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."
You mis-read the nightmare. The nightmare isn't that one or two states screws itself up, bad as that may be. The nightmare is that the judiciary forces gay marriage on all 50.
It is utterly different from what the SCOTUS did regarding abortion. We're talking about putting the issue before the people following the amendment process established in the Constitution.
That is precisely what the pro-aborts should have had to go through. Instead they got the court to invent a new Constitutionally protected right to abortion out of thin air.
States do not have rights, they have powers subject to limits by the Constitution. Citizens have enumerated and unenumerated Rights.
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.
That's true, but who can say a State might decide differently in the future?
You seem to want to make sure they never have the option in the future. That's fine if that's your objective.
Why dance around the point though? Just come right out and say it.
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.
Flawed analogy because Stan will never be able to have a baby. Whereas a State might decide someday to adopt a marriage standard different from the present.
Fighting for the right of a state to redefine marriage reminds me of that.
That is only true if you know with certainty that a State would never choose to do so in the future. Only Miss Cleo can predict the future.
I think this is the core of our disagreement. I do not believe the definition of marriage is changing and negotiable. Pretending we can change around the meaning of marriage in our legislature is, to me, like fighting for Stan's right to have babies. It relies on a whole lot of people pretending their agreed upon absurdity is just as valid as reality.
A future state may say marriage includes homosexual unions, poly-amorous groups, and people keen on farm animals. And that same future state may declare that men have the right to have babies. These would be silly laws, and I'm not going to worry to much about making sure those options are available to states in the future.
What's more, I believe in giving great respect to the opinion of previous generations on something like this. And I can't seem to find a previous generation that thought the definition of marriage was open to legislative change. To a radical, the verdict of the ages on this sort of question carries no weight. To a conservative, it's important.
I recognize that practical politics requires consensus among those who may not entirely agree. I can respect your opinion and your concern. If necessary, I'd be willing to entertain softening the language of such an amendment. But, as I said, I feel absolutely no threat from an amendment worded as this one is. And I have yet to hear an argument from someone else that makes me believe I'm missing one.
(And, as an aside, and not terribly important anymore other than to Monty Python fanatics, they all agree Stan can't actually ever have a baby, "Not having a womb, which isn't anyone's fault. Not even the Romans." But they fight for his right to have a baby anyway.)
The poll which found 56% of college freshmen in fall 2000 and 58% of college freshmen in fall 2001 supporting legalized gay marriage was conducted by a Higher Education Institute survey of 269,413 freshman students at colleges and universities nationwide.
That number refers to the '01 poll; sorry, I don't have a weblink of the full poll. The margin of error is less than 1% (probably near zero, considering the huge sample).
In mid 2000, ICR of Media PA conducted a poll which was commissioned by the Associated Press that found 54% of those between the ages of 18 and 34 supported legalized gay marriage. ICR polled 1,012 adults between those ages with a margin of error of +/- 3%.
Get rid of the 19th!
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.