Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage
The Volokh Conspiracy ^ | June 6, 2006 | Dale Carpenter

Posted on 06/01/2006 8:28:01 AM PDT by Sunsong

Today the Cato Institute is publishing a paper I've written on why a federal amendment banning gay marriage is a bad idea, even if you oppose gay marriage. Of course, if you think recognizing same-sex marriages is a good idea, that's a strong reason by itself to oppose an amendment banning them. This paper is written for conservatives and moderates who either oppose or are unsure about same-sex marriage. Here's the executive summary:

Members of Congress have proposed a constitutional amendment preventing states from recognizing same-sex marriages. Proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment claim that an amendment is needed immediately to prevent same-sex marriages from being forced on the nation. That fear is even more unfounded today than it was in 2004, when Congress last considered the FMA. The better view is that the policy debate on same-sex marriage should proceed in the 50 states . . . .

A person who opposes same-sex marriage on policy grounds can and should also oppose a constitutional amendment foreclosing it, on grounds of federalism, confidence that opponents will prevail without an amendment, or a belief that public policy issues should only rarely be determined at the constitutional level.

There are four main arguments against the FMA. First, a constitutional amendment is unnecessary because federal and state laws, combined with the present state of the relevant constitutional doctrines, already make court-ordered nationwide same-sex marriage unlikely for the foreseeable future. An amendment banning same-sex marriage is a solution in search of a problem.

Second, a constitutional amendment defining marriage would be a radical intrusion on the nation's founding commitment to federalism in an area traditionally reserved for state regulation, family law. There has been no showing that federalism has been unworkable in the area of family law.

Third, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would be an unprecedented form of amendment, cutting short an ongoing national debate over what privileges and benefits, if any, ought to be conferred on same-sex couples and preventing democratic processes from recognizing more individual rights.

Fourth, the amendment as proposed is constitutional overkill that reaches well beyond the stated concerns of its proponents, foreclosing not just courts but also state legislatures from recognizing same-sex marriages and perhaps other forms of legal support for same-sex relationships. Whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage as a matter of policy, no person who cares about our Constitution and public policy should support this unnecessary, radical, unprecedented, and overly broad departure from the nation's traditions and history.

The paper goes into some detail responding to the common arguments for a federal amendment on this issue, most prominently the facile judicial-activism argument. You can read the whole thing here. While there is a reasonable (though ultimately unpersuasive) argument to be made against gay marriage as a policy matter, the case for a constitutional amendment is very weak. And it is weak for good conservative reasons.

I'll be in Washington on Monday speaking to Cato and the Center for American Progress, as well as to congressional staff, about the proposed amendment. When the schedule is available publicly, I may update this post to let you know more.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: cato; crevolist; fma; gaymarriage; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexuals; leftists; liberals; liberaltarians; libertarians; perverts; pervertspervert; quislings; samesexmarriage; traitors; wadlist; warongenesis; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-350 next last

1 posted on 06/01/2006 8:28:07 AM PDT by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

Ah, the Gato Institute chimes in.


2 posted on 06/01/2006 8:32:59 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
The paper goes into some detail responding to the common arguments for a federal amendment on this issue, most prominently the facile judicial-activism argument.

I don't guess it can be construed as an agenda when the author so easily dismisses the "facile" judicial-activism argument. This is just another example of how the perverse among us will try to sell the lie that the cure is worse than the malady in order to ensure the malady spreads to the point where it can't be cured.

3 posted on 06/01/2006 8:37:15 AM PDT by trebb ("I am the way... no one comes to the Father, but by me..." - Jesus in John 14:6 (RSV))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
First of all,I don't think that the Federal government can "ban" homosexual "marriage".About all it can do is prevent such "marriages" from being recognized when dealing with the Feds,e.g.,using it to get the marriage deduction on your 1040 or invoking "spousal privilege" in Federal trials.

I suspect that it can also prevent such "couples" from using the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution in *forcing* a state to recognize such a "marriage" performed in another state (e.g.,Massachusetts).

4 posted on 06/01/2006 8:38:28 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

"Second, a constitutional amendment defining marriage would be a radical intrusion on the nation's founding commitment to federalism in an area traditionally reserved for state regulation, family law. There has been no showing that federalism has been unworkable in the area of family law."

