The Marriage Protection Amendment: A Fight We Can't Give Up

Meridian Magazine/Family Leader Network ^ | 8 June 2006 | Maurine Jensen Proctor

[Conservative Goddess]

Ping for later reading

[2banana]

Dear Editor,

Notice where we have gone in a few short years on homosexuals in America. At first, homosexuals wanted “tolerance” – they wanted to do as they pleased and for everyone just to leave them alone.

That shortly went to “acceptance” then to “forced indoctrination/education” and now finally to giving up our faith and morals and join them.

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. If it is not that, it has no meaning. Marriage will mean nothing. The same arguments homosexuals use to be married are the same arguments polygamists and pedophiles will use to get married. Marriage is what it is or it has no meaning.

The traditional family is the building block of our society. Without strong families, society crumbles and America will eventually crumble.

The family had been under attack for the last 50 years from “do-gooders” in Washington, Harrisburg and Hollywood. I would say that is worth a few days of debate.

And polls do not show Americans “evenly” divided on homosexual marriage or unions. In 19 states, voters (the best pollsters) have soundly defeated homosexual marriage and homosexual union referendums by results from 60%-80%.

The Pennsylvania State House passed by a huge margin of 136-61 the beginnings of a referendum to protect marriage. Notice it wasn’t a bunch of unelected judges that tried to impose their will or ideas on society (like the Massachusetts Supreme Court that started this mess). The voice of the people has spoken through democratic means.

Regards,

2banana

[Spiff]

Good letter.

[Abathar]

I think that they should completely take any say so away from the feds and leave it in the hands of the states. If Congress wants to pass an amendment to protect marriage then the amendment should simply be limited to not allowing the judiciary to force one state to recognize the definition of marriage from another state.

Word the amendment the exact same as the protection of marriage act that was passed, so that it can never be overturned in the future.

If the people of California want to have gay marriages recognized and the people pass it then let them, just don't make some court in the future force me in Indiana to recognize it.

[andonte]

Ted Kennedy is proof positive that there's no fool like an old fool.

[Conservative Goddess]

Charles Krauthammer, one of the most brilliant minds alive, has a decidedly different prescription. From "Protecting Marriage":


"...The MPA actually ends up defeating the principle it sets out to uphold. The solution to judicial overreaching is to change the judiciary, not to undo every act of judicial arrogance with a policy-specific constitutional amendment. Where does it end? Yesterday it was school busing and abortion. Today it is flag-burning and gay marriage.

It won't end until the Constitution becomes pockmarked with endless policy amendments. The Constitution was never intended to set social policy. Its purpose is to (a) establish the rules of governance and (b) secure for the individual citizen rights against the power of the state. It defaces the Constitution to turn it into a super-legislative policy document...."

[P-Marlowe]

It won't end until the Constitution becomes pockmarked with endless policy amendments.

Wrong. Actually one or two of these policy amendments is all we need to show the Judiciary that they need to temper their activism from the bench and make rulings that are consistent with the language and intent of the constitution and the expressed will of the people.

The Constitution was never intended to set social policy.

Now how liberal do you wish to interpret the "social policy" clause. The only reason that these amendments are being discussed is because the judiciary has, for the past 60 years, insisted that the consitution is, in fact, an instrument to set social policy. Abortion, prayer in schools, homsexual marriage, etc are all social policies that have been legislated from the bench. As long as the Courts continue to read the constitution as a living document rather than as a contract with the people, these amendments will be needed to reverse the trend to read the consitution as an instrument for social activism.

[Old Professer]

The biggest risk in representative government is the loss of will on the part of the representatives.

The hot seat should never have been allowed to become so comfortable.

[Old Professer]

Gay today, sad tomorrow; once a banana, always a banana.

[DBeers]

Homosexual Agenda Ping!

If you oppose the homosexualization of society
-add yourself to the ping list!

To be included in or removed from the
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PING LIST,
please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2k.

Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search [ Add keyword = homosexualagenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

More on the Marriage Amendment.

[gidget7]

What your post stated, IS what the amendment proposes. Taking the power away from the courts, and returning it to the states. Courts are not suppose to legislate.

