What the ?? Fox News Says David Dreier and Tom DeLay Won't Support Amendment to Define Marriage?

FREEPers Everywhere

[Recovering_Democrat]

Can someone PLEASE explain to me? President Bush comes out on the RIGHT side of the culture war, to save marriage (whatever you might think of the Constitutional Amendment idea) and TWO of the biggest Republicans in the HOUSE are already poo-poohing the idea!!

I don't really care to hear Bush bashing or Republican Party bashing in general...I'd really LOVE to hear some ideas on why these guys aren't coming out and saying some GOOD things.

Geez, Bill Clinton was wrong on SO MUCH, and his party marched in lockstep to defend him nearly everyday. Today, finding a member of the leadership rushing to defend this President is like looking for hen's teeth.

[tomahawk]

It's not the federal judges shoving gay marriage down our throats, it's the state judges.

The only way to stop them from forcing gay marriage on all the other states via the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause is to amend the Constitution.

[fqued]

"The Defense of Marriage Act ensures that homo marriages in Vermont don't have to be recognized by Alabama."

But that is precisely the problem--the US Constitution is above the US laws, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause probably trumps the DMA. Thus, a gay "marriage" in Mass might be forced upon Alabama.

Therefore, an amendment would be a sure way to do what you want.

[bornintexas]

"Arrest the mayors and governors that are breaking the law"....


Just WHO is going to arrest them? That would be great, if that was what was happening. But it's not. Most of the areas that have this going on are largely DIM. The AG of California has already said he's not going to get into a hurry to EVEN LOOK INTO THE LAW BREAKING GOING ON. So, who's going to arrest anyone?

[over3Owithabrain]

This is so important we're not going to take a knee-jerk reaction to this," Delay said.
Way to go Delay, you moron. you just called the President's speech and stance this morning "knee jerk". You in essence backed Kerry and dissed Bush. With friends like these...

[jwalsh07]

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said he appreciated Bush's "moral leadership" on the issue, but expressed caution about moving too quickly toward a constitutional solution, and never directly supported one. "This is so important we're not going to take a knee-jerk reaction to this," Delay said. "We are going to look at our options and we are going to be deliberative about what solutions we may suggest."

However, California Republican Reps. David Dreier and Jerry Lewis said a constitutional amendment might not be necessary.

"I will say that I'm not supportive of amending the Constitution on this issue," said Dreier, a co-chairman of Bush's campaign in California in 2000. "I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary."

Lewis said, "At this moment I feel changing the Constitution should be a last resort on almost any issue."

Or three easy lessons on once again becoming the minority party.

[CA Conservative]

No problem. I get a little frustrated as well. While I agree that what they want to do is the proper method, the fact is that Congress is not going to start impeaching judges en masse, nor are they going to suddenly begin restricting the jurisdiction of judges. If they did that, they would have to actually begin taking unpopular stands (instead of letting judges do it for them), and that might affect their re-election chances.

[over3Owithabrain]

I'm absolutely amazed at the stupidity and reckless leadership of the GOP. If this was a football game I'd swear it was being thrown.

[Katya]

I am absolutely against this idea. The federal government has no business regulating state licensing of any kind. I believe this is a commerce law issue. States have differing laws regarding marriage already....age, waiting periods etc. What is at issue, is how these various laws will be accepted and addressed by other states.

[jwalsh07]

You and I occupy the same portion of the universe, the one where reality is the norm.

[madison10]

Because some conservatives believe the Constitution shouldn't be littered with ammendments to address every perceived ill.

Gay marriage is an issue that should be left for the states.

I tend to agree with them (DeLay & Dreier) on this. There is just too much to be done to get an amendment in the constitution.

Question: If there is a law is being broken, why isn't it enforced? Why wasn't the mayor of San Fran arrested? You know darn well if this was about someone getting a tad too close to an abortion clinic he/her butt would be in jail, pronto. What are the enforcers afraid of? Are the gay/leftist/liberals too loud & media-backed to fight?

