[Mich0127]

I watched the live speech and I was thrilled to hear of the proposal of an amendment. I am sick, as may of us are, of liberal judges and activist minorities trying to run our lives! Most people are opposed to gay marriage-so why should a tyrannical minority impose their beliefs on us?

[Mich0127]

BUMP

[templar]

IMO, the amendment has about as much chance of being ratified as the ERA did, maybe less.

[Cboldt]

... so why should a tyrannical minority impose their beliefs on us?

They shouldn't, and the people should not tolerate such action from a judge. Guess a substantial number of people are willing to keep the defective judges, and just institute a new piece of text in the Constitution.

To draw a workplace analogy, at some point it's better to fire a defective worker than it is to institute another workplace rule.

Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with the object here. I'll take action whichever way it comes, but prefer to dump the judges.

[applemac_g4]

I'll ask you all again...

Bush favors civil unions. If we pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and yet give all the same benefits to sodomites under the name of "civil unions" what have we gained exactly?

No gay marriage.

No gay civil unions.

[codercpc]

Does the Amendment actually "BAN" Gay Marriage, or does it just say that if a particular state recognizes Gay Marriage the Federal Government will not, and that other States are not obligated to recognize it?

I think that is a huge distinction that needs to be made.

Every network (FOX included) has their banners reading that the President wants to ban Gay Marriage, yet from what I understand the Federal Government as of today doesn't perform marriage ceremonies, all they do is recognize them.

I am all for an Amendment that protects States Rights in this manner, but I don't think that is the message that is getting out. By saying that the Federal Government wants to ban Gay Marriages, instead of not recognizing Gay Marriage I think you are then denying rights, not expanding States Rights. Shouldn't there be a distinction?

[Tempest]

It's not enough!!! Bush is still a RINO! We need to elect a Democrat because Bush has not done everything conservatively enough to ostracize the middle of the road voters! I don't care about what best for the country overall and in the long run I only care about me and now!. . . .


< Do I really need to add a sarcasm tag here? >

[antiRepublicrat]

Most amendments are either involve government procedural issues or the guarantee or expansion of rights of the people. Those that affect a group of Americans negatively or prohibit them from engaging in certain acts are generally considered to be the worst -- the 16th and 18th.

I don't really care much about the issue since a couple of gays marrying doesn't affect me, but I do have a general problem with an amendment that is restrictive to the population. It's like with flag burning, where I strongly advocate beating the crap out of a flag burner, but won't advocate a restrictive amendment to ban it.

[DMZFrank]

This amendment should not be necessary. These actions by SF's mayor and the Massachutsetts judiciary are lawless and unconstitutional. We simply cannot amend the constitution every time the left decides to disregard it. We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.

I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny.

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful.

Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.