Constitutional Amendments

[cvq3842]

Some people say they oppose a constitutional amendment defining marriage as it has been traditionally understood on the grounds that amendments should expand rights, not limit them. But some state constitutions have provisions prohibiting poligamy also. Should these "restrictions" be removed as well? If future state court decisions make a constitutional amendment banning poligamy necessary, would it be opposed on the same grounds? But the real, underlying question, IMHO, is the balance of powers between the legislature and the judiciary.

Just some thoughts.

[Piquaboy]

The reason that I don't care for this particular ammendment is that it takes to long. This perversion needs to be brought to a stop as soon as possible. Like maybe enforcing laws already on the books.

[sr4402]

Hi cvq3842,

I agree with you, folks are missing whats behind this gy marriage movement. They don't see the impact on children and the perversity it will spread across this nation. It would make the Holocaust pale in comparison. But you might want to post in Campaign Central at this is news/activism and a news article is required. You might want to find an news article that references what you are talking about and put your comments after it to gain attention.

Good hunting.

SR

[King Black Robe]

In our relativist world, one persons rights expansion is another persons ban. In other words: only one side can win. Some things are mutually exclusive. If we do not define marriage clearly, then we have banned a clear definition of marriage; or put differently, we have banned the traditional view of marriage. Even if some places allow it, the federal view would be that marriage does not matter enough to defend its traditional meaning.

All the left has done is exactly what I have described. We promote an amendment to DEFINE marriage as it has been defined by every human civilization that has ever existed (it took the nutcases of today to decide it needed redefining from its clear correlation to natural design) and they have decide to REDEFINE our amendment. Call them the redefinition patrol. Of course, defining marriage with clarity (again, something never needed until the redefiners came along) could be construed as banning absolutely ANYTHING that does not fit the definition. Maybe it's the BAN POLYGAMY AMENDMENT. It could be called the BAN INTER-SPECIES AMENDMENT. Anything really.

We've got to start calling these jokers on their symantic games. They've taken their relativism to new heights. Now they can't even find the meaning of long understood words -- so much so that the rational among us must promote defining constitutional amendments. It's pitiful that it has come to this.

Let's just accuse them of wanting to ban dictionaries.

[contessa machiaveli]

if we really wanted to support traditional marriage and the family we'd outlaw divorce, this is an absurd non-issue for both bush and kerry. this nonsense is trivializing the constitution, let the states take care of it.
i think there are more important issues to be dealing with and rather than galvanize anyone's base it will send moderates into third parties.
the economy, the WOT....those are important!

[contessa machiaveli]

if we really wanted to support traditional marriage and the family we'd outlaw divorce, this is an absurd non-issue for both bush and kerry. this nonsense is trivializing the constitution, let the states take care of it.
i think there are more important issues to be dealing with and rather than galvanize anyone's base it will send moderates into third parties.
the economy, the WOT....those are important!

[Piquaboy]

I agree completely. All it would take,I think, is a jail sentence for several and the rest would get the word.

[King Black Robe]

Economy? WOT? They are all improved by a civilization with ordered liberty. Society seeks order. That's just the nature of human interaction. The question is, who will do the ordering? The people or a few elites? Deciding how to define our most basic social institutions is no small matter, and greatly affects our success in every other area of human endeavor.

When you go with elites like justices it is particularly unfair because the petitioning side has the advantage. All they need to do is keep suing in different forums until they win. In many cases they need only one win. Roe and Lawrence for example. The defensive side must win every single time or they lose it all.

[KC_for_Freedom]

That, and impeaching judges who attempt to make laws from the bench instead of interpreting existing law. The judiciary has gotten drunk with power, and it's about time the other two branches reigned them in.

This is why the left selected this issue, which sounds a lot like a case for judical review. Only they should be in jail until the review is complete. The problem is that without a clear constitutional statement, (which has been left out of the constitution because the founders did not want to put minutia in the constitution) these lower judges can make their rulings. Judicial review takes a long time too, like a constitutional ammendment. When we get a supreme court judge who specifically crosses the constitution, we get a case for impeachment, but since it affects the checks and balances it has to be a really clear distinction. And don't forget, it needs a two thirds majority in the senate, something that could also put new conservative justices on the bench.

[King Black Robe]

In many ways judges have the most power of all over us. Their rulings are final but for grand and difficult actions like constitutional amendments and judicial impeachments. They do not answer to voters (most of them). When they do, frequently they can't even talk about their views during their campaigns. That's why it is so VITAL to our government of the people, by the people, and for the people that judges do not get away with legislating from the bench. When they do, the people and their representatives have little recourse.

[leprechaun9]

When anarchy is permitted, and encouraged to spread across the country, with limited opposition from the law enforcement agencies, why does anyone believe that those same anarchists would follow a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT?

[cvq3842]

Thanks for suggestion. I'm still kinda new here . . .

[cvq3842]

Good points all!

There is a lot of evidence of societal harm from this, and future proposed steps. Also, I thought much of the gay rights movement was "live and let live" - now the demand is for the social and financial benefits of a very specific state-sponsored relationship. Non-discrimination and support are not the same thing. Heck, single people can't be discriminated against in housing and employment, yet marriage BY ITS VERY DEFINITION denies single people its benefits, which has never been held illegal. But that's the point of marriage - to support a set of parents having children! Biology dictates a lot here. Duh!

The other issue is the increasing power of the courts. Even a constitutional amendment would be ignored somehow, absolutely. (Remember "campaign finance reform?") I believe our system is self-correcting - maybe term limits for judges or more frequent constitutional amendments will become the norm - but IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THAT WAY! Are we going backwards to the days of "indirect democracy," like when state legislatures picked senators? The people only get to pick the executive and legislature, not the important people - the judges! Why is the burden on those keeping the status quo to get the amendment? This is a dangerous, dangerous trend no matter what you think of this one issue.

But I'll take it all back if I can find a federal judge who will let me pay the IRS in Monopoly money. I'm sure there's no statute expressly saying "you can't pay your taxes in Monopoly money." Maybe we need a constitutional amendment on that too! LOL!

:)

[King Black Robe]

But I'll take it all back if I can find a federal judge who will let me pay the IRS in Monopoly money. I'm sure there's no statute expressly saying "you can't pay your taxes in Monopoly money." Maybe we need a constitutional amendment on that too! LOL!

LOL! I love that.

[Consort]

At this point in time, it looks like the bad guys are going to win this one.

[cvq3842]

:)

[cvq3842]

But remember - liberals protest loudly, conservatives (and yes, the "silent majority") just quietly make sure to change their vote to Republican. The country does not want this, IMHO.

I don't think the African-American community - who votes about 90% Democrat - enjoy the analogy being made between gay rights and the civil rights struggle of the 50s and 60s. (And affirmative action is a whole other can of worms!) I was actually going to log back on tho say that sometimes the courts have "paved the way" on certain issues - like in Brown v Board of Ed., striking down "separate but equal" segregation. But wasn't that decision merely correcting the initial judicial activism which created "separate but equal" (in the Plessy v Ferguson decision) to start with? That wasn't in the Constitution, but by golly a court read it in there! Whatever. I'm gonna remember that one when some liberal brings up judicial activism!