Posted on 05/21/2008 9:43:42 AM PDT by pissant
And anyway, if you're going to continue to open each message with an insult, then I'm going to have to say...Piss off, pissant.
Actually, a bill granting gays the same rights as the court decision passed the California legislature twice only to be vetoed by Arnold. He stated that he thought the courts should decide.
Plus, even though California's SC judges are appointed, they must be re-elected by the people every so often.
Like I said, you know so little.
No, it a case where small r republicans show their disregard for conservatism.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
One problem with such an amendment is the possibility that future judges would find ways to pervert it in ways that are not now obvious. Let the states regulate marriage.
True, but putting them on record as defenders of gay marriage is not a bad thing in itself.
That is certainly one option. In California, a recall effort is underway. Many states don’t have recall laws. Besides, the constitution protects the minority as well as the majority. If the majority is not in favor of recall or if the legislature cannot get enough votes to impeach, it remains nonetheless a judicial usurpation of power. Even if they want to, states cannot impose a system where the judges rule.
Sorry, but with your tagline I have a hard time taking you seriously.
“If you like gay marriage, by all means fight the proposal.”
I’d like the government to get out of the marriage business, gay or straight.
Of course it is. The states have to be unified over a matter like this. If not then how in the world would we be able to run a country in which every state has a different set of constitutional laws?
We have a basic constitution in which every state agrees to live by.
Nothing prevents a state from adding additional rights and guarantees in addition to these basic federal nation wide constitutional rights and guarantees, but a state can't ignore, omit or add anything that may change them or the intent of them.
Since marriage involves federal programs, like old age security benefits, the definition of marriage must be defined constitutionally so that every state shares equally in those programs/benefits.
Heaven forbid if California is allowed to change laws at it's whim and take a greater share of federal tax dollars. Next thing Californicators will do is define marriage as any number of "wifes" of either sex, with each spouse entitled to a portion of any deceased "spouses" social security.
Federally funded orgy-marriages. All they would have to do is kill off one member of the orgy group, and each other "spouse" would get half 9or what ever percent the dead benefit is) of their pension funds. So if there were 12 "spouses" that's 12 "halves" (or what ever the rate is) to each surviving spouse.
Democrat math proving that 1/2 of a given amount can add up to more than the original amount.
Conservatives should denounce this. Federal Government has no place in a conservative view. Leave it to the states. I guess this Congressman Broun is a big government lover too. The Republicans are making them big time lately.
Well why not. 12 year olds for Sharia marriages for the muslims here, polygamy for the mormons, incestuous marriage for those so inclined, interspecies marriages....its all good.
This country never fought a war over slavery.
Big government is a constitutional amendment protecting what has been established for centuries in western civilization?
Marriage, abortion, flag burning, and talking on cell phones while driving, is not the business of the federal government, nor should it be.
The Constitution is not about the people. The Constitution is about granting a central government limited powers and directing the use of the limited powers. The Constitution limited the government to only the enumerated powers with Article I. Section I. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.)
The Constitution did not empower the government to prohibit the citizens, nor should it.
It was defeated because:
1. It was a bogus piece of legislation.
2. Uneeded as the spirit of the 14th Amendment grants equal protection (when the Womenlibfems were screaming about slavery).
3. It would have granted special rights to one class of citizens.
But it also tied up state legislatures, knotted several state ballot issues, and caused a whole lot of angst in the nation as a whole...and such a equal amendment for marriage, when the states should decide, would do the same thing. If anything, the California gay marriage issue should go all the way to the Supreme Court for a decision and then if the California courts were held up, and only then, would such a Constitutional Amendment be warranted.
The Constitution was never intended to have the all emcompassing effect that it has now. The Founders would never have contemplated that any rational person would find so disgusting a behavior as homosexuality elevated to the level of normal. Likewise, they would be aghast at the idea that the Federal goverment has the power it now has and that the Federal judicary trumps the people.
Therefore, since the Constitution has been “amended” by the Courts without the consent of the people, there are only two responses. Revolution or amendment to return the power to the people on specific issues. I favor amendment (its cheaper).
Also, since the Supreme Court has grabbed the power to set policy on several issues I support grabbing it back from them on all of those issues.
So the ‘rights’ of a mother to kill her offspring outweigh the rights of the unborn? That’s nice.
And the rights of judges to make law, outweigh the rights of the citizens to overturn their malfeasance?
The rights of the slave owners and dealers should have been weighed more heavily than those of the slaves?
If the founders had desired to limit the subject matter on what constituted the subject matter of an amendment, don’t you think they might have spelled out those limitations?
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.