Well, here's your chance to Freep this poll.
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."
Well, here's your chance to Freep this poll.
The worst thing that a people may do, at times, is to follow along the course of peers. We have a better, far better, heritage than they. Never forget that, and seek to live up to it.
Well, among the amendments I suspect had less than 35% strong support are: 26th, 25th, 24th, 23rd, 22nd, 20th, 18th, 15th, 14th, 12th, and 11th. I don't consider the 27th because of the strange way in which it was ratified.
You're not going to start crying "would somebody just think about the children" are you NittanyLion? That mushy middle does not share ambivilence towards this court's ruling, and if the GOP can and does position a fight for this as a check on the floodgate opened by their Constitutionally-lite opinion, not only will it be seen positively, you will see a huge potential of support from black and latino communities, New Deal conservative Democrates, etc.
Let not your heart be so troubled, look at the poll numbers concerning gay marriage/this court case. They're overwhelmingly against it, despite what the media leads you to believe, without a partisanship line to divide on because no public wing has really articulated it. The potential of the mushy Republican party to prove to the masses that they really do support the common sense mystery "family values" by pushing (and failing) to get this amendment is of greater importance than any leg piddling of Libertarian/Leftists calling you hurtful names.
Now I don't discount what you are saying and the possibility of this completely blowing up in their faces cause we are talking about Republican politicians, look at Dan Quayle. Ironically, so many people after the hateful rants where over, actually went back and revisited the points of his comments said the guy was right... Point being he was fairly inarticulate (and it was a different world then before alternative media) and hopelessly vague.
But people, even those that thought he couldn't spell and was only there as a pretty face grew to respect what he said. 90% of the people want a convincing case to be made in the modern world for what they take as common sense to be defended, but no one has. You look at this as an opportunity for disaster from the press(you'll never please them), I look at this as an opportunity for the GOP to say; "we are the party of what your parents taught you--we own this. Democrates are confused, out of touch, and degenerate." What will happen? Time will tell.
Thanks, back atcha.
" On a serious note, I think that like most issues there's a contingent of folks at each end of the spectrum, but the middle is not at all concerned about this. Push the amendment and you will alienate moderate voters, who do not respond favorable to socially conservative policy. "
Funny, I thought you were being serious. Think about it. Push the ammendment and they will come. I can think of no other galvanizing force in America than the protection of marriage. Can you?
Think this option falls in line with "compassionate conservatism"?
No. It falls in line with protection of values.
Reagan was right. ;^)
No.
That said, I think there's a large contingent of moderate folks who would say it isn't for the government to meddle. The same people who think abortion is not for them but "who am I to tell a woman what she can do with her body?"
Don't get me wrong: there's no moral equivalence between the two, except for the illogic. Abortion takes a life, while these actions are consensual (though one could argue nonconsensual societal impacts).
I figured driving home that was going to be too vague. Think outside the box here, Right To Privacy is Judicial Activism, its not Constitutionally based, not Constituationally implied, and either invented in 72 by a Judge with the foresight of a child-or crafted to create a Lawyer-Jobs-Program for various crimes from now til the end of the country.
An Right to Privacy ruling - even pretending it's not based upon the Constitution -
Are you trying to insult my intelligence? Seriously, I know this Right is very important to those who fear the government and the evils it will lay upon us, but we have other checks and balances like search and seizure laws that you need to understand. The only "pretending" going on is that Right to Privacy was not excavated from my country's Constitution before Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972).
The Founding Fathers were libertarians too. Constantly concerned about the overreachings of a governing body. They created one of the best laid out, cross referenced, intricate series of weights and balances to form a government in the Constitution. I encourage you to read it to put your mind at ease, I wish this Supreme Court had.
Does that include the Supreme Court redefining marriage? The same people who think abortion is not for them but "who am I to tell a woman what she can do with her body?"
Big difference between saving a womans life and sanctifying anal sex into law.
Don't get me wrong: there's no moral equivalence between the two, except for the illogic. Abortion takes a life, while these actions are consensual (though one could argue nonconsensual societal impacts).
No problem.
The privilege of defining marriage is reserved to the states and the people and the SCOTUS can keep it's judicial activist nose out of that business.
As a selling point, it's difficult to drive home judicial activism to your typical "non-FreeRepublic" type. An amendment is pretty clearcut. I just think there are many out there who would see this as purely political and not worth an amendment.
But I don't claim to be an expert...makes for interesting debate though.
What concerns me most is the outrage over this but resignation over the pending prescription drug benefit. If huge subsidies of that sort aren't damaging to the idea of personal responsibility, I don't know what is. My real agenda here is to convince folks to exert more agenda on that stuff, and less on issues like this...
*grin* That works. Better yet, replace "defining marriage" with "governing those things not explicitly stated as the federal government's domain per the US Constitution"?
Forget 2/3 in Congress, you couldn't get 2/33 with that wording.
There are some potential problems that I see.
Does this mean that States are not required to marry any unmarried couple, such as a man and women who live together but want to marry?
I know it is meant for homosexual couples, but the language doesn't have to be read that way.
I take the "group" clause to mean no polygamy, but could that be interpreted as a religious or racial group?
It seems to me there is some open ended language in this portion that a scofflaws such as the SCOFLA, for example, could put to unwelcome uses.
Why is it necessary to add the second section to the first section:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
Or add the phrase [and each State]:
"Marriage in the United States [and each State] shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
Ye of little faith. Let's see, we have Montana, Utah, Alaska, uh...um...nevermind.
While your cause may be more just in the long run, the issue of (not) accepting homosexual marriage will resonate among the populace. This Ammendment would pass. And the politician with the balls to get behind it will be (or remain) President.
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.