US Constitutiona Amendment to Save Marriage...NOW!

Self | 11-18-03 | Always Right

[TigersEye]

Don't mess with the Constitution.

[Sam Cree]

"Get government out of the marriage business, before it is too late!"

Yes, I agree. I don't think this would be a problem if government wasn't already in the marriage business.

[Always Right]

The constitution is about limiting government and recognition of our natural rights, not about social issues. Marriage is not a right, it's a privilege. If you want a specific definition of marriage then get congress to pass a federal law.

The problem is we have courts that are usurping power. The Mass. Legislature DID pass a specific definition, and the Court just threw it out. There is a decent chance the same thing will happen to the just passed Partial-birth abortion ban. We must find issues that we increase our power so we can reign in the Judicial Branch. Until we reduce the number of activist judges, the power of the legislature is worthless. We have lost our system of checks and balances.

[gridlock]

So the solution is obvious.

Apply conservative principles. Limit the authority of government over the individual.

Free the people, and the forces of social normalcy will win every time. It is only the power of government that allows a vocal minority to drive the train.

[WOSG]

Your well-intentioned missive is off the mark. Way off.

Most of what you are saying is abject nonsense when you study what is really at stake in the law and the courts. Go to a family court and *then* tell us how to get the Govt out of an institution they have been involved with for centuries, since Blackstone's law. The difference lately is that Government has spent the last 40 years undermining marriage as a strong institution between a man and wife in one way or another: Making men pay heavily for divorces yet get short shrift in custody (100 years ago, men typically got custody if they were better able to support the kids), no fault divorces, making it easier to break a marriage contract than a car lease. And putting greater burdens on the married than the single (marriage penalty, rules in welfare that encourage single parenthood over healthier relationships). ... will you get the Govt out of *that*??? And if now, how *will* you determine the proper custody for children in such cases?

This oxymoronic 'gay marriage' just sticks the knife in deeper. It is the exclamation point that makes marriage from a sacred covenent to merely and arrangement of cohabitating sex partners that can be started or ended at will - the real victims of this are the children in our society. Marriage is the crucial institution of our civilization, it transmits our culture to the next generation. Undermining it is a way to degrade and ultimately destroy our civilization. Surely you've read the studies that indicate how much worse children are statistically as a result of divorce and broken homes.

To say our $2 trillion a year Government should get out of marriage is like saying fish should avoid getting wet.The suggestion that govt has nothing to do with marriage is without any foundation in law or history. EVERYTHING the Govt does affects marriage - and vice versa.
Laws define how Govt treats the relations of children, parents, spouses, etc. Taxes relate to it; inheritance relates to it; property laws (community property) relate to it.

"Social conservatives must resist the temptation to use the power of the state to stomp out what they do not like. "

Same could be said for gay activists, libertarians, liberals, soccer moms, gun-grabbers, socialists, and those who dislike traditional values. ... but you tellingly dont put it that way. The burden is only on the conservatives. Gay activists didnt like the inconvenience of having to define their sex partner relationships differently from married people. Here is a clue - if the gay activists wanted govt 'out of the way' they *wouldnt* be taking these things to court and demanding NEW LAWS and NEW COURT RULINGS! So the simpler answer is this - get them out of the court.

The ability to be married without Govt recognition exists - today! When two lesbians go around and have a 'ceremony' and call themselves 'married' nobody is stopping them! Nobody! They can call whatever they do whatever name they please. So your 'proposal' is a Red Herring, as 'common law' marriages can and do exist all over.

"Remember that the state likes us a lot less than anybody else."

Well that was proven today. But destroying the concept of traditional marriage in law totally after a ruling like this is like getting mugged and then after the mugger walks away yelling "hey, you forgot my other pocket!"

"Better to let marriage be an arrangement between individuals, and heterosexual marriage will inevitably win in the marketplace of ideas."

(sigh) we pay for the stupidity of others when they do these things - who pays for the family law courts when these 'non-traditional' families have trouble??? Who will pay for the Judges that arbitrate the first lesbian 'divorces' or the custody battles when two lesbians get a gay friend to donate semen, get an artificial insemination baby then decide it's no fun anymore when the kid is 3. Who takes over? How will taxes work? In britian the Govt acknowledged that it cost them almost $1 billion to implement civil unions for gays in that country. You can easily expect billions in the added healthcare benefit costs for govt workers with "domestic partner" benefits, etc. This ruling will cost us and interfere with our own lives.

As for the claim that Govt cant help preserve traditional values through law, I suggest you read 'Statecraft as Soulcraft' from George Will. Profound.

[WOSG]

"Is this institution, this veritable cornerstone of society, so fragile that it cannot survive without governmental protection?"

Same could be said for FREE SPEECH.

Guess you want to repeal the 1st amendment after you abolish marriage, eh?

[Always Right]

Is this institution, this veritable cornerstone of society, so fragile that it cannot survive without governmental protection?

I am not looking for government protection so much, but to stop the government assult on the institution.

[Sam Cree]

"Limit the authority of government over the individual."

Agree wholeheartedly. And agree that it would solve this problem, one way or the other.

'Course, limiting the authority of government over the individual is impossible for the leftist utopians, and even impossible for many so called conservatives who wish to legislate their own morality.

