Posted on 07/14/2004 9:50:28 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
Edited on 07/14/2004 10:13:18 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The rate of VD will go up too. Better make sure your girlfriend was never bi.
'doesn't affect me directly' right
I think there is a greater chance of triggering a constitutional convention than there is of ever getting 60 votes for this in the US Senate. A constitutional convention may be what we should be pushing for.
"They already have tolerance....benefits..."
The issue of benefits is perhaps the best argument against gay marriage that I've heard of. Its also one of the main reasons why I don't think government should be involved with marriage - too much involvement by the government in our personal lives. The catholic church example's good. I guess if the church gets tax money to do their work (Faith-based initiative, which I support btw) then they should have to give benefits if it is required by law. However, its diametrically opposed to their views, which creates a serious burden for them. I don't have a very good solution for this.
Its interesting that they hired the gay guy in the first place. Discrimination based upon sexuality is not against the law. So it seems to me that they've taken it upon themselves to provide for that gay persons' spouse. Perhaps if the guy comes to them and says, "I'm gay - give me benefits" they could just fire him? They could in Virginia. They can fire you in Virginia for your taste in movies.
Possibly Vulnerable Democrats on this issue (IMO):
Baucus (MT)
Bayh (IN)
Breaux (LA-Not running for reelection)
Conrad (ND)
Daschle (SD)
Dorgan (ND)
Graham (FL)
Hollings (SC-Not running for reelection)
Johnson (SD)
Landrieu (LA)
Lincoln (AR)
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)
Rockefeller (WV)
Stabenow (MI)
The amendment wasn't about gay marriage. It was about protecting the traditional definition of marriage. If most Americans don't care about this amendment, that's because they naively don't understand why it is needed.
Frame the question in the right way, and they will support the amendment.
Imagine this conversation:
Q. "The Federal Marriage Amendment would prohibit polygamy. Are you for or against it?"
A. "Isn't polygamy already illegal?"
Q. "Yes, but the courts are setting the precedent to overturn it. An amendment to the Constitution would eliminate that possibility. Do you favor this?"
A. "Well, if that's the only way to keep polygamy illegal, then I support the amendment."
why?
good post. dittos!
Does anyone have the text of the proposed amendment? Does it outlaw gay marriage entirely, and ban any government from recognizing same, or does it simply state that the US Constitution shall not be construed to contain the right to gay marriage? The second option would stop federal judges from creating the right, while leaving the issue to the several states.
"Senators who wanted the matter left to the states?"
It's interesting how the left plays both sides of the "states rights" argument- recall the Texas sodomy law debate? We on the right have been guilty of that as well, but with the gay marriage issue, we know there will be no such thing as an individual state's right to define marriage, given the inevitable invocation of the Full Faith and Credit clause combined with our activist SCOTUS.
The ammendment does not act to limit the actions of individuals, they can shack up and call it whatever they like.
By defining marriage to one man/one woman it limits the federal government (and judiciary) from extending federal recognition and benefits willy nilly to any couple that demands it.
Senate Joint Resolution 40
Thanks. I appreciate it.
NAYs ---50 (the bad guys)
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCain (R-AZ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)
This is important because there are polygamist activists citing the Massachusetts ruling on gay marriage and Lawrence vs. Texas to argue for overturning polygamy laws.
There are other ways to solve this problem. A Constitutional Amendment was never the best idea.
Again the Senate has proven that they no longer support the American people. The anti-Americans in the US Senate remind one of the Imperial Senate of Rome - Anti-Country and self-preserving. The only way to fix the problem is the repeal the XVII Amendment to the Constitution and once again have the Senators appointed by the State Legislators, as the original Constitution called for. This is a club of elitist who think they are better that the people they serve and do not give a crap about the wishes of the American people.
REPEAL THE XVII AMENDMENT – Get some real Americans in the US Senate.
2004-01-13 Pro-Polygamists ponder 'Legalization' case News PRESS RELEASE
Old Orchard Beach, Maine --- Even though pro-polygamists usually argue for "de-criminalization" of anti-polygamy laws, one state attorney has taken the initiative to file a lawsuit to get polygamy "legalized" in Utah. The particular case involves no crime --- only a married man being denied a marriage license to legally marry a second wife.
[...]
The lawsuit asserts that, by denying the marriage license, the clerks violated the claimants' First Amendment right to practice their religion. According to the suit, "The sincere and deeply held religious major tenet of the beliefs of J. Bronson, D. Cook and G. Lee Cook are that the doctrine of plural marriage, i.e., a man having more than one wife, is ordained of God and is to be encouraged and practiced."
Mark Henkel, national polygamy advocate and founder of the Christian polygamy --- non-Mormon --- organization, TruthBearer.org ( www.TruthBearer.org ), was not surprised by the news. "We had known that some individual Utah Mormon polygamists were preparing to advance this 'legalization' route in the courts."
He notes that Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans specifically guarantee "de-criminalization" of polygamy, overturning all anti-polygamy laws for consenting adults. Henkel said, "The Utah attorney definitely has a big job ahead of him to pursue the 'legalization' route, though --- especially when combining that with the 'freedom of religion' argument."
[...]
Pro-Polygamy.com ™ Helping the Media & Information-gatherers by providing news, reports, and insights from the pro-polygamy view.
Providing for the common defense is part of protecting individual liberty, a term which does not limit itself to protection from domestic threats. "Providing for the common good" is a much much broader concept than is contemplated by our Constitution.
Had the "capitation tax" in the original Constitution not been mucked with, and had the government not unconstitutionally started taking money from one group to give to another, these things would not be an issue.
I have lots more thoughts on the issue, but I doubt that anyone would care to hear them.
Marriage is integrated into our civil laws, some state and some federal. How can gay-marriage be a state issue when there are federal implications?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.