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 Californias 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 ...
“The constitution was created to limit governments, not people.”
Well stated.
And courts are not part of government, making laws willy nilly such as gay marriage?
“The Republicans are making them big time lately.”
It’s because they get support from the very same people who turn around and call them “RINO”. See how quick the “trve” conservatives are to run to Uncle Sugar when it’s one of their pet social issues.
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.
California law doesn't determine who is eligible for social security. Regardless of whether California allows gays to "marry," the gay "spouse" is not eligble for social security survivor benefits under federal law. They can't file their income tax jointly. There's a whole host of other federal benefits they do not--and cannot--receive, regardless of their status under CA law.
The court in question is a state court. You want a federal constitutional amendment limiting the power of state courts?
No, I want a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. This will do two things. Prevent anymore wasted money in federal and state courts on this ridiculous subject. And conform to what the founders surely would have wanted, had there been a nascent gay marriage movement in 1787.
The Constitution is not a dictionary. We don’t need amendments defining words.
What the Founders may have done if something had existed at their time is not a legitimate arguement. One might also gather that since no social insitutions are coveren in the Constitution, the founders intended for government to have no role in such institutions.
I’m hoping for his sake its tongue in cheek.
Marriage is much more than a word, it is the foundation of civilization.
And founders intent is certainly applicable, or should be, to those (citizens, courts, legislatures) who make laws. Do you really think that the writers of our constitution, hailing from states that all had anti-sodomy laws would have been content with radicals redefining the bedrock institution of marriage?
And if you do not think intent is applicable, then perhaps we should not consider what else the founders said and wrote aside from the constitution. No examination of the Federalist Papers, no looking to Washington’s addresses for guidance, no import given to the Declaration of Independence or the debates at the Constitutional Convention, no credence given to the judicial philosophies of John Jay and John Marshall, etc etc.
“... what the founders surely would have wanted ...”
At the time of the founding fathers, marriages were typically recorded, if at all, at a church - not at the county courthouse. I recall reading that George and Martha Washington did not have a marriage license but nevertheless were considered to be married because they entered into a public, verbal contract in a ceremony at her house.
Indeed. Churches recorded much information. But none about the marriage of Bill and Homer.
Big government is a constitutional amendment protecting what has been established for centuries in western civilization?
Yes actully it is true. Let the states decide. So far...what? 25 states have passed anti-gay marrige and two have passed gay marriage. I think the anti-gay marriage are winning the fight. I want abortion abolished! But I have to wait until the Supreme Court decides to abolish it. Do I want the federal goverment involved...not particularly. I always found you to be a conservative but on this issue you might be on the gay marriage issue you might be a big government type.
Big government types generally applaud the activism of courts when they write law, even when, as in CA’s case, they overturn ed a proposition that was approved by 60% of CA voters. You seem to miss the point that big gov’t comes in the form of black robed fools as well.
In your world, an amendment to overturn R v W and give the unborn legal protections is big government, but the supremes giving ‘rights’ for women to kill their offspring, overturning the laws of numerous states, is not?
Founders intent in their words and WWFD(What Would Founders Do) are two completely different things. I’m sure they had no pland to rule beyond the grave. If the founders had intended to “protect” marriage through government, they might have brought that up at some point.
“Marriage is much more than a word, it is the foundation of civilization.”
And what no court or Constitution says will ever change that. Leave it to the people. That is where the power to make these decisions comes from, not the governemnt. The people have the power to say no to “gay marriage” and they do every time they get to vote on the matter.
Once you make the assumption that people have no power over their government, and you look to government to exercise more power on your behalf, you begin to surrender your liberty.
There is a sinister history related to state involvement in the sanctioning or disallowing of certain marriages. State laws governing marriage were first enacted to prohibit, among other things, interracial marriages. I would rather the state get out of the marriage business altogether than to have state sanctioning of gay marriages.
Disreguard!..You are full of it: the socons want to enact their agenda through the legislative process as it was intended, its the amoral left that wants to piss on the Constitution through the judicial fiat that comes about through our courts. Power that wasn’t meant for them, but for the people through their elected representatives.
ISN’T THE REAL ISSUE that you just (even though you won’t come out and say it) are OK with “gay-marriage”?
Well, I agree. But it can be demonstrated by not only words, but by actions and nonactions what the founders intent was on women voting, cruel and unusual punishment, alcohol consumption, and a entire host of issues. Today, we have activists courts declaring hanging to be unconstitutional, even though the founders' era used hangings as a method of capital punishment regularly. It was very obvious that the founders had no intention whatsoever to give women the right to vote or give the people the right to directly elect senators, yet they gave the power to their descendants to change those laws (neither which I agree with, fwiw) via amendment.
And what no court or Constitution says will ever change that. Leave it to the people. That is where the power to make these decisions comes from, not the governemnt. The people have the power to say no to gay marriage and they do every time they get to vote on the matter.
The people of California DID say no to gay marriage, and their supreme court overturned it based on thin air. And you can bet your bottom dollar that it is a 50/50 chance at best that if it makes it to the SCOTUS the ruling would mirror CA's court.
And furthermore, there is no tool as powerful for the citizens to wield as the amendment process. That IS the way that the people can overrule tyrannical rulings by the courts.
Once you make the assumption that people have no power over their government, and you look to government to exercise more power on your behalf, you begin to surrender your liberty.
My assumption is that we definitely have power over the government, the Amendment process being one of those tools of the people. We surrender our liberty by allowing idiots to make bogus law from the bench. The amendment process should be used only for issues of great importance. This is one.
My theory is that if the Constitutional Convention gains traction the Congress will panic and pass the same-sex “marriage” ban to keep it from happening.
Massachusetts would not have gay marriage right now except that the Massachusetts State Constitution has no way to put a Constitutional amendment on the ballot without the consent of the legislature.
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.