Replies

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.

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...

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.