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.

[Dolphy]

I wish people would think this through. It is the Socialist agenda to kill the Republic and have the states melt away.. this only helps them

I am thinking it through, that's why I asked the question. I actually don't become as apocalyptic as some here regarding gay and lesbian marriage. I do however become highly agitated with judges carrying the ball for a minority that has failed to convince me that they are unduly or irreversibly wronged. (With the exception of Social Security and tax benefits most other grievances can be addressed legally. And things like health coverage are being addressed by the free market.)

[nobody_knows]

I suggest we all change our tag lines to indicate that! moral coward

[cyncooper]

Your absolutely right an admendment is neccesary for the specific purpose of preventing the courts from legislating from the bench.

Tell Rush. He was ranting and raving about this today and being mighty aggravating.

[FlipWilson]

Freeped and freeped again!!! I called the congressman's office and was told he has not taken an official position yet. I told his aide that he should support the President and if not, then I had two words for him. . .President Kerry.

To all the gloom and doomers out there. What is important here is not a constitutional amendment. What is important is that the President has staked a solid poisiton on this issue, and more generally, on the issue of judicial activism. This is a win win situation for the President, regardless of whether the amendment passes or not. Kerry has already been forced off of the fence. Drier and DeLay stand with the President on the issue of same sex marriage, they just may differ in approach. They will come around quickly once they realize the courts are not going to do a damn thing and WILL shoot down the DOMA.

[MinuteGal]

Fellow conservatives....we DON'T want a constitutional amendment! It could take up to seven years, and then not even pass. It opens the door to liberal mischief because a constitutional convention will allow other amendments to be offered, not only the one WE like.

Finally, as Rush said today, this is not a federal issue, it's a STATE'S RIGHTS ISSUE.

I'll add my own point......arrest the mayors and governors breaking the marriage laws and put them behind bars till they learn we're serious about protecting our country, upholding our laws and maintaining our Constitutional Republic system we see slipping away in increments.

WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE ALL THIS ANY MORE!!!!

Leni

[CA Conservative]

Pigs don't fly and the political will does not exist in Congress to order judges off marriage.

Exactly my point. It would be nice, but it ain't gonna happen that way. At least with an amendment, Congress can throw some of the heat to the states.

[duckln]

only way to stop one court

How about making up a list of 50 judges who violate the law and constitution? Then, impeach them enmass.

Now that's what I would call 'checks and balances'.

[devane617]

Didn't ALGORE say he believes the Constitution is a "living" document whose meaning changes with time? If it is amended, the left will alter the meaning to fit the need.

[tomahawk]

The U.S. Constitution requires that every state give full faith and credit to other states' determinations.

If Massachusetts says Adam and Steve are married, Tennessee would be required to treat them as married when they move here.

Amending the U.S. Constititution is the only way to protect marriage as it has existed since the dawn of civilization, as between a man and woman.

[The KG9 Kid]

They believe it to be a 'States Right' issue as defined under the 10th Amendment, evidently, if this is true.

I can't say that I don't agree; Adding a Constitutional Amendment to address this orchestrated 'Gay Marriage' baloney is overkill.

Besides, we all know how no-one takes Constitutional Amendments seriously. If they were to use the phrase 'the people' in the proposed amendment, the Ninth Circuit Court may short-circuit itself by ruling that it means that only two heterosexual states of different sexes can marry one another.

In this case, I'm thinking Texas and Maryland becoming 'Man and Wife'.

[wylenetheconservative]

This issue has to be EXPLOITED. The Rats are GIVING US the election if we are man enough to take it. The public is against gay marriage. STRONG ACTION like this shows the public that the GOP is also against gay marriage. It removes the ambiguity for John Q. Public. All the talk of tax policy and interest rates will muddy the waters for John Q., but on this issue the contrast will be blaring: Vote Republican to keep these disgusting homosexuals from marrying, vote Democrat to allow them to. This issue can win us a landslide if we are man enough to take it.

[Guillermo]

There is no doubt that Congress has failed, because they have the power to rein in wacko judges.

But, anytime any Congressman says anything about judicial activism, the left screams "you're violating judicial independence" and those in the Wimp Party back off.

[CA Conservative]

It opens the door to liberal mischief because a constitutional convention will allow other amendments to be offered, not only the one WE like.

False statement. The only way this is true if 3/4 of the states vote to open a constitutional convention. That is different than 3/4 of the states ratifying a particular amendment. In the first case, everything is up for grabs. In the second case, only the particular amendment submitted by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress can be considered.

I'll add my own point......arrest the mayors and governors breaking the marriage laws and put them behind bars till they learn we're serious about protecting our country, upholding our laws and maintaining our Constitutional Republic system we see slipping away in increments.

Nice sentiment. But in case you haven't noticed, this is all taking place in heavily liberal states, where the people in power agree with the gays on this issue. So there is no political will to arrest and jail these people, and the Feds have no jurisdiction to enforce state and local laws. So the states involved won't do what you suggest, and the Feds can't. Checkmate.

[Cboldt]

This issue can win us a landslide if we are man enough to take it.

If you believe that, then better to save the issue for closer to the election. The attention span of the public is short. Events of summer will be long forgotten come the first Tuesday in November.

[fqued]

"Use Article III of the Constitution to restrict the purview of the federal courts."


Interestingly enough, this may not work. Congress can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It is not at all clear to me as a lawyer, that congress could limit the purview of the district and appellate courts. One might argue that that should follow from the Constitution, but that is not precisely what it says.

[over3Owithabrain]

Thank you for post 67. I'm saying the same thing. The F'n GOP can't get out of their own way! One party is coordinated in this election, the other is listing about.

[deport]

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."

[Dane]

There is no doubt that Congress has failed, because they have the power to rein in wacko judges.

How can Congress impeach wacko state judges. Only state legislatures can do that.

And I don't think the demo controlled CA and MA legislatures are going to impeach them.

[Always Right]

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

Maybe it should be, but a few judges are the ones overruling the will of the people.

[jwalsh07]

Sorry I misunderstood. There are a bunch of folks here at FR who believe that the impeaching judges or ordering them off marriage is the proper way to go and the marriage amendment is verboten.

And they still believe it after witnessing the fait accompli in Massachusetts and the reluctance of legislators and judges in Ca and MAss to uphold the law.

It's driving me nuts and making me too quick on the draw. Again, my apologies.