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."
Because the judiciary is threatening to decide this for all the states (in the affirmative for gay marruage, and against the will of the people) by legislating from the bench. That's the impetus behind this amendment. It's intended to stop the judiciary.
That's why an amendment process is in there. The Constitution was previously silent on every amendment. And until they were added by amendment, the federal government was (in theory more than practice) not empowered in them. These are not contradictions.
Yes, it's just not the pace for any of that.
A madrigal's reflection is the briefest of defenses,
When what we call projection is what some would call a census.
Each particled deflection marks the culture war's offenses,
When articles and sections have escaped their former senses.
And where do they think they are going to find GOPers who will stand up to the Dems to push this?Lawrence has laid the groundwork for the imminent redefinition of marriage by judicial fiat. The Defense of Marriage Act will not withstand the sweeping precedents of Lawrence. There are only two methods available to thwart this outcome: Constitutional Amendment and Impeaching Supreme Court Justices.
Impeachment isn't going to happen. An Amendment will, of some sort.
We're in a culture war, and wars are ugly when the other side blindsides you with every duplicity available to them. I thought the DoMA was a good solution to the problem, but it's no longer a safe port in this storm.
Where are you going to find the Democrats to oppose it? More than 80% of the House and Congress voted for the Defense of Marriage Act only as recently as 1996. Democrats voted 2 - 1 in favor of it. Bill Clinton signed it "to take the Republicans' issues away."
Even California and Hawaii, which routinely elect Democrat majorities, passed referenda defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.
From a Machiavellian standpoint, the best thing possible for Republicans would be for Democrats to oppose an Amendment safeguarding the institution of marriage.
With respect I am not addressing either. I am addressing restoring the checks and balances intended. SC overreaching can intrude on both Congress and the States.
It's not about genitals although that may be the straw that broke the camel's back. IMHO the SC went over the line in Roe v Wade by removing the issue from voters If this could be accomplished with one amendment then fine.
Ending Prohibition by allowing States to set their own liquor laws has worked. That seems to be a successful model to be restored.
You let this amendment pass, and we'll end up with a Federal Marriage Department.
And we WON'T like what it morphs into.
The essential purpose of getting an Amendment passed is to prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from declaring itself the de facto and de jure Federal Marriage Department, and Lawrence makes such a declaration certain.
That's not part of my argument. So far, I don't hold the state responsible for the devaluation of marriage. Let them start passing laws trying to redefine it (e.g. gay marriage, and I'll quickly change my opinion.
I'm not sure I see your point. I see it conceptally, but not tactically. You seem to be going to great pains to preserve the right of a state to define marriage differently than the others. But among the people of the country there is an overwhelming consensus (even in very left leaning states) that marriage isn't something up for that sort of decision.
It sort of reminds me of that scene in Monty Python's "Life of Brian." In the scene, Stan wants to be a woman so that he can have babies. After some argument and confusion, they agree that he can't have babies because he doesn't have a womb. But they will fight for his right to have babies.
Fighting for the right of a state to redefine marriage reminds me of that.
I suspect the vast majority of you who are pushing for this ammendement are actually very much against States' Rights. Your nightmare is that one or two states may actually approve gay marriage. You hope to prevent this using the same tactics used by the SCOTUS to prevent individual states from regulating abortion - take the power away from the states.
The Amendment process intrinsically affirms States' Rights, as 3/4 of them are needed to ratify.
A bombastic pretentious Freeper
Humorless as the Grim Reaper
Perceives art sublime
In pedantic rhyme
Penned by an aquarium sweeper.
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.