Nonsense.
Lawrence v Texas, Roe v Wade, Griswold, and a host of other Supreme Court rulings got Federal Govt involved in matters 'traditionally reserved for state regulation'.
That opened the Pandora's Box.

Tell me how you will repeal the "unnecessary, radical, unprecedented, and overly broad departure from the nation's traditions and history" embodied in the Supreme Court's overturning of State laws such as abortion laws, and *then* we can talk about how serious you are about "nation's traditions".


Marriage was defined as between one Man and one Woman in Justinian law in 500AD, and has been the definition of marriage in western civilization and our laws for millenia.
To claim that defending marriage breaks with tradition is pure sophistry.
This essay is just trying to talk people down from standing up for marriage, using arguments that are far more suited for other more serious intrusions into state law. (I'll give just one more example: Federal laws going after deadbeat dads; so much for that "we have federalism in family law" claim.)


5 posted on 06/01/2006 8:38:31 AM PDT by WOSG (Do your duty, be a patriot, support our Troops - VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

There is no such thing as same-sex marriage.
Marriage from the beginning of time has been defined as the union of a man and a woman.
It is recognised historically and biblically as the foundation of family, society and civilization.
As such it is most appropriate to recognize it in the Constitution of the United States.


6 posted on 06/01/2006 8:40:00 AM PDT by Flora McDonald (got teufelhunden?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
First, a constitutional amendment is unnecessary because federal and state laws, combined with the present state of the relevant constitutional doctrines, already make court-ordered nationwide same-sex marriage unlikely for the foreseeable future. An amendment banning same-sex marriage is a solution in search of a problem.

That is just an opinion without much to back it up. Given what has happened in Mass. and the general attitude of the judiciary towards the will of the people, I disagree with him. Besides, the time to correct a potential problem is before is happens, not after.

Second, a constitutional amendment defining marriage would be a radical intrusion on the nation's founding commitment to federalism in an area traditionally reserved for state regulation, family law. There has been no showing that federalism has been unworkable in the area of family law.

I disagree. I am very much a proponenet of small government and have run for office as a Libertarian. However, if the federal government is going to impose requirements about how states treat each others marriages, then it is not an abuse of power to clarify what marriage is and what it is not.

Third, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would be an unprecedented form of amendment, cutting short an ongoing national debate over what privileges and benefits, if any, ought to be conferred on same-sex couples and preventing democratic processes from recognizing more individual rights.

Yes it is perhaps unprecedented. This is a good thing. For too long the entire country has ignored the fact that the constitution has an amendment process specifically so that it CAN be amended. For a while now, all branches of government have just ignored that and sought change by ignoring the constitution. It will be a good first step if we recognize that the constitution has value and can be amended as it needs to be.

Fourth, the amendment as proposed is constitutional overkill that reaches well beyond the stated concerns of its proponents, foreclosing not just courts but also state legislatures from recognizing same-sex marriages and perhaps other forms of legal support for same-sex relationships. Whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage as a matter of policy, no person who cares about our Constitution and public policy should support this unnecessary, radical, unprecedented, and overly broad departure from the nation's traditions and history.

I don't know, I don't have enough data here. But, I doubt that he is being accurate.

7 posted on 06/01/2006 8:41:12 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

Everything mentioned in the Constitution automatically becomes a formal part of the institution of the state and part of FedGov. The press and the freedom of assembly are examples. If we want every aspect of our lives to be regulated by FedGov, just amend the Constitution and so it will be.


8 posted on 06/01/2006 8:41:21 AM PDT by RightWhale (Off touch and out of base)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

Thanks.


9 posted on 06/01/2006 8:42:21 AM PDT by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

Sometimes Libertarianism borders on Left Wing Liberalism.


10 posted on 06/01/2006 8:43:59 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

Uh-huh. And what happens when a gay "married" couple moves to a state that doesn't recognize their "gay marriage" rights?


