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."
Regards.
Garbage. The health of the State depends entirely upon tax revenue. Do you really believe the State gives a damn whether it collects gas taxes from a heterosexual or a homosexual couple? With all due respect, give it a rest. If we are rotting from the core it is not due to homosexual marriages or the intent of having them. Unless you now think the past century of our presidents and your governors were gay. You see, they were the ones elected and they were the ones who push more of what you claim to despise than any homosexual group could ever pray to. As the saying goes, a fish rots from the head down.
And if you obviate the particulars, eliminating what was said with what was done, excluding the obvious, eliminating the particular, avoiding the obvious, yes, there was some truth to your remarks. Not much, however.
However, I don't think disparate laws in the states is sustainable in this mobile country of ours. Thus I would suggest some language to the effect that nothing in the constitution shall be construed to preclude the power of the states to pass their own laws regarding who is eligible for marriage, but Congress shall have the right to adopt a national standard, which shall preempt the laws of the states to the extent inconsistent therewith. Otherwise, without so empowering Congress (and it is not clear Congress has the power), we have full faith and credit issues, as well as a policy mess. Exorcising the transcendental language that Scalia observed "ate the law," and those three words in Kennedy's opinion about "the demeaning of the existence," is tempting, but no, that won't fly.
Waiting for your response. Why 40 years?
But that's clearly what the least accountable branch of government it preparing to do.
To castigate a marriage Amendment because it represents government meddling is analogous to Democrats saying the the US Supreme Court decided the 2000 Election.
No, the Supreme Court prevented the Florida Supreme Court from deciding the election.
The proposed Constitutional Marriage Amendment isn't meddling in marriage, it's to prevent the SCOTUS from doing exactly that.
And no, the irony isn't lost on me.
I move that we insert the phrase "big, fat" before the word "judical."
My post was only partially in jest but thinking about it on the way home from the Big Apple tonight, I think the best thing would be language that limited the power of that branch of government commonly known as SCOTUS while acknowledging that tenth amendment issues are the province of the states and the people occupying them.
The fly in the ointment is exactly what you pointed out. I am concerned that an ultra minority, eg a small state, can decide the issue for the entire country on it's own through that full faith and credit thingamabob.
You're task, if you decide to accept, would be to come up with precise language that would satisfy both you and the social troglodyte, that's me.:-}
Good luck!
Thoughts on 284 and 288?
Bump to that! I shouldn't have needed the state's permission to enter into sacred marriage with my husband.
Government "license" to marry is a relatively new phenomenon. Marriage has already been devalued by this intrusion - let's return it to our churches and God.
Maybe its time for an amendment to add a fourth power to the equation: the right of the people to throw out 1) any ruling that the federal courts (privacy & diversity) pass by a simple majority national vote or any law passed by congress and signed by the president. (Congressional pay raises)This returns the power back to the individual.
At least 26 state legislatures would have to act to hold state elections to determine if the examples above would remain as legistated law or judicial legistaion.
If congress would not act on such an amendment, then the states still have the power to call a constitutional convention to do it! And even the people can call such a convention (with or without the politicans):
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,...
The time is coming..
What about all the other states that anticipated this cultural battle and passed laws refusing to recognize any such marriages? The coming dispute among states will go to the Supreme Court, and even if the next three appointees are Scalia clones, I'll bet the court will hold that the laws of one state that do not offend the U.S. Constitution must be recognized by all other states.
So this amendment is needed.
This looks good to me, and might be better than establishing an explicit definition within the Constitution, although that would be better than doing nothing at all.
The explicit definition is more marketable, though.
Would the President have a veto over Congressional standards, or would Congress be sovereign in this?
I agree with Safire. The language of Lawrence digs the trenches for the assault on marriage as certainly as the Anschluss augured WWII. DMA is now the marial Maginot line, and will not withstand Lawrence.
This REAL. Send these members Letters to get this MOVING out of COMMITTEE.
The homosexuals are posting for letters to stop this.
Time for good people to act
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maybe, something to the effect that the federal government shall have the authority to adopt statutes establishing a definition of who is eligible for marriage ..." etc. Just what is the cadence of words typically used here is not my specialty. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but rather a mere hack provincial lawyer, who makes his living drafting constracts, and yipping and yapping in provincial courts.
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.
