New bill in House would ban same-sex 'marriage' nationwide

BP NEWS ^ | Jul 23, 2004 | Michael Foust

[GrandMoM]

BUMP

[jwalsh07]

Good post. Here is the SCOTUS case surrounding it, Reynolds v US.

[TheBattman]

WHY did you post that? I think I'm going to vomit now....

Does not belong here, even if "on-topic" of sorts....

[familyop]

Ping, LJ.

Activist judges could still strike this one (column above) down, sooner or later. The FMA effort must continue regardless of ruses along the way. Vote in favor of these ruses, and continue the FMA effort, no matter what.

[Torie]

Interesting case, but then Utah was not a state at the time, so it is readily distinguishable. I have no idea really how SCOTUS would rule on a statute banning gay marriage. The law on state's rights is murky, and growing murkier, and I haven't followed the ins and outs of how many angels dance on the head of a pin as SCOTUS struggles with the matter. (It does strike me as a bit difficult to fit marriage within the reach of the commerce clause however. :) ) In recent years, SCOTUS has revived states rights a bit. It would granted fit with my public policy view, of where the matter should be decided. Of course, the bill isn't going to pass, as long as the filibuster rule is out there, any time soon. At present, I don't think it would even get a majority in the Senate, but that is just a guess.

[Torie]

The federal government canceled the citizenship rights of polygamous Mormons. They were no longer allowed to vote, run for public office, or serve on a jury. Eventually, the government disincorporated the Church and began to confiscate its assets. In 1890, the Supreme Court determined that the government could take away citizenships from all members of the church.

I doubt that the above is "good" law these days. :)

[ellery]

Clarence Thomas believes you can't rely on judicial precedence -- you have to go back to the founding document, in this case, the Constitution. If you rely on precedent, then one bad judicial action spawns many more -- like a game of telephone.

I don't see in the Constitution where the feds have authority over marriage. That means it belongs to the states.

[narses]

Stare Decisis.

[Torie]

Well, precedent is a factor, but only a factor, particularly as another posted noted, on matters of Constitutional interpretation. You do remember when SCOTUS in Brown v Board of Education bounced Plessey don't you? It has overruled a fair number of its prior decisions over time. The precedents you cited would be bounced in a hurry these days, if the matter came up again.

[tahiti]

"Called the National Marriage Law, the bill, if passed, would supercede state laws, thereby voiding Massachusetts' law legalizing same-sex "marriage."

What is the constitutional jurisdictions for this federal law to "supercede state laws?"

Art I, Sec 8 , "Powers of Congress"

Cl 3 "commerce clause?"

Cl 17, exclusive legistlative jurisdiction over purchased state land by federal government with state approval?

Article VI, Sec 2

laws made in conjunction with treaties as the law of the land?

But even if you can find federal jurisdiction for this law in one of the three articles listed above, the law still cannot vilate the Bill of Rights and successive amendments.

The law would violate Amendment IX, rights "retained by the people," and Amendment X, rights "reserved" to the states and the people.

Again, this is why I do not call myself a conservative any longer nor do I wish to vote for a Republican.

Conservative implies the desire to "conserve" something. How about conserving the Constitution.

Republicans are just like Democrats in their desire to contol how people wish to live their lives with unconstitutional, anti-liberty, communist/socialist laws but with just a different agenda than the Democrats and at a slower pace.

[asmith92008]

Have you considered the effects of the full faith and credit clause? States must give full faith and credit to their sister states' legal licenses. Do you honestly think if one state's judges, i.e. Massachusetts, impose gay marriage in that state, federal judges will not force the rest to comply?

[Eastbound]

Can the dems attach the AWB renewal to this Bill? Wouldn't put it past them to try to attach it to anything that comes out of the House.

[Sam Cree]

I don't quite see Republicans as just like Dems, but do agree that if our side increases federal power in the service of pet causes, the power will then be available to the Left to use in the service of their causes whenever they are elected.

All of which is clearly the opposite of the purposes of our founding fathers, IMO.

[The Mayor]

my congressman is louise slaughter

perfect last name as she is pro abortion

[GovernmentShrinker]

Traditional marriage is on its deathbed. One has only to watch the circus of desperate and irrational measures to "save" and "protect" it to see this. Trampling over states rights, and idiotic proposals like using taxpayer money to bribe welfare cases to get and stay married, are just a couple of examples of what so-called "conservatives" are eager to do in their blind desperation.

Traditional marriage originally evolved because it was what people wanted to do. It's dying because fewer and fewer people want to do it anymore. Maybe the trend will reverse one of these days; more likely it won't. Government shouldn't have a word to say about. In a free country, people should arrange their personal lives the way they see fit, with no interference, and no bribes, from the government. Social engineering is not a proper function of government.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Laws against polygamy are unconstitutional too.

[gilliam]

Not according to SCOTUS

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping - Hmmm, National Marriage Law. I don't know what to think, I'll have to read more and see what you all think.

It does sound good upon first reading.

let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.

[little jeremiah]

Very good, concise and correct comments.

[little jeremiah]

"Republicans are just like Democrats in their desire to contol how people wish to live their lives with unconstitutional, anti-liberty, communist/socialist laws but with just a different agenda than the Democrats and at a slower pace."

You are equating crap like Title 9 or whatever it is with homosexual marriage. All the Republicans in Congress and/or the White House (at various times, not singling out GW) are not necessarily conservatives, and they have passed laws and promoted causes which many conservatives, myself included, have vociferously disagreed with.

BUT - the Republican party has up until now at least nominally stood for conservative values and principles. Although not strongly enough. It sounds as though if the GOP was more conservative you'd like it even less.

I consider it "anti-liberty" for a few Nazgul-like judges and homosexual activists (homosexuals being at most 2% of the population, and supposedly a lot of them don't even support the "gay" agenda) to force same sex marriage down everyone's throats.