11 posted on 06/01/2006 8:44:23 AM PDT by olderwiser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong; BlackElk
There are four main arguments against the FMA. First, a constitutional amendment is unnecessary because federal and state laws, combined with the present state of the relevant constitutional doctrines, already make court-ordered nationwide same-sex marriage unlikely for the foreseeable future. An amendment banning same-sex marriage is a solution in search of a problem.

Uh, tell it to Massachusetts.

Second, . . . There has been no showing that federalism has been unworkable in the area of family law.

Federalism was overruled by the courts in Massachusetts.

Third, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would be an unprecedented form of amendment, cutting short an ongoing national debate over what privileges and benefits, if any, ought to be conferred on same-sex couples and preventing democratic processes from recognizing more individual rights.

Can you say "begging the question"? Getting state recognition of a marriage has nothing more to do with individual rights than getting state recognition of counterfeit currency has to do with property rights.

Fourth, . . . no person who cares about our Constitution and public policy should support this unnecessary, radical, unprecedented, and overly broad departure from the nation's traditions and history.

Of course, ANY proposed Constitutional amendment is by definition "unprecedented." Massachusetts shows it is necessary. 2/3's of CATO's proposals (both good and bad, mostly good, are far more radical than the mere restating that words mean what a real dictionary says they mean). The overly broad departure from our nation's traditions and history occurred when legal positivism took over.
12 posted on 06/01/2006 8:44:26 AM PDT by sittnick (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
Members of Congress have proposed a constitutional amendment

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

"Did someone say Constitutional A-Man-Meat? Oh, I am so there. How do I look Miles?"

13 posted on 06/01/2006 8:46:46 AM PDT by WideGlide (That light at the end of the tunnel might be a muzzle flash.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

Because I think this should be a state issue, I'm inclined to oppose an amendment on Homosexual Marriage. However, given issues the "full faith and credit" clause and the extent of judical expansion of "rights" in other areas as well as the specific Massachussetts decision for homosexual marriage, I am also concerned that an amendment may be the only way to ensure that the majority of the people's views will prevail: after all, an amendment is not an easy process.


14 posted on 06/01/2006 8:53:42 AM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Arabiam Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

20 pages are required. Hmmmm. If something is so simple, why are so many pages required to twist and turn minds into seeing the light?


15 posted on 06/01/2006 8:58:45 AM PDT by Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: olderwiser
And what happens when a gay "married" couple moves to a state that doesn't recognize their "gay marriage" rights?

That depends on what the State law is. What happens when a State-licensed professional moves into a State he/she is not licensed in? Nothing. He/she simply is not licensed, in most cases.

16 posted on 06/01/2006 8:58:55 AM PDT by Lekker 1 (("Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau" - I. Fisher, Yale Econ Prof, 1929))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: trebb

"This is just another example of how the perverse among us will try to sell the lie that the cure is worse than the malady in order to ensure the malady spreads to the point where it can't be cured."

You have a very good way of saying it.

We are seeing that same false argument on illegal immigration. "You can't build a wall" they say, but scratch the surface and you find that its not that the wall *wont* work that they oppose it, they are afraid it *will* work.

What's the fear of settling this issue once and for all?
Some people once thought that slavery was a state's rights issue, and the same arguments hold for that. But the 13th and 14th rightly settled that issue nationally.

The opponents of FMA fear that this issue will be settled nationally once and for all, and the gay marriage drive, which is at the top of the 'gay rights' agenda, will be stopped dead in its tracks. Clearly, if DOMA was sufficient, the drive wouldnt be continuing.

The one real argument against putting energy into FMA as far as I can tell is the political reality that its chances of passage is near nil, due to Democrat opposition. These kinds of op-eds only give cover to that opposition and so make it less likely.


17 posted on 06/01/2006 9:05:52 AM PDT by WOSG (Do your duty, be a patriot, support our Troops - VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
"What's the fear of settling this issue once and for all? "

The same fear that set up America as a confederation of states, each with their own powers, as opposed to a central federal government.

Of course it hasn't been like that in a number years, so is that game we play? Do as the Romans do, assuming we are for it?
18 posted on 06/01/2006 9:15:02 AM PDT by tfecw (It's for the children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: conserv13; Sunsong
Thanks.

NO THANKS!

