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

That never addressed my question, though.

Please---I have *no* faith in the courts. But I do not think that states will automatically recognize a gay marriage. There's never been one in this country, though they've existed in parts of Europe for years.

And though I won't bet money on it (and I do support a const. amendment), I think there's about a 50-50 chance that the USSC will simply hold that "marriage" applies only to the union of one man and one woman.

I wasn't aware the federal DOMA had been overruled by federal judges, although it won't surprise me to see that happen. Thus we don't need to impeach any federal judges . . . yet . . . on this particular issue. Some Mass. judges already deserve such and some in California will likely join the list shortly. As the current US Senate is a hopeless forum for such action - it would likely try to turn the guilty into martyrs and elevate Sen. Kerry in the process - I don't advise trying that there until after the election. Trying to pass laws which include clauses limiting court's appellate jurisdiction would be a better short turn federal strategy.

there has been a lot of speculation on the blogosphere as to why DeLay has been lukewarm in his support, the two common themes:

- congressional leaders don't think this will pass so they don't want to be associated with a failure to get this bill through the Congress

- there is considerable pressure from Republicans outside of very conservative areas to minimize this issue. Republicans in tight races in places like the northeast and northwest could be damaged by this issue and it has the potential to divide the party in an election year.

Just speculation, but it sounds reasonable.

Now everyone knows what Married is! If not, it's in Websters. There it says man and woman. It couldn't be clearer.

Of course we still haven't seen the courts define what is a man or a woman. What about those who have had sex change operations? What about hermphrodites. What about those who via genetic defect would be difficult to classify into either sex? For example, would the proposed constitutional amendment ban any marriage by hermaphrodites?

What if people disguise their sexuality? Today if "Pat" jones and John Smith apply for a marriage license, and "Pat" is dressed as a woman, they likely would be able to marry. Will we require a DNA test in the future before granting a marriage license? Will we need to set up a federal law enforcement agency charged with rooting out gay marriage?

I fear we're going down a road that will make things even more overly complicated than they are today, and that will make it far more difficult for heterosexuals to marry.

While I appreciate the idea behind a Defense of Marriage amendment, I also believe that it would be ineffectual in halting the devolution of our culture, and of no practical legal use as well. Our culture will continue to deteriorate, and the same liberal judges that routinely ignore the clear and unambiguous language of the 1st, 2nd and 10th Amendments will simply do the same with the 28th Amendment.

The rot in American society is rooted in bad philosophy - resulting in bad ideas dutifully transmitted by the Mis-educational Establishment. These ideas are then promoted by politically-motivated judges in violation of their power and jurisdiction, and with the complicity of the executive and legislative branches. Against this backdrop, I fail to see how any Constitutional amendment will be of much use.

That never addressed my question, though.

When did you ask me a question?

Nonetheless, I hope you can see how silly it is to say this...

"The constitution already defines 'marriage'."

...on a thread about amending the Constitution to define marriage.

Of course we still haven't seen the courts define what is a man or a woman. What about those who have had sex change operations? What about hermaphrodites. What about those who via genetic defect would be difficult to classify into either sex? For example, would the proposed constitutional amendment ban any marriage by hermaphrodites?

Everything I know of , when aggregated, form a 'bell curve'. Males and females have theirs. At both ends of the curve are those 'difficult to classify' and special consideration is required. The approx 98% in the center of the curves, can marry. Others can have 'civil unions', 'partnerships' or whatever.

The main difference is that we want couples to rear the next generation. The females bear the children and provide a 'home' for the family. She needs the longterm protection, assistance and finacial support of the male. The marriage contract does this. Homosextuals and lesbians, both working, don't need the same protection

. But other contracts or licenses can be made and I think should, but not marriage. That would just basterdize the language.

That would be my general outline. Laws are written for 'groups', not individuals.

What if people disguise their sexuality? Today if "Pat" jones and John Smith apply for a marriage license, and "Pat" is dressed as a woman, they likely would be able to marry. Will we require a DNA test in the future before granting a marriage license? Will we need to set up a federal law enforcement agency charged with rooting out gay marriage?

When I got married we had to go to a Doctor for a blood test and examination. This should be re-instituted IMO.

I fear we're going down a road that will make things even more overly complicated than they are today, and that will make it far more difficult for heterosexuals to marry

It's not difficult now if you can afford a license. Adding an examination has more benefits than not.