Wedlock amendment no breach of federalism

Washington Times ^ | 6/7/2006 | Jordan Lorence

[RaiderNation1]

The proposed Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not violate principles of federalism. The definition of marriage has never been left to the states. Some conservatives urge defeat of the amendment because, they say, the Constitution has traditionally left regulation of marriage to the states. But the proposed amendment does not address state power to regulate marriage; rather, it requires states to adopt a uniform definition of marriage of one man and one woman -- something Congress has imposed upon states seeking admission to the Union for 160 years. No concept of federalism has ever granted states the authority to define marriage any way they desire. Federalism only grants states the power to regulate marriage already defined as one man and one woman.

[RaiderNation1]

Wow, I don't how to start addressing the contradictions in your last post.

"I don't see how your claims that ACLU lawsuits are imminent is a compelling argument for a federal iron fist to preempt the states' right to set their own standards. If court battles ensue, then so be it. I'm not going to wet my pants and go crying to mamma federal government to protect me from the big bad bully."

So you are willing to cede this power to the whim of what could literally be a single judge?

"At face value, an equally viable solution based on your reasoning would be for the federal government to mandate that all states must recognize all marriages from all the other states."

No, because this would force every state to redefine the foundational building block of our society, making the only institution of its kind that the state has any interest in recognizing absolutely meaningless. Not only that, scoff at the slippery slope all you will, but the PRECISE arguments being made by homosexual activists right now WILL be employed by polygamists, polyamorists, close relatives that wish to marry and who knows what else. Advocates of same-sex "marriage" are fully aware of this (including and especially the ACLU, which is already on record as supporting polygamy and striking down age of consent laws) and that proves that they are not fighting FOR marriage, but fighting to destroy it, despite the pretty rhetoric of civil rights (clearly misplaced in this debate).

[RaiderNation1]

Thanks GE.

I think our difference rests on what institution is more fear-worthy adorned with additional power -- the Federal govenment with a clear framework enshrined in the Constitution vs. a renegade judiciary within which a single judge with an agenda may impose a whim on the rest of us.

Both troubling for their own reasons, but I'll take a clearly-worded, easily understood, uniform amendment over the mood of a judge ten times out of ten.

Actually, if you read the text of the amendment, it appears to be geared toward federal/federalist concerns. The second sentence reads like it may leave the door open for states to create other benefit sytems, but that no other states would be subject to litigation should such a scheme exist elsewhere in the Union. What do you think?

"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."

[Antonello]

So you are willing to cede this power to the whim of what could literally be a single judge?

If your gripe is about activist judicial legislation, then deal with that issue. Don't use it as a scapegoat to support stealing state power in a different way.

No, because this would force every state to redefine the foundational building block of our society, making the only institution of its kind that the state has any interest in recognizing absolutely meaningless.

I am generally opposed to anything that would 'force every state' to do anything, which is why I noted that I would not want the alternate solution either. I suspect that your true motivation is not just assuring a uniform standard, but rather in forcing your personal standard to be that uniform standard. If you and your fellow state citizens are of like mind, then you should have the right to establish it as such for your home state. But if the citizens of another state do not share your personal restrictions, then who are you to dictate to them how to run their state?

Not only that, scoff at the slippery slope all you will, but the PRECISE arguments being made by homosexual activists right now WILL be employed by polygamists, polyamorists, close relatives that wish to marry and who knows what else.

For the record, I believe that relationships between consenting adults are not the business of any legislative body, except inasmuch as state or federal benefits are extended through legal contract. In other words I would support decriminalizing acts such as you listed and leaving it up to the relevant government bodies to decide which, if any, they wish to recognize for extending tax and inheritance benefits, 5th Amendment protections, etc.

[Antonello]

So is the physical compatibility of males & females in the sexual repoduction process. With two same-gender rump rangers, it doesn't work! Law of nature.

You are assuming the goal of a same sex marriage is reproduction. What if that isn't the goal?

[GrandEagle]

I think our difference rests on what institution is more fear-worthy adorned with additional power
You may be correct on this point. Personally, I don't see that any federal judge currently has a Constitutional basis to even make a ruling on marriage. However, as of late, little details like Constitutional authority hasn't seemed to stand in their way - so you may have a point there.
The text seems to me to prohibit any state from having any institution that would confer any benefits of marriage, no matter what it is called.
Again, although I believe it to be detestable, I don't want the federal government having a "toe hold" on marriage. No matter how limited the wording may be, once you give them any say-so, they take what they want.
The second amendment is a classic case. the Constitution actually reads "Congress shall pass no law...". The Danbury (sp?) Baptist association expressed the same fears about the second amendment and the very words that Jefferson used to assure them that their fears would not come true are now being used as though they were in the Constitution. We have arrived at the point that simply posting a copy of the 10 commandments is the same as Congress passing a law. No sir, for me at least, the Federal judiciary has proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it can not be trusted.
If clause stating the right to keep and bear arms was "interpreted" the same as the "establishment" clause is, then the Federal Government would be required to purchase everyone a fully automatic weapon and require that everyone carry it.
Just my humble opinion.

Cordially,
GE

[RaiderNation1]

Yes, the issue TJ addressed in his letter to the Danbury Baptists was CLEARLY addressing FREE EXERCISE, not the establishment clause. (I'm sure you meant the 1st Amendment) Despite the screeches by the Left that this peripheral piece of non-binding correspondence bound judges to order the razing of a cross on a memorial to war dead or the sand-blasting of every mention of our TRUE heritage from public floors, wall, doors and halls, the "separation of church and state" is an ugly phantom conjured up by Hugo Black and abused by radicals that wish to remake our society in thier own twisted image. The First Amendment was meant to be a shield, not a sword, but sadly, that's what we've got today.

[GrandEagle]

I'm sure you meant the 1st Amendment
(Hanging my head in shame)
Yes, it has been a LONG day.....

[GrandEagle]

Truth is, marriage isn't even something that mankind has the prerogative of defining.
Absolutely! You are correct!

[Antonello]

In light of your latest post, I feel I need to state that I oppose legislation and Constitutional amendments that are motivated by religious beliefs, or are meant to force specific religious tenets on others.