The Alliance for Marriage and the Federal Marriage Amendment

http://www.allianceformarriage.org/reports/030304/030304.htm

[templar]

this is not a constitutional convention is is how a single ammendment is added to the constitution.

Run back along the thread. This isn't about the marriage amendment. What this post was about is the idea of establishing a new forum of the States (outside of the Congress)to act independently of the current government and overturn USSC rulings. It would require a major overhaul of the Constitution (probably a new constitution by the time it was over) to allow this, not a simple ammendment. IMO.

[Reagan Man]

I would support a Constitutional amendement to ban same sex marriages. But a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion, is more important. There have been 42 million deaths since 1973 and enough is enough. Both amendments would be difficult to get through the legal process.

[AntiGuv]

We're still at war, and the economy is iffy, to name just two things, among many others, that demand our attention. Yet a substantial number of people on this site and elsewhere have identified THIS as the single most pressing issue facing our country, on which our representatives should spend their time, effort, and political capital.

Amazing.

Yep, evidently so...

[Antoninus]

Amazing.

Funny, not everyone's priorities are the same as yours. Personally, I can't do anything about the war or the economy. I can do something about this. And together, we will.

[templar]

No wonder there are so many.... :-)

It is a highly desireable profession.

[Skywalk]

BS.

"Another thing that is needed is an ammendment allowing for the states to be able to overturn Supreme Court decisions. I think that if 3/4ths of the state legislatures vote to overturn a Supreme Court decision within two years of its being issued, that Supreme Court decesion should be null and void."

That's the posting of Paleo Conservative. Seems to me that sort of thinking can lead exactly to what I implied in my post. There IS a spirit to the Constitution and if we simply worship at the feet of our state government then liberty and the spirit of our founding means nothing and will soon come to BE nothing in the way our country is run.

Frankly, while it is important for states to have sovereignty in areas where they have power, it is MORE important for the citizenry to have the liberties allowed for, not only in the BoR, but those implied in the 9th. Otherwise the 9th has no meaning.

[AntiGuv]

I'm with you, but I will be really sorry to see this issue pressed to the top of the political agenda. The threat to the institution of marriage, given the current divorce rates, will not be eliminated by excluding gays.

You're quite right - the threat will be aggravated. With no other recourse, corporations, municipalities, and increasingly states will be compelled to set up domestic partnerships & civil union structures to the point that marriage will be destroyed for all intents & purposes. If the "defenders of marriage" want this Pyrrhic victory, however, who am I to stop them?

[PhiKapMom]

We should tie them together! I couldn't agree more with you on that!

[longtermmemmory]

Think this through. This can be the spark that causes the rebelion. Do this to save the institution of marriage and other things are possible.

Homosexuals have been geting their slime out bit by bit child by child. We can use their tactics against them. Evil must be fought

[Antoninus]

The threat to the institution of marriage, given the current divorce rates, will not be eliminated by excluding gays.

Hey, a lot of us have been calling for the reform of the "no fault" divorce laws for a long time, too. Where have you been? It just so happens that the SCOTUS has delivered a stinging wake up call to a lot of us. I'm sorry you don't see the danger in "gay marriage." Perhaps the notion of "incestuous marriage" or "the right to polygamy" or a destruction of the age of consent laws might wake you up? Then again, perhaps not.

This is an effort to head things off at the pass. I'm sorry you don't comprehend the urgency.

[Skywalk]

And just think in the new directions petty tyrannies can go if they can just overturn USSC rulings!! Hey, if NY, CA, and Maine can get other states to overturn property rights when it comes to anti-smoking laws, or asset seizure, the USSC will be irrelevant! Or what about rulings on "diversity?!" Just think of the new preferences that will be protected then!

Oh man, such an arrangement would SURELY be a path to greater freedom wouldn't it! After all, the politicians that infest, er, inhabit our statehouses are of a far different and superior moral quality and wisdom than those in the federal government.

Just look at 2000 with the USSC and Florida's supreme court. It's so apparent how wise and impartial and pro-freedom the local government's judicial arm was in that case, isn't it?

[Reagan Man]

Most conservatives and I'd venture a guess, most Republicans, can handle numerous political issues at the same time. Life can be very complicated, but human beings are very capable of multi tasking. It's astounding you can't comprehend that fact.

[Antoninus]

I would support a Constitutional amendement to ban same sex marriages. But a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion, is more important. There have been 42 million deaths since 1973 and enough is enough. Both amendments would be difficult to get through the legal process.

I agree. Don't think that the alliances made in pushing through a Marriage Amendment wouldn't be useful in a new fight for a Pro-Life Amendment. It all goes hand in hand. One battle at a time. The time is right for this one. Abortion's day will come... soon.

[templar]

Good Grief .. what is that?

One of those evil little things waiting to be sprung on us at the right momemt, should we ever allow it to occur. There was a fairly strong push about 8-10 years back to get a constitutional convention (supposedly limited to a single reform, but several different groups were pushing it on different reforms, and a constitutional convention cannot have limits once it is called). A fair number of States were signing on to the idea. Don't remember the details any more; anyone?

[AntiGuv]

The Pro-Life Amendment will never make it out of the House or Senate, and if it did, it would never get 38 state ratifications. Right now it'd get about 22, maybe..

[Antoninus]

With no other recourse, corporations, municipalities, and increasingly states will be compelled to set up domestic partnerships & civil union structures to the point that marriage will be destroyed for all intents & purposes.

Don't count on it. I expect the frenzy of the homo-promo/Gaystapo crowd to reach such heights during the fight for the Marriage Amendment that it will demonstrate once and for all that such people are not to be taken politically seriously. With any luck, all their political capital will be spend and their power will be crushed. Fiat voluntas Tua.

[Antoninus]

And just think in the new directions petty tyrannies can go if they can just overturn USSC rulings!!

Wow, you're really kicking the cr@p out of that straw man. Way to go.

[Antoninus]

The Pro-Life Amendment will never make it out of the House or Senate, and if it did, it would never get 38 state ratifications. Right now it'd get about 22, maybe..

Like I said, the time is not right.... yet....

[Mo1]

A fair number of States were signing on to the idea.

Good Lord .. has this country gone nuts

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

When the Clintons came to power, the Gay (I hate the fact they use that word) movement started gaining strength.

For crying out loud! QUIT using the word! Words have power and substituting their choice noun for "homosexual" is a part of their success. All moral persons must call a spade a gosh-darned shovel by always, always using the word "homosexual" rather than some politically correct substitute. Those who use the word "gay" have been conquered by the homosexual movement and are part of the problem, not part of the solution.