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

Skip to comments.

This is the proposed Constitutional Marriage Amendment
self ^ | 6/30/2003 | unk

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."


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: child; children; father; gay; glsen; homosexual; marriage; marriageamendment; mother; same; sex; soddomy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 481-492 next last
To: AntiGuv
"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."

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.

221 posted on 06/30/2003 5:48:59 PM PDT by bribriagain (You don't have to be a homosexual to be a democrat, but it helps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
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.

Wrong. Opposition to homosexual marriage cuts across racial lines by large majorities.


222 posted on 06/30/2003 5:50:54 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

Comment #223 Removed by Moderator

To: aristeides
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 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).

224 posted on 06/30/2003 5:55:06 PM PDT by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
The Full Faith and Credit Clause has within its verbiage the power to exempt States from recognizing marriages in other States, Congress sets up the rules by which the Clause can be exempted.

Glad to see you've come around on that.

Unfortunately, Lawrence contains precedent that will nullify the DoMA.

Trust the Constitution and the Founders.

The problem is, we can't trust the Justices currently sitting on the SCOTUS. That leaves us with two options... an Amendment, or Impeachment.


225 posted on 06/30/2003 5:55:24 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
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."

Gay couple married after ruling
(Toronto, Canada)


226 posted on 06/30/2003 5:56:14 PM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
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.

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?

227 posted on 06/30/2003 5:56:44 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
"I see."

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.

228 posted on 06/30/2003 5:57:18 PM PDT by ex-snook (Who recovers in a 'jobless recovery'?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Your notion is that in absence of a conflict, Congress can legislate an exemption to the Clause, it can't.

The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, the Constution does not grant Congress to sumarily create an exemption to the Clause.
229 posted on 06/30/2003 5:57:42 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Cuba será libre...soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
This Amendment will take away the right to define marriage from States permanently, and place it in the hands of the Federal Government.

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.

230 posted on 06/30/2003 5:58:10 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Our Constitution's principal means of protecting state sovereignty is to limit the national Government to certain enumerated powers, but these powers do not include any authority to invite some states to disregard the official acts of others.
231 posted on 06/30/2003 5:59:21 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Cuba será libre...soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: bribriagain
Prove it.

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.....

232 posted on 06/30/2003 5:59:49 PM PDT by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: ohiopyle
WHY DOES EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE GET CRUSHED AT THE POLLS.

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.

233 posted on 06/30/2003 6:00:39 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
no its not. Just being sarcastic
234 posted on 06/30/2003 6:03:12 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
"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....."

I too believe Mars will rule the Universe. Remember this exchange when that time comes, Miss Cleo.

235 posted on 06/30/2003 6:03:12 PM PDT by bribriagain (You don't have to be a homosexual to be a democrat, but it helps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Wait a second...past attempts have been a disaster? 13 & 15 - leave 14 out for now. 27? Okay, it was redundant. How about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and the much trampled 10?

Those eliminated slavery and insured that negroes (as they were known at the time) had all rights every citizen boasted - including those of speech and of the press, peaceful assembly, religion and the practice thereof. The uninfringed right to keep and bear arms (also trampled), the right not to incriminate oneself. Shall I go on to search and seizure, also very much trampled IMO.
236 posted on 06/30/2003 6:03:22 PM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
It would only take one and the argument would then change to full faith and credit.
237 posted on 06/30/2003 6:04:04 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
"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."

Dead, walking tissue.

238 posted on 06/30/2003 6:04:41 PM PDT by bribriagain (You don't have to be a homosexual to be a democrat, but it helps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
the Constution does not grant Congress to sumarily create an exemption to the Clause.

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.


239 posted on 06/30/2003 6:05:21 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
How can an Amendment to the US Constitution which can only be altered, enacted, or overturned by the Federal government, be something that GIVES power to the States?

It takes it away.

Should the Federal government decide to overturn it, and instead, set in place a "Freedom to Marry" Amendment, they can do so because they already posses the right to define marriage, by virtue of this proposed Amendment.

Government is the problem, not the solution.
240 posted on 06/30/2003 6:06:35 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Cuba será libre...soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 481-492 next last

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.

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