The amendment provided for every state to vote, that is the key, allow them to vote, (as some states have not been allowed to do) whatever form of marriage they want to recognize. No state that allows unions by homosexuals has allowed a vote on a marriage protection amendment. Again, the ONLY states that recognize any for of homosexual union have done so over the will of the people, without allowing the people to vote on the issue, and frankly are afraid to let the matter come to a vote. THAT is why the amendment is needed. To say it should be left up to the states is a cop out, is riding the fence, so to speak. The amendment did does that. It returns the power to the states, (the voters)

[restornu]

Governor Mitt Romney wrote a letter to senators asking them to support the amendment. He said:

Although the full impact of same-sex marriage may not be measured for decades or generations, we are beginning to see the effects of the new legal logic in Massachusetts just two years into our state’s social experiment. For instance, our birth certificates is being challenged: same sex couples want the terms “Mother” and “Father” replaced with “Parent A” and “Parent B.”

In our schools, children are being instructed that there is no difference between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage. Recently, parents of a second grader in one public school complained when they were not notified that their son’s teacher would read a fairy tale about same-sex marriage to the class. In the story, a prince chooses to marry another prince, instead of a princess. The parents asked for the opportunity to opt their child out of hearing such stories. In response, the school superintendent insisted on “teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same sex marriage is legal.”

Once a society establishes that it is legally indifferent between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, how can one preserve any practice which favors the union of a man and a woman?

[FreedomFighter78]

Yes, the amendment process itself allows for state participation (requires it, even). The problem is, this amendment itself, once passed, would represent a tremendous shift in power from the states to the federal government. Just because the states would play a role in the amendment process does not change the fact that the amendment would be a huge expansion of federal power.

Like most issues, let the feds stay out of it and let the staets deal with it.

[Das Outsider]

Ted Kennedy is proof positive that there's no fool like an old fool.

For some strange reason, my eye was drawn again and again to the "proof positive" once I read "Ted Kennedy." How odd.

[Das Outsider]

Again, the ONLY states that recognize any for of homosexual union have done so over the will of the people, without allowing the people to vote on the issue, and frankly are afraid to let the matter come to a vote. THAT is why the amendment is needed. To say it should be left up to the states is a cop out, is riding the fence, so to speak.

I would go along with the "states rights" objection to the federal amendment if, and only if, the bases were covered with regard to judges monkeying with state amendments. How can we be sure that the will of the people won't be overturned?

[Das Outsider]

Good letter. Of course, the fact that many of the states that did pass marriage amendments happen to be in the South or the Midwest is one small comfort to the Left and a reason for one to get their elitist groove on.

Hmm...More than one-third of all the states voted for protecting marriage. I'd say it's more than just wife beating truckers that like to shoot stuff and cloistered fire and brimstone Baptists in the backwoods going to the polls.

[Sun]

bump

[DBeers]

Yes, the amendment process itself allows for state participation (requires it, even). The problem is, this amendment itself, once passed, would represent a tremendous shift in power from the states to the federal government. Just because the states would play a role in the amendment process does not change the fact that the amendment would be a huge expansion of federal power.

IT limits the judicial activist ONLY...

The Amendment ONLY bans activist judges...

A legitimate understanding of the Amendment hinges principally on one word, "construe", which one should assume was chosen specifically and intentionally I would disagree with any assessment suggesting a banning when the freedom of the legislature is maintained.

ARTICLE

SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the ‘Marriage Protection Amendment’.

SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’’.

CONSTRUE: To adduce or explain the meaning of; interpret...

The Amendment simply removes a judicial ability to construe a marital construct and leaves open the question legislatively at both federal and state levels...

The hyperbole and propaganda coming from the enraged leftists opposed to the amendment is frenzied and tin foil hatted -no doubt, WHEN it passes, be it sooner or later, leftist heads will explode scattering tin foil everywhere authentic freedom reins over social engineering leftists.

[gidget7]

Thank You DBeers, couldn't have put it better than you did. And you are absolutely right.

The states (citizens in them) would be free to vote to recognize whatever they want regarding marriage. The amendment simply would make sure that is how it occurs, and not by misconstruing the constitutions of any state.