[wylenetheconservative]

If this were a football game, the GOP would be under indictment for point shaving.

[PISANO]

Art III is fairly straight forward CONGRESS can make EXCEPTIONS and this could easily be one of them. Why then do they NOT?

[Guillermo]

Well, they can't impeach state judges.

They can impeach Federal judges. Those are the judges to whom I was referring.

[Trinity_Tx]

ambrose said: "The Defense of Marriage Act ensures that homo marriages in Vermont don't have to be recognized by Alabama.

CA Conservative replied: Until the 9th Circus oveturns DOMA on the Full Faith and Credit Clause...

The scotus, in Loughran v. Loughran, said that FCC didn't apply if the state explicitly prohibited the marriage through statute... so the FCC shouldn't be at issue for all these states who have done so.
What is likely is that the fed and each state's DOMAs will be overturned on the basis of equal protection or privacy (I agree that it's wrong, but that's the most likely scenario.)

CA Conservative also said: They are already planning this attack. DOMA has not been challenged because you first have to have gays with a marriage that is legally recognized in one state in order to sue for recognition in another state.

Exactly...

and... "Do you really trust the courts to uphold DOMA? The same courts that gave us Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas and upheld campaign finance reform? You have a lot more faith in them than I do."

Well said...

[puroresu]

****Or three easy lessons on once again becoming the minority party.****

Yep! For the GOP it's always one step forward and two steps back. I was elated when I heard that Bush would endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment. I should have known that within hours several GOP congressmen would start squirming and would provide Kerry and the 'Rats with the political cover to vote "no".

The Stupid Party earns its name again.

[duckln]

If Massachusetts says Adam and Steve are married..

The constitution already defines 'marriage'. One state can't change the definition. If they could, not one word in the constitution would have meaning.

W should issue a directive to stop the law breaking. If it's not followed, then send out the federals to lock them up. The congress should assert itself and get into the impeachment businness and start ridding us of partisan, treasonous judges, destroying the country.

[jwalsh07]

I am absolutely against this idea. The federal government has no business regulating state licensing of any kind. I believe this is a commerce law issue. States have differing laws regarding marriage already....age, waiting periods etc. What is at issue, is how these various laws will be accepted and addressed by other states

Now this, on the other hand, is from a parrallel universe where reality is not the norm.

Does the federal government have any business regualting Social security, medicare, medicaid or the Internal Revenue Service?

Because if they do, they have an interest in who marries whom. And remeber this, if homosexuals can marry, anybody can marry to access the federal teat.

In fact, unless this crap is stopped I plan on "marrying" my granddaughter before I check out so that she gets my SS survivors benefits.

[wylenetheconservative]

"Gay marriage is an issue that should be left for the states.

I tend to agree with them (DeLay & Dreier) on this. There is just too much to be done to get an amendment in the constitution.

Question: If there is a law is being broken, why isn't it enforced? Why wasn't the mayor of San Fran arrested? You know darn well if this was about someone getting a tad too close to an abortion clinic he/her butt would be in jail, pronto. What are the enforcers afraid of? Are the gay/leftist/liberals too loud & media-backed to fight?"


This kind of naivete is why we lose. This is all happening in liberal states, where the state officeholders WON'T ENFORCE THE LAW. That's why we need a constitutional amendment. This is nasty game, politics. We can't play by the Marcus of Queensbury rules while the Rats kick us in the groin.

[jwalsh07]

The constitution already defines 'marriage'. One state can't change the definition. If they could, not one word in the constitution would have meaning.

Why don't you post the relevant section of the US COnstitution backing that up.

[longtermmemmory]

HRC has activated or is planing on activating their phone tree. (good to know low places at courthouse)

They want to try and nip this in the bud. They are also propagandaing that support is failing. This despite the fact democrat senator Zell Miller has just joined as cosponsor of the senates FMA.

We have to email

http://www.house.gov

http://www.senate.gov

http://www.whitehouse.gov to push the other R's into line!