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."
Prove it.
"Most polls poll all adults. A great number of those will be dead at the point to which I allude
Thanks for that, Miss Cleo. Again state your proof.
"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."
You've stated opinion, not facts. I've stated facts. Unless you can prove your bizarre assertions for the future, well, you know what they say about opinions.
Wrong. Opposition to homosexual marriage cuts across racial lines by large majorities.
Nor did I state as much. However, modern Western civilization is also a culture which is moving toward giving "it" a status equal to marriage. Eight European states have done as much - two explicitly - with Canada soon to follow. Same-sex marriage will likely be uniform across the European Union at some future date. Australia & New Zealand & even South Africa are both moving in that same general direction, and civil unions at least appear not too far off in at least two Latin American nations (Chile and Brazil).
Trust the Constitution and the Founders.Glad to see you've come around on that.
Unfortunately, Lawrence contains precedent that will nullify the DoMA.
The problem is, we can't trust the Justices currently sitting on the SCOTUS. That leaves us with two options... an Amendment, or Impeachment.
STOP the Perverts !!!
MICHAEL STUPARYK/TORONTO STAR
Michael Stark, left, and Michael Lashner pop champagne
and kiss after their wedding ceremony yesterday.
Leshner called the ruling, "Day One for millions of gays
and lesbians around the world."
From what I know of you, I'd expect you'd agree that the societal unit is breaking down due to government meddling. There are few consequences to any actions, hence personal responsibility is not a prized trait among many.
How is an amendment going to change any of that? Legislation of morality never works, and I suspect you agree with that. Is this logic talking or anger?
Nah, you don't. You can change congress critters and the President but a remedy is needed to reassert the separation of functions if the SC oversteps by making laws or usurps State decisions.
News flash. That power, now, after Lawrence, resides in the federal government. The part of it that is housed in the Supreme Court Building. This amendment will give most of that power back to the states.
Why don't you prove otherwise since you're the one with the passion...
Thanks for that, Miss Cleo. Again state your proof.
With time, I will be proven correct or incorrect. That's good enough for me. I hope only that you may remember this exchange when the time comes that I'm proven correct.....
You've stated opinion, not facts.
I did not represent my opinion of the amendment otherwise.
I've stated facts.
On the other hand, you've represented and continue to represent your opinion as fact. Mostly as incorrect "facts"...
Unless you can prove your bizarre assertions for the future, well, you know what they say about opinions.
Yep, I can. Take care of yourself so that you live long enough to see them proven.....
The attempts to redefine marriage with which I'm familiar always look to expand it to include homosexuals. To which the predictable response is: "A bunch of activists are trying to shove this down my throat, and things are just fine as they stand."
There is a certain sacredness to Constitutional amendments. The document wasn't meant to be amended at whim, and people generally recognize that. Combine that with the fact that most folks won't see any genuine threat to their way of life, and what you'll do is alienate the moderates who are always - ALWAYS - turned off by socially conservative policy.
I too believe Mars will rule the Universe. Remember this exchange when that time comes, Miss Cleo.
Dead, walking tissue.
Tell you what, you just go ahead and be wrong on that for a while. The point of the second sentence of Article IV, Section 1 is to give Congress the authority to do just that.
This "summarily" qualifier is silly, really. Congress doesn't do anything summarily, they legislate. You might be trying to say that Congress can't exercise their authority "pro-actively," or "pre-emptively," but of course they can, it's their authority. Much of the business of Congress involves pro-active legislation, yet you aren't going to find the sort of hair-splitting restraints for which you're arguing in all of the clauses giving Congress their sundry authorities.
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.