Posted on 05/21/2008 9:43:42 AM PDT by pissant
Georgia Congressman Paul Broun announced Tuesday that he will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex marriage in response to a recent decision by the California Supreme Court that recognizes same-sex marriages.
The recent 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court redefines marriage to include legal unions. Some conservative legal scholars view the recent decision as activist in which the policy preferences of four justices overturned the democratically expressed will of California’s voters.
“Marriage as an institution exists solely between one man and one woman. Americans have traditionally recognized this definition as being the most beneficial arrangement for the creation of stable family structures and for the upbringing of children. In fact, Americans have repeatedly shown their preference for the traditional definition of one-man, one-woman marriage by passing state and federal laws or by amending state constitutions to preserve the traditional definition," Broun said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcaugusta.com ...
Should Congress refuse to vote this out to the states there is an alternative. If 2/3 of the State legislatures pass a resolution to call a Constitutional Convention, Congress is required by Article V of the Constitution to set a date and place for it. Anything passed by that convention goes to the states as if it had been passed by Congress, at which point adoption by 3/4 of the states makes it part of the Constitution.
This is none of the FedGov’s bizness and does not belong in the Constitution. The Constitution is an operator’s manual for gubmint, not a laundry list of policy decisions.
He will be lucky to survive the week. The Atlanta paper should be entertaining on that one. I expect him to be compared to McGovern in the school house door.
It’ll never fly. And it should stay out of the Constitution.
Until we can get control of juducual appointments, we’ll continue to be governed by unelected and non-representative judicial fiat.
How ignorant. The constitution has a process by which it is amended. They set it up that way from day one. If you like gay marriage, by all means fight the proposal.
It’s the best way to keep activist courts from continuously overriding the will of the people and the work of the legislature.
It is exactly an amendment that is needed.
It’s a great idea. Let’s see where McCain is. To the Constitutional purists, you are wrong. Our hand has been forced by judicial fiat. This is a bedrock fundamental issue that now must be addressed in the Constitution. It is not some willy-nilly agenda item. This issue challenges the very structure of American society.
Slavery would still exist were it not for a constitutional amendment.
Good. Maybe this will keep him distracted from pulling Playboy off the PX shelves on military installations.
I don't like constitutional amendments that ban anything. The constitution was created to limit governments, not people. We have the defense of marriage act which I support. This is an issue that belongs to the states. I'm tired of federalizing every issue too. If Massachusetts wants gay marriage, that's their state and their call, not mine. If Michigan doesn't want gay marriage, that's our call to make, not people from Massachusetts. If the people of California like the judicial ruling, they can defeat the ballot try to overturn it. If not, they can do their part in their own state.
A Constitutional Amendment I would support is a supermajority for a tax increase or a balanced budget amendment.
This just in:
California Supreme Court declares the Constitution unconstitutional
This just in:
California Supreme Court declares the Constitution unconstitutional
Constitutional conventions are the worst possible solution. The last thing I want is a bunch of politicians with open season on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 10th amendments.
LOL. Um. Yea. I know that. But that doesn't make any proposed amendment appropriate. This amendment is not appropriate.
The purpose of the Constitution is to define the responsibilities and boundaries of gubmint. It's function is to identify the components of our gubmint (the branches), to define their roles and scope of authority, and that's that.
It's not supposed to include policy decisions. That's for the Congress to do by the regular means of making laws. Amazing someone as haughty as yourself doesn't even get this simple fact.
If Congress has the power to regulate state marriage, it can pass a law. I don't know that they do have that power, nor do I think it's appropriate. Let the states manage their own business.
If Congress doesn't have the power to regulate marriage over the states, the constitution could be amended to give it that power. Something like "Congress shall have the power to regulate marriage and all state laws shall be subject to it." That would at least have the virtue of treating the Constitution for what it is.
But to attempt to inject into the Constitution a policy outcome is anti-republican, and probably destined for failure. In fact, it's probably nothing more than an inane politcal stunt. Score points while accomplishing nothing. This guy is definitely in the right profession. LOL.
Isn’t this the same guy who wants to ban Playboy and Penthouse on military installations?
State Constitutions can contain whatever, but the Federal Constitution needs to remain as is until the situation stabilizes, which would be shortly after the sun boils the oceans dry.
It will go absolutely nowhere in a Democrat-controlled Congress. End of story.
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.