Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: pissant

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.


3 posted on 05/21/2008 9:47:34 AM PDT by Huck ("Real" conservatives support OBAMA in 08 (that's how you know Im not a real conservative))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Huck

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.


7 posted on 05/21/2008 9:50:02 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Huck

It’s the best way to keep activist courts from continuously overriding the will of the people and the work of the legislature.


8 posted on 05/21/2008 9:50:35 AM PDT by NoKoolAidforMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Huck

Slavery would still exist were it not for a constitutional amendment.


11 posted on 05/21/2008 9:53:34 AM PDT by NoKoolAidforMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Huck; pissant; NoKoolAidforMe
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.

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?).

30 posted on 05/21/2008 10:07:33 AM PDT by meandog ((please pray for future President McCain, day minus 250 and counting))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Huck
How about a ban on judiciaries creating same sex marriage as a right?

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.

32 posted on 05/21/2008 10:07:40 AM PDT by Defiant (McCain's big vein drains mainly from his brain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Huck; All
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.

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.

47 posted on 05/21/2008 10:29:03 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Huck
"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."

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.

52 posted on 05/21/2008 10:37:47 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson