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

FREEPers Everywhere

[rintense]

You are 100% correct, G.

[longtermmemmory]

HOKEY SMOKES

KERRY JUST FLIPPED ON THE FMA!!!!

CNN radio news just had a kerry soundbyte with him supporting the amendment! He said an amendment that "provides" for civil unions is a good amendment.

flip/flop
flip/flop

Kerry must have (stick finger in wind) polling numbers that show this is a dealbreaker voting issue.

[ambrose]

I'd rather that our Constitution not be littered with ridiculous amendments to address the burning passions of the moment.

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

People who support this amendment are leading us down the slippery slope which will ultimately lead to the destruction of the Republic.

[rintense]

"I believe this should go through the courts, and I think we are at a point where this is not necessary," Dreier said.

But if left unchallenged, it WILL get to this point, Mr. Dreier. Look at what's happened around the country since SF decided to break the law-- New Mexico, Michigan-- everywhere gays are lining up to defy established laws. An amendment must be put forth, and put forth now.

[puroresu]

Yeah. In a few years we'll have gay "marriage" in all 50 states, mandated by the federal courts. We'll have textbooks depicting smiling gay couples to our kids as role models, mandated by federal officials. We'll have restaurants being dragged into federal court because they didn't make their Valentine's day specials available to gay couples. We'll have the narrow 5-4 Supreme Court ruling upholding the Boy Scouts' rights being overturned. We'll have churches being marginalized, banned from taking part in certain faith based programs, and then hauled into federal court with a threat of their tax exemption being revoked because of their "bigoted" opposition to "gay marriage". We'll have a whole new class of new beneficiaries for various social security type programs.

But hey....we can at least say we didn't threaten states' rights by passing the Federal Marriage Amendment.

[longtermmemmory]

Judges do not remove authority from the bench. A judge will determing the validity of laws limiting their own power.

A law that limits a constitutinal provision will be overturned. The legislature limits the courts by CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT not laws.

[madison10]

Thanks, you answered my questions. It's a helpless feeling when those assigned to protect the laws are busy breaking them and the citizens have no recourse. Guess that leaves some major action by the President.

So WHY are DeLary & Dreier against this then?

[rintense]

Well let's see here. We can either amend the Constitution now, or wait until every activist judge pisses on it and it means nothing. Because that is what will happen if liberals have their way. Every single one of us should recognize this issue for what it is- and it isn't gay marriage. It is the continued assault on the rule of law, and the very document you are saying to leave alone.

So, given the choice of having the framework of our government and country, or vote for an amendment, I will take the amendment now, thank you.

[onyx]

Oh-oh Ambrose, here we go again. :) Different sides. LOL!

How can following the Constitution's provisions for amending it, lead us down the slippery slope?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Howlin, this is for you:

There are two paths to constitutional amendment, only one of them involves a convention. The proposal endorsed today DOES NOT involve a convention.


133 posted on 02/24/2004 3:37:02 PM PST by Petronski

[rintense]

Read #148.

[ambrose]

Why not a narrowly tailored amendment which addresses political activism by judges? As opposed to the sledge hammer to kill a fly approach?

[swampfox98]

What other means are there to prevent courts from legalizing same-sex marriages?

Throw the rogue judges and mayors in jail. That would stop them from breaking the law. An amendment will take years, and the deed would already be long done. Jail is faster.

[longtermmemmory]

If anyone has any doubt about the truth of your comment, there was a FR thread on an article that school districts were forbidding text book writers from showing white males in positions of authority. In essense no white male lawyer/doctor/judge/official pictures/drawings in children's books. OR if they do appear, a "balancing" contrary picture. IOW a depiction quota.

Homosexuals will demand 1/2 depiction quota for their 1%.

Next they will demand you children see continuous pictures of homoexuals kissing for sensitivity training. It is about recruiting children.

[rintense]

Whoops! Should read like this:

So, 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.

[jwalsh07]

Yeah. In a few years we'll have gay "marriage" in all 50 states, mandated by the federal courts. We'll have textbooks depicting smiling gay couples to our kids as role models, mandated by federal officials. We'll have restaurants being dragged into federal court because they didn't make their Valentine's day specials available to gay couples. We'll have the narrow 5-4 Supreme Court ruling upholding the Boy Scouts' rights being overturned. We'll have churches being marginalized, banned from taking part in certain faith based programs, and then hauled into federal court with a threat of their tax exemption being revoked because of their "bigoted" opposition to "gay marriage". We'll have a whole new class of new beneficiaries for various social security type programs.

But hey....we can at least say we didn't threaten states' rights by passing the Federal Marriage Amendment.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so damn sad.

Did you call Delays office?

[Melas]

Because, regardless of where you stand on homosexuals and marriage, the constitution wasn't penned to manage the behavior of citizens. It exists to limit the powers of government. This proposed amendemnt is not only wrong, it's a constitutional travesty.

[Trinity_Tx]

Here's a snippet from an informative document... (I just skimmed it, but it should help us figure all this out)

Despite the basic rule that a marriage valid where contracted is valid everywhere, the courts and validation statutes have universally recognized a number of exceptions, which may be condensed and simply stated as follows:

A marriage valid where contracted will nevertheless not be recognized as valid in the forum state if such recognition would be contrary to a strong public policy of the forum state. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws 283(2) comment f (1971) (marriage valid where contracted will be recognized as valid everywhere unless it violates the strong public policy of another state which has the most significant relationship to the spouses of the marriage);
e.g., Fattibene v. Fattibene, 183 Conn. 433, 441 A.2d 3 (1981) (Connecticut need not recognize marriage that violates strong public policy of state);
In re Estate of Loughmiller, 229 Kan. 584, 629 P.2d 156 (1981) (listing exceptions to validation statute, including marriage that is polygamous, incestuous, or prohibited by the state for public policy reason);
K. v. K., 90 Misc. 2d 183, 393 N.Y.S.2d 534 (Fam. Ct. 1977) (court called upon to decide whether law of Poland, which requires civil ceremony in addition to religious ceremony, was repugnant to law of New York);
Kelderhaus v. Kelderhaus, 21 Va. App. 721, 467 S.E.2d 303 (1996) (general statement that marriage's validity is to be determined by law of state where marriage took place, unless result would be repugnant to Virginia public policy).

There's a lot more...

Anyway, I think we need to focus on the real weakness... Because of the above case law, I wouldn't expect the challenges to come based on FCC. But I wouldn't count on the "defined statute" clause to protect states who have them...

I'd expect the gays to challenge all the DOMAs, state and federal, saying they impede their favorite foggy federal rights - privacy and equal protection.

Avoiding that is why so many want the definitions codified in the US constitution via an amendment.

[longtermmemmory]

No judge will be put in jail for ruling on the law. You need proof of intentional deciet or corruption (bribery).

Esoteric arguments have NEVER removed or will remove a judge.

Be useful and send emails to Congress to get the FMA faster.

[rintense]

Why not both?

You know, Bush's speech today basically opens the door for him to make recess appointments. I think every American would support such action, based on the crap we're seeing in SF and Mass. GWB may have killed two birds with one stone today.

[mewzilla]

We're not just talking about one fly. We're talking about LOTS of flies :) Forget the flyswatter and go straight for the Raid. They'll multiply while you're trying to act with restraint.