Replies

>> A growing number of conservatives are speaking out against a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriages, saying the question should be left up to the states.

This is an ignorant argument. No matter what the new amendment says, nor what the states rule (if left up to the states), the Supreme Court will rule as it pleases. The Supreme Court is the Constitution!! Forget state's rights and amendments. They are worthless relics of the past.

"An October poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found 59 percent of Americans opposed gay marriage and 51 percent oppose civil unions."

Considering the polling interview criteria, quoted below from the website, I doubt strongly that the results are representative of the American public.

"In each contacted household, interviewers ask to speak with the "youngest male 18 or older who is at home.""

"Online survey says ..."

And we here at Freerepublic all know how reliable on-line surveys are!

I just wonder how much credence they would have given to their little "survey" if it'd been Freeped?
Hmmm?

Muth argues that the U.S. Constitution should not be used as a social-engineering tool. The country tried that with Prohibition and failed, he said.

If a marriage amendment is "social-engineering," then so was the Fourteenth Amendment.

Presumably Muth would not argue with the necessity for the Fourteenth? That was a Republican-sponsored bill too.

It took a constitutional amendment (as well as the bloodiest war in American history) to settle the meaning of the word "citizen" -- and to protect its definition from being limited by an autocratic judiciary.

If it takes an amendment to settle the meaning of the word "marriage," and protect it from the meddling of autocratic leftist judges, then so be it.

I will give what I believe is the best argument against any laws banning gay "marriage" in either federal or state constitutions.

It is difficult to get a consensus necessary to change a constitution. Given the direction of social developments in the United States, this might be the last minute to constitutionally define marriage as one man and one woman. It may be a very long time however before there would be a consensus to remove such a definition. But ordinary legislation requiring a mere majority is much easier to come by for either side in the debate. Since the issue is a matter of the definition of a particular social and legal institution currently and historically embodied only in statute and common law, it would be a simple matter to sidestep the constitution and legislate or judicially mandate an entirely new institution, such as "civil union", with no such restrictions and with more legal and economic advantages than "marriage", thus causing "marriage" to wither on the vine. That would be exactly the opposite of what supporters of state and federal constitution amendments want. Ironically it could be that leaving the issue up to a patchwork of courts and legislatures is the only way to preserve "marriage" in any form.