Skip to comments.Ross Mackenzie: Homosexual Marriage – There Likely Will Be an Amendment, But Not Yet
Posted on 07/14/2004 9:45:26 PM PDT by quidnunc
The congressional jockeying and debate so-called about a proposed constitutional amendment proscribing homosexual marriage (HM) has not solved much except to clarify where certain political lofties stand.
That's often the way it is on divisive issues.
Currently, one camp holds that the Constitution shouldn't be loaded down with such frippery an argument recalling perhaps nothing quite so much as a leading line years ago in the debate about the proposed equal rights amendment.
Lately pro-HMers have taken to contending that the question is best left to the states and never mind that Massachusetts, along with principally the city of San Francisco, has done so much to move the nation to its present divide.
What's more, leaving HM to the states is an odd construct for those who unrelentingly resist a diminished federal role in just about anything. Right now, for instance, many pro-HMers are flipping out over the Bush administration's proposal to rewrite a Clinton administration rule and return to the states the power to determine whether 60 million acres of national forest should be off-limits to road-building and logging.
And let us not overlook those who want to stand on both sides of every issue. John Kerry says he is for homosexual rights and homosexual civil unions, but against HM and a constitutional amendment forbidding it. This is the same John Kerry who voted in the 85-14 minority against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act signed even by President Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesdispatch.com ...
How about an amendment reading:
"Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require any state or the federal government to recognize any marriage except between a man and a woman."
Then Mass could allow HM and if two same sexers married and wanted to stay married then they would have to stay in Mass or some other state that also allowed HM.
We have to do MORE !!
We must BE AGAINST all things HOMO everywhere !
Tanks for your great post, quidnunc !
I think the modified wording is very close to one of the version of the amendments that would get voted on... Doing it this way would shoot down both the Federal *and* the State-level judicial activists.
You mean I need to dump my 2% HOMO-genized Milk too?
For now, let's just try to stop HOMOGAMY.
I heard on the news today (or maybe yesterday), that an altered version was being pressed, one that would allow states to have civil unions. It was reported that this version of the amendment would have had enough votes to pass, but the dems wouldn't allow it to be voted on -- knowing that the current version didn't have enough votes to pass.
It's astonishing and dismaying to see how much ground the homosexuals have gained in this country. Every step forward into cultural acceptance these people acheive represents a huge moral setback for America. Where is it all going to end?
Who are the RINOs other than McCain who voted for the homos on this vote?
>Who are the RINOs other than McCain who voted for the homos
>on this vote?
Good question. Anyone with this information, could you please list the names of all Republican senators who voted against this thing? These people have proven to be RINOs on one of the most significant issues facing this country and it's imperative that all true conservatives NOT vote for them come re-election day. Better to purge the party of this nonsense and let Dems control those seats so (a) we know where we stand and (b) a real conservative can run as a Republican.
Of all the things that RINOs have done in the past 4 years, this is one of the - if not the - worst.