Posted on 06/07/2006 9:44:59 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
A Vote for Marriage
By The Editors
NATIONAL REVIEW
Most Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Almost all Republican politicians say they oppose it, and very few Democratic politicians say they support it. But the opponents are divided in a way that could cause them to lose.
Part of the problem is that some of the opponents are merely professed opponents, not real ones. These are politicians, typically Democrats, who know that the public opposes same-sex marriage but that most liberals favor it. They may, secretly, agree with these liberals themselves. Their strategy has three components: Let the courts impose same-sex marriage on the populace. Claim to be opposed to it. But also oppose any action that would stop the courts from imposing it.
This faction is aided by another: sincere opponents of same-sex marriage who object to a constitutional amendment to ban it. These people believe that states should be free to set their own marriage policies, or that no amendment is necessary, or that the Constitution should not concern itself with marriage policy. People who hold these views should reconsider them, because they may be making a terrible mistake.
Voters in many states have passed referenda to prohibit same-sex marriage, often adding that prohibition to their state constitutions. (Nineteen states have constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage, and an additional 26 have statutes.) But their votes may not ultimately prove decisive. A state court has already imposed same-sex marriage on Massachusetts, and several other states’ courts are poised to do the same thing. Federal litigation designed to accomplish the same objective is underway. Assembling the supermajorities necessary to undo such anti-democratic actions may prove impossible once the deeds are done. (It is no accident that liberal litigators began the campaign for same-sex marriage in two states, Vermont and Massachusetts, where it is relatively hard for voters to amend the constitution.)
States should perform those functions that they can perform. But no state is capable of resisting the federal judiciary if it imposes same-sex marriage. Only an amendment to the U.S. Constitution can protect states from having same-sex marriage foisted upon them by courts.
When the Constitution is amended the old-fashioned way—through the procedures outlined in its fifth article, with a two-thirds vote in each chamber of Congress followed by ratification by three quarters of the states—it almost always reflects a national consensus. An amendment is not an action unilaterally undertaken by the federal government and forced on the states; the states participate in the process. So the federalist objection to a marriage amendment is doubly misguided. Individual states cannot accomplish the good that the amendment seeks, and as a practical matter are unlikely to be oppressed by it.
The leading criticism of the Federal Marriage Amendment is not, however, that it is inconsistent with states’ rights. It is that it would “write discrimination into the Constitution.” We have not addressed that objection because the people we have in mind already know that marriage, and its requirement of sexual complementarity, are not discriminatory. But it is nonetheless worth keeping in mind that this claim of discrimination is being made, and that many people, especially in the legal academy, believe it. If the Federal Marriage Amendment is discriminatory, it can only be because traditional marriage laws are discriminatory—and if that is the case, then it should not take much more argument to get the federal courts to step in. The premises for the federal courts to impose same-sex marriage are being put in place.
The Federal Marriage Amendment is necessary to ward off this danger. We hope it passes in time.
Or, to put it in six words: The full faith and credit clause.
I didn't pass.
Well said!
Not this time. Maybe before the next election when the Republicans are in trouble they will drag it out again.
I suppose we should just roll over and die?
You have no need to wait this country is already in trouble and you who hide will be called out with the rest of us when the time comes.
This is another example of the federal government trying to usurp the rights of the individual states. I live in Florida, which has political clout, but if I lived in Delaware, or Rhode Island, or another state that has no large representative delegation in Congress, I would not like a group of other states mandating what my state should do, which is what would happen if Congress passes a law and it is upheld by the Supreme Court.
Would you want California dictating how farmers in your states should grow their crops, or curb bovine emissions? It is the same thing.
Not according to the full faith and credit clause.
Realistically, this will never pass. Attitudes towards gay rights are largely generational, and the American public is increasingly progressive. Can you imagine a public debate of gay marriage fifty years ago, let alone conservatives having to couch their beliefs in language of tolerance to the homosexual lifestyle? Gay marriage will be an effective political device for several years, but as a policy issue, the train has left the station. Let's get back to business.
At any rate, there are not currently enough votes in the Senate and perhaps there never will be for such an amendment but there is clearly a super majority for not permitting the elite to change the meaning of the word marriage.
But then again there are super majorities for securing the southern border and many of the elites, and I include President Bushe here, don't give two craps about that either.
For those that disagree with the article, we understand you disagree. The basis of your disagreement is plainly outlined in this article. Re-re-re-re-reiteration, as on other threads, is really not necessary or useful. Saying it faster and louder doesn't change my opinion. You have not and will not sway me. Not yesterday, not today. I disagree with you. Accept it. When the gay activist courts overrule and DOMAs are dead, I'll get back with you all. If FR still exists.
The data says you're full of balogna. Referenda in states show large majority support for not entering marriage into the dictionary of newspeak. If the senate voted as the states have voted, the FMA would have passed 90-10. Now I understand that we are a constitutional republic so I have no quibble with the process but I do take exception to comments like yours which are wont to become self fulfilling prophecies.
This amendment, more than anything, is a reiteration of religious freedom, which is under attack by anti-Christians. Same-sex "marriage" is one of the ways they are trying to undermine religious freedom.
It must be passed and ratified ASAP.
"Gay marriage will be an effective political device for several years, but as a policy issue, the train has left the station. Let's get back to business."
The reason we need a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage is that the "effective political" devisers have succeeded in destroying the Constitution as previous generations knew and loved it.
Of course "gay" marriage will be an effective political device because congress and other political weenies have allowed the train to leave the station, get into our public schools, univerities, media, and everywhere else. The "gays" have happilly put us on this rail. They have to be called now. The train is on its way to massive wreckage. Most of those killed in the aftermath will be the gays and their supporters.
What are you talking about?
You posted this a couple of hours after it had already been defeated.
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.