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

FREEPers Everywhere

[jwalsh07]

The United States is a Federal Republic! Each state should decide.

Ambrose, my man, you've got blinders on. Marriage can not have 50 different meanings in a country with a federal government that controls the public treasury vis a via marriage.

[Cboldt]

given the choice of having activist judges obliterate the framework of our government and country, or voting for an amendment, I will take the amendment now, thank you.

I'm not okay with leaving defective judges in place, and trying to rein them in with more text. They'll just find some twisted logic to piss all over the new words.

[bornintexas]

Sorry...didn't realize you were just dreaming. I'd like to dream that the Repubs would stand up to the Dims just once in my lifetime, also. I have been on a rant since this news came out about Drier and DeLay. Didn't mean to take it out on ya.

[savedbygrace]

Here's the real answer, whether those two politicos realize it or not.

Unless there is true and sweeping revival in the land, no amount of legislating, amending, or administering will keep us from falling farther and farther in the sewer.

An amendment to the Constitution won't rescue us unless the hearts of the people are turned back to righteousness.

Now that's good preachin'.

[Terry Mross]

It could be that attempting to get a constitutional amendment passed, which is very difficult, will only legitimize gay marriage if the attemtpt fails. Maybe these guys no a little more than we're giving them credit for.

Let's suppose an attempt is made to modify the constitution and fails. All of the "pro" gay marriage forces will be shouting in one voice, "See? The people are for gay marriage!" Now, you're stuck with it.

I, for one, agree with Delay. All we need to do is enforce the current laws. And like the previous poster said, "One state doesn't have to recognize the other 'weird' states' laws."

[duckln]

My old Webster says ' ..the social institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of legal dependence for founding and maintaining a family'.

Everyone knows what it means, and what people have determined it to mean is put into the dictionary. The constitution doesn't define each word. How could you define a word with undefined words? You enter into this with good faith where 'yes' and 'no' have meaning.

[SolidSupplySide]

Here's an informative quote from your article:

First, marriages that are contracted by domiciliaries of the forum state in another state for the express purpose of evading the law of the forum state are deemed invalid.

Gays can't get married in other jurisdictions just to get around the laws in their home state. And we have US Supreme Court case law to back up this.

[rintense]

How can you say that when the very document itself has to be defended from activist judges? I guarantee you that if gay marriage is made legal, you can kiss the Constitution goodbye. We're aleady seeing judges making their own laws. Who or what is going to stop them from continuing these actions if gay marriage becomes legal? You want to talk about a slippery slope... Having people, elected officials and judges make their OWN laws should scare the bejesus outta everyone here.

IMO, this amendment would protect the Constitution, not weaken it.

[longtermmemmory]

Red herring examples. All of those involve either children, polygamy, or some form of fraud.

NONE of those adress two adults who are not engaged in fraud.

Real money is on judges ruling that two adults of the same sex do not impose on any governemnt interest and doma violates that.

A mere law is too weak and too "tweakable". A FMA will stop the politica BS from the left and homosexuals.

BTW: ALL: beware of disinformation trolls. They HRC and other homowacko groups seek to suggest various grounds to not ammend under the guise of conservatism.

The FMA codifies the EXISTING LAW. It puts in black letter law marriage is one man and one woman. It fulfills the removal of the issue from judges. It puts the remaining questions of civil unions where they should have stayed. individual states, individually.

Beware trolls. (Not you Trinity_Tx) Just be alert folks. We hit a nerve today.

[rintense]

Well, I'd bounce the judges, period. If they are appointed, impeach them. If they are elected, arrest them for not following the law.

Activist judges MUST be stopped. Period.

[jwalsh07]

Read Loughran v. Loughran.

Read Lawrence v Texas, in the interim between Loughran and Lawrence, homosexuality has become a transcendent libert right decreed and protected by SCOTUS.

[longtermmemmory]

No you are misinterpiting the cases. The cases are founded on fraud and involveing children.

If what you say was true, Las Vegas weddings would be out of business.

Nice try, no cigar.

[puroresu]

*****Did you call Delays office?*****

Not yet, but only because I'm at work right now!

I'll call his office and Dreier's tomorrow. These guys need to hear from us.

[kabar]

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

This is the same line being spouted by most of the weasel politicians like Kerry. The Federal Government must get involved. Kerry has taken the dodge that most of the politicians have used, i.e., "although I am personally against same sex marriage, it is up to the individual states to decide." Kerry also says his position is the same as Dick Cheney's.

The question I would pose to Kerry and those like yourself who share his position, is how do you handle same sex marriages (or even polygamy) in terms of social security, federal pensions, federal survivor benefits, etc.?

The point is that the Federal Government cannot avoid the issue or stick its head in the sand. It needs to have a definition of marriage in order to administer social security, federal pension plans, and survivors benefits just to name a few. I wish the press or someone would raise this aspect of the issue whenever guys like Kerry or yourself provide glib responses about it being a states' rights issue.

Please let me know how you would address these issues.

[BnBlFlag]

If Texas has to recognize Mass. gay "marraiges", shouldn't they have to recognize Texas' CCW law?

[jwalsh07]

The constitution already defines 'marriage'

Did you say this or was it one of the other Faces of Eve?

[Melas]

This is absolutely false. FF&C cannot force a state to violate its own laws. If Tennessee does not recognize gay marriage, a gay marriage from another state is null and void in Tennessee.

Totally false. For example: A handful of states allow first cousins to marry. A marriage that is proscribed in the vast majority of states. However, once married, that cousin/couple is married in all 50 states.

[SolidSupplySide]

If what you say was true, Las Vegas weddings would be out of business.

How so? If my marriage would be valid in Texas, but the legal ceremony was done in Nevada, Texas would have to honor my Nevada marriage due to FF&C.

Only if my marriage is *NOT LEGAL* in Texas would Texas be exempt from FF&C.

[jwalsh07]

If Texas has to recognize Mass. gay "marraiges", shouldn't they have to recognize Texas' CCW law?

LOL, for the same reason that the left is screaming about states rights for homoseuxal marriage but were silent when SCOTUS took the powers from the state of Texas to legislate sodomy laws.

[SolidSupplySide]

If Texas has to recognize Mass. gay "marraiges", shouldn't they have to recognize Texas' CCW law?

No. Legal precedent is clear. FF&C cannot force a state to violate its own laws. That is why so many states are defining marriage via statute. That way, they are exempt from FF&C obligations.