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 ...
Actually it wasn’t our call.
No. You are wrong. The Constitution is the ULTIMATE bedrock issue.
“I’m tired of federalizing every issue too”.
Uh, a constitutional amendment, unlike the asshats in black robes making law, is initiated by the federal government, but must be approved by the STATES. It is exactly how major issues unforseen by the founders are to be resolved. And if you do not think the foundational institution of society qualifies as a major issue, then that’s fine. Obviously, the people of California disagree with you, except for the idiots on their supreme court.
No it wouldn't. And anyway, since slavery was written into the Constitution, it needed to be written out. Is there anything in the Constitution about marriage? Didn't think so.
Those judges should be thrown off the bench.
lol
No, the best way to stop activist courts is to elect good senators and as good of presidents as possible. On the state level, elect good judges if applicable.
In California's case, the judges there were retained by the people. They had a vote.
We've had few constitutional amendments for a reason. Outside of the Bill of Rights, we had 17 of them in 219 years. I really don't want number 18 to be something that prohibits people instead of governments.
You are correct. Here’s one of those cases where socons show their disregard for republicanism.
So how do you handle reciprocity when one state has to recognize your marriages and they do not want to?
Spot on! Such belongs to the states entirely and if M'chussetts (M'chussetts because the ass has brain cancer) or California want to marry off gay couples so be it...just don't expect other states to recognize that union (THEN SUCH A DISPUTE GOES TO THE SUPREME COURT)...but we need another Constitutional Amendment like a hole in the head (anyone remember the ERA debacle?).
No Darren, I agree with you. The Constitution gives rights. We shouldn’t break precident and start using it as a Bill of Bans.
The Constitution requires of each state a "republican" form of government. When judges create laws out of whole cloth, we no longer have such a government. At some point, if a state gets blatant enough, the feds should step in. Problem: The federal government has the same type of judiciary.
Two homos getting a civil marriage or unitarian marriage is a lot less of a threat to this country than something that this country fought a war over (or more specific the expansion of).
DOMA (Defense of Marriage act) is a good law. This isn't.
And what article in the Constitution contained the slavery provision?
Then impeach the judges and reverse the court decision.
Look it up.
The good news is this is nothing more than a cheap political stunt to score points and accomplish nothing—nothing except eliciting a Pavlovian response from certain members of the public.
Good grief, for saying alot you know so little. The amendment process has made numerous "policy" decisions. Policy forbidding the ownership of slaves. Policy allowing women to vote. Policy allowing the citizenry to be armed. Policy delineating due process for criminals. Policy setting the age of voters.
Just because the founders in their wildest imagination never contemplated black robed boobs setting laws allowing adam and steve to marry, does not mean they would not approve an amendment protecting the most basic societal foundation of all.
Could not disagree more.
Yes, it was defeated.
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.