that they have gained and the Senate was able to effectively side step a contentious and controversial piece of legislation.
Now states can continue to limit marriage to one man and one woman. If they attempt to expand it they will run smack into the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. By not trying to hinder other kinds of same sex relationships while keeping traditional marriage the law of the state, we have the best chance of keeping marriage...traditional.
So are you suggesting we jail 90 to 95 percent of all heterosexual married couples?
This is a poor argument. "Unlikely" is not good enough. I'm sure it was "unlikely" anyone thought we would be arguing the definition of marriage (or the word "is", for that matter) today, 30 years ago.
Today, liberal and relativist lawyers are eroding away at the very fabric of society using techniques like judge shopping and linguistic gymnastics that we need to be rather explicit in defining certain societal foundations that used to be implied and part of "common knowledge". Common sense is not understood by the left. I agree it is rather ridiculous that we have to have an amendment to define marriage but this is where we are and it is not superfluous by any stretch of the imagination.
For once, I agree with the tubby old sot. Gay marriage IS a wedge issue. And since an overwhelming majority of Americans reject it soundly, I see no reason to ever bring it up again. There's no reason at all why 2 percent of the population should be able to dictate terms to the rest of us.
Thanks for clearing that up, Ted. The next round's on me.
I disagree. On a related note, states have not smacked into the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments by deciding that homosexual parenting is legal and OK. eg. Massachusetts. They tried to force Catholic Charities (An organization you would think would be protected by the First Amendment) to allow adoption of children to homosexual partners. Catholic Charities refused and closed up the adoption shop in Massachusetts.
In adoptions, the 11th Circuit has confirmed the same when Florida restricted adoptions to straight couples. It's the other areas the states will likely have more difficulty, including the few remaining sodomy laws, laws prohibiting other kinds of unions between homosexuals, and state refusal to recognize contracts other than marriage under the FFC clause of Article IV.
Lesson One: Gay activists push everything! There have been challenges to the DOMA. One was thrown out because they had no standing to bring the suit, not on the merits of the case. There are other challenges to the DOMA pending. As we have learned, you can win all of them but one and you still lose. They just keep on moving towards the Supreme Court. We probably have four Supremes on our side. That's it.
Should DOMA be overturned, that would justify a constitutional amendment to prevent one state from imposing its will on the other 49. But it has not been overturned. And under the current Supreme Court, it is unlikely to be. The Marriage Protection Amendment is therefore superfluous.
Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas. Who else?
Because it is an odd solution for a popular-sovereignty problem to take the gay-marriage issue completely out of the hands of the people.
Out of the hands of the people? Two-thirds of Congress (people's represenatives) and three-forths of the states ratifying it is hardly taking it out of the hands of the people. It is super democratic. And keep in mind, our federalist founders who thought a representative democracy was the way to go are the ones who provided for this solution.
no people in any state could ever permit gay marriage.
Not true. They just have to call it civil union or something else, and they can't do it via their state courts. Additionally, if the support becomes overwhelming, they can repeal the amendment.
In the short run, judicial arrogance is to be fought democratically with the means still available. Rewording and repassing the constitutional amendment in Georgia, for example. Appealing the Nebraska decision right up to the Supreme Court, which, given its current composition, is extremely likely to terminate with prejudice this outrageous example of judicial interposition.
The means still available is amending the constitution. It's legal. As for the Supreme Court: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito! Who else?
True, this does nothing about today's judicial usurpation in Massachusetts. But that is the problem of its good citizens. If they want to, they have the power to amend their own state constitution. In the meantime, Massachusetts remains quarantined by DOMA.
Massachusetts was carefully planned out. They had no opportunity to amend their constitution for several years, leaving the gay marriage legislation in place and reframing the debate from allowing something to taking something away. New lawsuits will hit, should it be taken away, with an entirely different premise and stronger standing. You can't escape the courts without an amendment.
This amendment is for the judges. It limits them, not the people. Marriage by a different name is still marriage.
States that expand the "freedom" of homosexuals in family law have no constitutional issues because the libs have used the loophole that marriage is not explicitly defined. If it were defined you would have much less "freedom" to corrupt children in said states, which would be a good thing.
States are not restricting freedoms of homosexuals to marry because that freedom never existed in the first place. The common sense definition of marriage has always been between one man and one woman. But, as I have stated before, libs do not understand common sense.
Excellent point!
Well, if Massachusetts wants to define marriage as between one man and one woman, their legislature has the power. If so, I'm not sure what the children and corruption have to do with the issue we're discussing.
States are not restricting freedoms of homosexuals to marry because that freedom never existed in the first place. The common sense definition of marriage has always been between one man and one woman.
But obviously not in the legal sense, which is what states are now doing.
They do not have the power to keep marriage defined as one man and one woman. The courts are usurping the power of the people and their duly elected legislature. As The Ghost of FReepers Past rigtly stated "This amendment is for the judges. It limits them, not the people."
If so, I'm not sure what the children and corruption have to do with the issue we're discussing.
The Homosexual lobby in league with liberal judges are corrupting children by ruling that it is OK and fine for Homosexual partners to be parents. If homosexual marriage is OK'd or won by challenge in federal court, because there is no Amendment nor definition, homosexual parenting will become a norm and protected by the state. This will lead to the destruction of our great nation.
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.