Posted on 06/30/2003 2:45:53 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
"Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
"Homosexuality has been tolerated and/or approved within virtually all recorded cultures during the greater part of their history."
Wrong. It has been a crime in most countries and cultures, for good reason.
...what makes you the sage that future generations will think differently?
Most polls I've seen are against same sex marriages. In fact, had my state (MA) been allowed to vote on the issue, MA would have banned homosexual marriages all together.
If you're so confident that public opinion, why not support the drive for an ammendment, so that the people's voice can be heard?
Or do you support court activism against the peoples will? Aside from that, the course of modern Western civilization is patently self-evident - both in this nation and every other. It's toward greater tolerance of homosexuals. Can you name me a single Western state or nation in the past half century which has repealed a sodomy law and then reinstated it???
The countermeasure is the amendment process, of course. Every amendment should be contemplated to ensure - as best possible - that it is not "mob rule" but rather a wisely implemented modification of our nation's fundamental principles. The amendment in question here is the Federal Marriage Amendment, and so my remarks are directed specifically at this proposal. In theory, one could say that our entire system of government is based upon "mob rule" so perhaps my choice of expression was not ideal..
My contention is that the FMA represents a stark departure from the structure & principles which undergird the United States, in much the same manner as did the Prohibition amendment in its own era.
3/4 is not 1/2, at what point is perhaps the mob correct?
Now you've hit on my most central point. This FMA would not get approved because 75% of the population supports it. That is false. In fact, much of the 63% high end estimate of nationwide support is in truth quite indifferent, or at best lukewarm. This FMA is likely to secure ratification because that 35% which feels so vehemently on this subject can leverage themselves into a disproportionate impact.
It's not a matter of who would vote on an up-down basis but who would vote based on this issue alone. By that means, 35% can leverage themselves into the equivalent of 75%. It's also worth asking: how many legislatures would approve this amendment because they think it's good law, or because they fear voter backlash. If the latter is the case much more so than the former, then I submit it's "mob rule" that leads to passage. If a Constitutional amendment cannot secure the 66% of Congress and the 75% of States on its merits, but must depend on fear of voter backlash to get anywhere close, then I submit it's "mob rule" that leads to passage.
You're almost to the point of dissembling now. That an Amendment requires 2/3 of both Houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures for ratification is more than ample insurance against mob rule.
Even if an Amendment is unwise, the proceess of ratification precludes anyone from honestly calling it "mob rule."
In a list of amendments dealing with quite serious issues, this one would stand out as being the one without any gravity. Just a horrible idea.
Best to leave it alone. Past attempts to amend have resulted in eventual disaster and except for prohibition all are still there. Universal suffrage has been achieved. More than that cannot be expected.
I see. The classic "two wrongs make a right" argument. This form of argument is right up there with "might makes right" and "he who has the gold rules."
My statement is accurate, and so I will repeat that:
"Homosexuality has been tolerated and/or approved within virtually all recorded cultures during the greater part of their history."
Most polls I've seen are against same sex marriages.
Most polls poll all adults. A great number of those will be dead at the point to which I allude..
If you're so confident that public opinion, why not support the drive for an ammendment, so that the people's voice can be heard?
I've stated several times above why I don't support this amendment. Whatever the case, I'm so confident in the probability of my forecast that I'm indifferent as to whether it passes or not. In fact, I've stated several times that I fully expect this to pass, and have outlined the likely course of events.
I'm equally confident that it will get repealed within 40 years.
Or do you support court activism against the peoples will?
Yes, I do support the court contravening the "people's will" if the will of the people falls short of Constitutional rights & freedoms. If I did not, we would still have segregation as the law of the land.... However, I don't consider this activism but rather judicial review, which is an essential component of a free society governed by the rule of law.
I know that many states have recently passed laws protecting mariage against the onslaught of homosexuality. And let's not forget DOMA.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe homosexuality is a crime, it's a sickness, it's abnormal,and should be treated as such. It should not be protected.
The family is the most basic societal institution. The health of the State depends on the state of the family.
It's been tolerated in many cultures, but I'm not aware of a single one that gave it a status equal to marriage. Not even Ancient Greece.
Nor are those in favor of it representative of the general public. It's one thing to vote down a referendum put on the ballot to endorse gay marriage, but quite another to lend support to Constitutional amendment forbidding it. Those two are not synonymous. This will be seen as a bunch of angry old men in the GOP that can't find anything better to do than meddle in others' affairs, and it will turn off the mushy middle.
Guaranteed.
The idea that conservatives would place a higher priority on gay marriage than government spending or the war on terror astonishes me. Is there anyone left at this site with a sense of perspective?
Correct. Just as would happen if gays could not marry.
Your point?
If you think that the integrity of the fundamental societal unit is not a matter of some gravity, then I'm not going to be able to explain it to you. I don't mean to be condescending, I once held much the same opinion. Observation and experience has led me to a different conclusion.
Lawrence has put the SCOTUS on a collision course with the institution of marriage. The homosexual lobby can taste it. To prevent that, an Amendment like this is going to be ratified, so your best bet is to try and make sure we get the best one.
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.