[WOSG]

You are right. he is not talking reality, nor even rational policy.

It is lunacy to suggest that govt has no role in property and child custody dispositions after the breaking of the marriage contract.

[ppaul]

TODAY.....

Mass. gay marriage ban overturned BREAKING NEWS, Associated Press Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution, but stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law. The Supreme Judicial Court's 4-3 ruling ordered the Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days. THE RULING closely matches the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court decision, which led to its Legislature's approval in 2000 of civil unions that give couples many of the same benefits of marriage. The Massachusetts high court ruled that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry." The decision is the latest in a series of victories for gay rights advocates, but fell short of what the seven couples who sued the state had hoped to receive: the right to marry their longtime companion. The Massachusetts question will now return to the Legislature, which already is considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state's powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal. A similar initiative, launched by citizens, was defeated by the Legislature last year on a procedural vote. BACKGROUND TO LAWSUIT The lawsuit was filed by seven gay couples who sued the state Department of Public Health in 2001 after their requests for marriage licenses were denied. A Superior Court judge dismissed their suit in May 2002, ruling that state law does not convey the right of marriage to gay couples, and the couples appealed. The high court heard arguments in March, and hundreds of organizations and individuals across the country filed briefs on both sides of the argument. The court had three options: instructing the state to give marriage licenses to the seven couples; upholding the state's authority to deny same-sex couples the right to wed; or referring the matter to the Legislature. The Legislature already considering various competing proposals to outlaw or to legalize gay marriages or civil unions. Gov. Mitt Romney has repeatedly said that marriage should be preserved as a union between a man and a woman, but has declined to comment on what he would do if gay marriages are legalized. On the campaign trail last fall, Romney said he would veto gay-marriage legislation. He supports giving domestic benefits such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights to gay couples. OTHER STATES Gay and lesbian advocates had been cheered by a series of advances this year, including a U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down anti-sodomy laws, the ordination of an openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, and a Canadian appeals court ruling that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. Belgium and the Netherlands also have legalized gay marriage. In addition to Vermont, courts in Hawaii and Alaska have previously ruled that the states did not have a right to deny marriage to gay couples. In those two states, the decisions were followed by the adoption of constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. No American court has ordered the issuance of a marriage license -- a privilege reserved for heterosexual couples. The U.S. House is currently considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage. President Bush, although he believes marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman, recently said that a constitutional amendment is not yet necessary. Homos Gary Chalmers, left, and Rich Linnell, right, both of Northbridge, Mass., are among the plaintiffs in the gay marriage case.

[WOSG]

Why are you prohibiting Govt to get involved in the contract of marriage when Govt arbitrates all other kinds of legal contracts? Why would you wierdly change 500 years of legal history just to get around the awkwardness of "gay marriage"?

Anyway what is this "us" stuff? Do you really care about marriage, or are you just trying to peddle anarchy? Keep debating and pretty soon you'll come to conclude with the traditional 'marriage as contract' stance our legal system held until the feminists up and destroyed it.

[Belial]

Disallowing homos to partner under the law isn't going to save marriage.

Couples understanding what a lifelong commitment means, will.

[WOSG]

"I am not looking for government protection so much, but to stop the government assult on the institution."

Correct, but we will have to fix it by having Judges who respect the LAW rather than who rule purely based on liberal attitudes. That's judicial tyranny.

[richtig_faust]

As long as restoring traditional marriage is political suicide (I agree it is), gay marriage is inevitable.


And after that the queer agenda is to attack the age of consent. After that we'll have incest and beastiality all made nice and legal -- just like Scalia warned about.

[richtig_faust]

Whether gay marriage is right or wrong, marriage is not threatened by this.


OF COURSE IT IS!! Now the definition of parents/husband/wife/father/mother will be redefined. Marriage is under a HUGE attack.

[WOSG]

The constitution is about limiting government and recognition of our natural rights, not about social issues. Marriage is not a right, it's a privilege. If you want a specific definition of marriage then get congress to pass a federal law. "

Please, folks, PAY ATTENTION!

The Mass legislature indeed did pass a law. It is correct to get states to pass these laws, because that is where most of these things are regulated. The Liberal Judges incorrectly pretended that their constitution somehow forbids Mass. from insisting that marriage is between men and women only. As you say, constitutions dont define the parameters of these social issues. The judges engaged in judicial tyranny.

Suggesting the solution to the Judicial tyranny of the massachusetts supreme court is, alas, non-helpful. Where does the Congress have the power to overrule the mass supreme court?

IMHO, there is another solution: Throw the bums out in Massachusetts who let this abomination against their own Constitution happen. Starting with Ted Kennedy on down.

[apackof2]

Besides, what harm does it do?

What good does it do?

[Always Right]

Correct, but we will have to fix it by having Judges who respect the LAW rather than who rule purely based on liberal attitudes. That's judicial tyranny.

And I see this as a means to that end. Winning this next election BIG so we can get a lot of good judges on the bench is CRITICAL to ending the judicial tyranny.

[apackof2]

Why not both?

Should you have to pick one over the other?
Both are needed

[finnman69]

What a platform for the RATS!:

Higher Taxes, Don't fight the terrorists, let guys marry other guys.

A "perfect storm".