A Vote For Marriage : Why The Federal Marriage Amendment is Necessary

National Review ^ | 06/07/2006 | The Editors

[fwdude]

Did you not actually read the article? It blew out of the water every argument you just parroted.

[RobbyS]

Before an amendment could become part of the constitution, it would have to be approved by four-fifths of the states. Hardly an invasion of "states rights." What would be, as others have pointed out, is that the gays are trying to use the full faith and credit clause to compel the states to accept gay marriage whether they like it or not. Right now this is more likely than the marriage amendment.

[DBeers]

Attitudes towards gay rights are largely generational, and the American public is increasingly progressive.

What? For a micro second I thought I was on DU...

YUP -the American public is increasingly progressive...

ROTFLMAO

And the dummicrats are increasingly relevent AND by losing they win...

[retarmy]

I am amazed at you, as a Southerner, to forget the issues we have had with states’ rights, especially as a Texan. Certainly if it becomes an amendment, a majority of the states must ratify it, but that will not happen because, I believe, so many states have their own constitutional amendments or state laws on this topic, that they will not enable the federal government to dictate to the states what should be done against the wishes of the voters of the individual states.

Unless I am mistaken 38 or 39 states have already passed legislation against same-sex marriage, which represents the will of the people of those states. Additionally the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress provides for a legal definition of marriage and allows each state to deny Constitutional marital rights between persons of the same sex which have been recognized in another state. Therefore, why should we amend the Constitution ? This is no longer a social issue, but a political issue for both parties.

And I thought conservatism mean laissez faire attitudes towards the states and the rights of each state to develop laws that met the needs and requirements of the electorate of that state. From what all the respondents here say, it sounds like the Republican Party is moving to the left, and that is not conservatism.

[DBeers]

Unless I am mistaken 38 or 39 states have already passed legislation against same-sex marriage, which represents the will of the people of those states. Additionally the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress provides for a legal definition of marriage and allows each state to deny Constitutional marital rights between persons of the same sex which have been recognized in another state. Therefore, why should we amend the Constitution ? This is no longer a social issue, but a political issue for both parties.

You observe the obvious reality of what is happening while ignoring same in regards to why it is happening and as such the solution necessary to stop the assault being waged on the public by a tyrannical terrorist like judiciary...

This in addition to not understanding just what the proposed Constitutional Amendment would or would not prohibit. Arguing against the Constitutional Amendment is not arguing for "State's Rights" as dictated by the people -plain and simple, it is arguing for the rights of an activist judiciary to maintain the ability to negate the will of the people on this one specific issue...

A reading of the proposed Amendment shows clearly it ONLY bans activist judges...

A legitimate understanding of the Amendment hinges principally on one word, "construe", which one should assume was chosen specifically and intentionally I would disagree with any assessment suggesting a banning when the freedom of the legislature is maintained.

ARTICLE

SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the ‘Marriage Protection Amendment’.

SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’’.

CONSTRUE: To adduce or explain the meaning of; interpret...

The Amendment simply removes a judicial ability to construe a marital construct and leaves open the question legislatively at both federal and state levels...

[melancton]

I do not believe that it should be brought up again, as this is not a national issue, but a local issue.

Exactly. The idea of "protecting" marriage with at the federal level is nothing more than an election year ploy. If it wasn't for government sticking its nose into marriage in the first place, this wouldn't even be an issue.     

[RogerFGay]

An Alternative to the Federal Marriage Amendment

[djf]

The federal government has not a single thing to say about marriage.

It is totally the province of the states.

If a state decides there is no such thing as "Gay Marriage", then anything that happens WITHIN THAT STATE is ruled accordingly.

No state can be made liable for another states decision.

[RogerFGay]

The Outrage in Outrage

[Dante3]

Sociologists and anthropologists have maintained that a strong family and marriage institution is essential for the survival of a society.

[SirLinksalot]

No state can be made liable for another states decision.

That's very nice in theory. In fact, we already of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by Clinton to ensure what you just said.

Here's one crack in a what we would think is a solid wall --- THE JUDGES OF THE COURTS.

All we need is for Congress to fall into the Dem's hands and for someone like Hillary to be president and you'll either have :

A) Liberal judges/justices on our Federal and Supreme Courts.

B) Congress over-turning the DOMA.

IMHO, option A above is the GREATER DANGER. All we need is for a one or two gay couples to sue in the name of "EQUAL PROTECTION" and you'll have liberal judges OVER-TURNING what Congress passed. If it happened in Taxachusetts ( where the judge oversteped his powers by DEMANDING ( yes I said DEMANDING ) their state legislature pass a gay marriage bill), it can happen in Washington. And with a Democratic Congress, who is to say they won't abide ?

America's society is really hanging by a thread and it will change from election to election.

[SirLinksalot]

Sociologists and anthropologists have maintained that a strong family and marriage institution is essential for the survival of a society.

Unfortunately, these same people who know better don't select our judges and make our laws. Hence, it is up to Americans to determine whether or not we want people in power who will heed what these people have concluded.

[WV Mountain Mama]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if there is a law on the federal books, it will override the state laws of some liberal states that decide to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, when these same sex couple go to states that allow them to marry, the marriage will not have to be recognized by other states when the couple return to collect benefits, etc for each other. On the other hand, if there is no federal law, the states must accept the same sex marriages and all they represent (health care, 401k benefits, death benefits, etc) from the states that allow it, even though they don't.

[Dante3]

True.