19 posted on 06/01/2006 9:23:43 AM PDT by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Ah, the Cato Institute chimes in.

That's the reason for their existence.

You are free to agree, disagree, discuss or ignore the information and opinions they present.

20 posted on 06/01/2006 9:28:41 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
This essay is just trying to talk people down from standing up for marriage,

Your opinion of the motives of the author are noted,,,and discarded.

21 posted on 06/01/2006 9:31:29 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

My post was a reference to the fact that the Cato Institute - nominally a libertarian think tank - champions every possible aspect of the homosexual legislative and social agenda.


22 posted on 06/01/2006 9:31:51 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sittnick

If it's not stated explicitly, it can be interpreted away.


23 posted on 06/01/2006 9:33:39 AM PDT by DungeonMaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
My post was a reference to the fact that the Cato Institute - nominally a libertarian think tank - champions every possible aspect of the homosexual legislative and social agenda.

Nonsense. Perhaps it looks that way from your perspective, but that doesn't make it true.

24 posted on 06/01/2006 9:35:34 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

I will agree with this argument the moment that CA Prop. 187 is finally implemented in all aspects.

*Waiting for hell to freeze over.....*


25 posted on 06/01/2006 9:41:03 AM PDT by Politicalmom (If fences don't work, why is there a fence around the White House?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lekker 1
"He/she simply is not licensed, in most case."

True. But they can get a license in the new state if they so choose. Unlike a same-sex marriage license.

26 posted on 06/01/2006 9:55:54 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong; AFA-Michigan; AggieCPA; Agitate; AliVeritas; AllTheRage; An American In Dairyland; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping!

If you oppose the homosexualization of society
-add yourself to the ping list!

To be included in or removed from the
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PING LIST,
please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2k.

Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword = homosexualagenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

Who is the supposed 'conservative" Law Professor Dale Carpenter, author of this "piece" -who does he advocate for -- and why, if supposedly conservative does he oppose the President and Republican leadership to advocate for the homosexualization of society position?

A reference from a known leftist homosexualization of society advocacy group, the HRC (Human Rights Campaign) website seems to should shed some light on the questions:

Testimony of Witnesses before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights

Hearing on the Proposed Federal Defense of Marriage Act – Sept. 4, 2003

SMALL EXCERPT:

The witnesses for the Democrats were Keith Bradkowski, who lost his partner of 11 years, Jeff Collman, in the Sept. 11, 2002, attacks, and Dale Carpenter, a conservative, openly gay professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.

If nothing else, clearly for myself, I have discovered the source of much of the leftist talking points I have seen recently touting DOMA, opposing the FMA, and seeking to protect States' Rights ROTFLMAO -Dale Carpenter...

27 posted on 06/01/2006 9:57:18 AM PDT by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
But they can get a license in the new state if they so choose

Only if they meet the qualification requirements of the new State.

28 posted on 06/01/2006 9:57:40 AM PDT by Lekker 1 (("Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau" - I. Fisher, Yale Econ Prof, 1929))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: trebb

####There are four main arguments against the FMA. First, a constitutional amendment is unnecessary because federal and state laws, combined with the present state of the relevant constitutional doctrines, already make court-ordered nationwide same-sex marriage unlikely for the foreseeable future. An amendment banning same-sex marriage is a solution in search of a problem.####

No one can truly know if this is true or not. In all likelihood, gay "marriage" advocates will wait until they've legalized such "marriages" in three or four states (via state judicial fiat), and there's a Democrat majority on Congress (to kill any marriage amendment in committee) before going full speed ahead for a gay "marriage" judicial fiat. But it will come, sooner or later.

####Second, a constitutional amendment defining marriage would be a radical intrusion on the nation's founding commitment to federalism in an area traditionally reserved for state regulation, family law. There has been no showing that federalism has been unworkable in the area of family law.####

These guys must have been living on Jupiter when those court decisions on interracial marriage, sodomy, parental consent for abortions, and many other issues were handed down. The Supreme Court has already breached federalism in the three areas most relevant to gay "marriage". They held that marriage itself is a federal constitutional issue in Loving, they rules that homosexuals are a "protected class" in Romer, and they ruled that homosexual sex is a protected activity in Lawrence.

