Save Marriage In Court

The Washington Times ^ | Richard Lessner

[webber]

Proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment are right: This is a political fight that is worth having. But they are wrong in thinking an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman will save the institution from the depredations of the postmodern deconstructionists.

[Congressman Billybob]

I agree with Lesser. The long term solution is the appointment of more and more judges and Justices who can read the Constitution and will both obey and enforce it as written. But there is also a short term solution that he did not discuss.

Congress has the power, under Article III, Section 1, over the very existence of all federal courts except the Supreme Court, and over the jurisdiction of all federal courts save only the limited "original jurisdiction" of the Supreme Court as stated by the Constitution. And over the centuries, Congress HAS excercised this power, and changed or limited the authority of the federal courts.

There is a bill now before Congress to take away the jurisdiction of the federal courts concerning the Ten Commandments and various other subjects. The definition of marriage as anything other than the union of a man and a woman should be added to this prohibatory bill. That will solve the problem.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Democrats Dancing to Tunes of Glory?," discussion thread on FR. Article will likely be on ChronWatch.

[Orangedog]

The current war of words in "defending marriage" is a joke. The institution of marriage has been gutted like a trout by no-fault divorce laws, divorce courts that punish fathers for being male and use kids as pawns to control people's resources and lives. The divorce industry has already managed to get the divorce rate over 50%. "Defending marriage" from homosexuals is like treating a chest wound from a 12 GA shotgun with bandaids and ointment.

[tdadams]

When the 50% of married heterosexuals who get divorced decide to honor their vows, then I'll concern myself with the two or three percent of homosexuals who may want to marry. Until then, all the cries of "defend marriage" seem a bit disingenuous.

[webber]

Traditional marriage is "NORMAL". All other marriages are "ABNORMAL". So how do you even equate the two? Or are you one of those who advocate "same sex" marriages? (an oxymoron)

[webber]

So YOUR suggestion is......DO NOTHING?
at least you haven't proposed any in your post. What would you do to stop the "Lberal/Gay Agenda" of decriminalizing criminal acts and behavior? If you have no solution to the problem then your words are empty.

[jwalsh07]

I'm on board your short term solution, the long term solution is a crapshoot and won't happen in my lifetime if it does at all. They need legislative slapping down bigtime, as the VP is wont to say.

[tdadams]

I don't think there was anything confusing about what I stated, nor did I "equate" anything. You're attacking me for something I've not said, nor implied. Either you're simple minded or deliberately misconstruing what I've said. Neither paints a flattering picture of you.

[Orangedog]

So YOUR suggestion is......DO NOTHING? at least you haven't proposed any in your post.

Sorry...guess the specific shots that I took at no fault divorce laws and biased "family" courts wasn't obvious enough. How safe, sound and worthy of defense is the institution of marriage going to be when the divorce rate goes up to 80% from the current +50%? Don't get me wrong, I don't think that two men or two women have any business being legally recognized as married. I just think that this issue is like concentrating on the poison iny in your front yard when the foundation of the house has caved in.

Personally, I never have understood how a man can look at another mans harry a$$ and find love.

[Torie]

I think Marbury v Madison suggests otherwise as to Constitutional matters. It may be that Congress can strip lower federal courts of power to do anything in that area, but that is a bad idea. Important matters filter up to SCOTUS in any event, and it is useful to have some of these issues percolate in lower courts for awhile. I dissent.