####Third, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would be an unprecedented form of amendment, cutting short an ongoing national debate over what privileges and benefits, if any, ought to be conferred on same-sex couples and preventing democratic processes from recognizing more individual rights.####

This shows that these Cato dudes don't have the slightest understanding of the gay agenda, which is all about group privelege and not individual rights. Individual rights get trampled under the gay agenda. Yeah, a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion in 1972 would've cut short the national debate, too. But the national debate didn't last long, as in 1973 the court shut it down by making abortion-on-demand the law of the land. Do these guys really think gay activists and their allies want these issues debated and decided at the state level? Even as we speak, they're working toward a federal judicial fiat on this issue.

####Fourth, the amendment as proposed is constitutional overkill that reaches well beyond the stated concerns of its proponents, foreclosing not just courts but also state legislatures from recognizing same-sex marriages and perhaps other forms of legal support for same-sex relationships. Whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage as a matter of policy, no person who cares about our Constitution and public policy should support this unnecessary, radical, unprecedented, and overly broad departure from the nation's traditions and history.####

And judicial fiats don't forclose state legislatures from exercising their will? So let's see if I get this right. Gay "marriage" has been rejected throughout American history. Not one single state has ever approved it democratically. Yet, it's opponents of gay "marriage" who are being radical and departing from our traditions by seeking passage of a legitimate constitutional amendment to block an impending unconstitutional judicial fiat?

No wonder liberals always win. They're playing by a completely different set of rules from our side, and they set the terms of debate. Only in the topsy-turvy world of liberalism could opponents of gay "marriage", operating within the confines of the Constitution, and winning popular referenda, be considered radicals, while those trying to use judicial fiats to impose their agenda are "moderates".

####This is just another example of how the perverse among us will try to sell the lie that the cure is worse than the malady in order to ensure the malady spreads to the point where it can't be cured.####

EXACTLY!!!!!



29 posted on 06/01/2006 10:00:29 AM PDT by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

In 2004, I was so against gay marriage and I still am. However, I do have a little different perspective on this now that I saw Mary Chaney on Letterman. The thing she said was something to the effect that if her girlfriend of 13 years (surprised me) died tomorrow she would not get any social security (at 67 for her and of course herself)and that she does not share any tax breaks. If these are the real issues why not just pass something that gives them these two items. I think that would solve everything. First of all, Social Security is being given to illegal immagrants (possibly) and I truly would rather give it to Americans. Second, tax break can be done...why not? I would not have a problem with this if it did indeed save the sanctity of marriage. Does anyone at all agree with me or am I way crazy...I have been told that before so if I get called it again...no problem. I am just trying to be rational about something that is not necessarily something I agree with. I am trying to be adult about it...scary concept. LOL.


30 posted on 06/01/2006 10:01:04 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

I would agree with your position IF we could rely upon Federal Judges to honor and uphold the US Constitution
--its' clear language used,and intent of the men who
drafted and ratified that document. If Federal Judges could be Trusted to recognize that the Constitution is a written
instrument whose meaning doe snot alter. We might have a
starting point. They have not demonstrated the oligarchy of
despots warrants such trust. IF we could rely upon the US
Congress to provide the Constitutional check/ballance to the
out of control Judiciary We might have a starting point.
They have NOT ,in my lifetime stood up to the Judiciary,that I am aware of. IF ANY could demonstrate how
celebrating or recognition of aberrant sexual behavior and
a self and socially destructive lifestyle choice could possibly benefit the greater good -in short if any could prove scientifically that homosexuals are "born that way"
that somehow the Scripture is Wrong-and God really meant
to inspire the author of Genesis to declare God Created them male and female and homosexual.Which I see NO credible evidence for believing true. We might have a starting point.But because it has been the Federal Judiciary that has thus far denied the express will of the people too often and as it has been the corrupt Courts that have mandated special class protection and change where NONE is
warrented. As there is NO credible reason WHY Society ought recognize as equal -what is so easily displayed as NOT equal-there simply is NO room for discussion. The Courts and the lack of will on the part of Congress to insist on
the Rule of Law be applied --NOT the rule of the oligarchy divorced from God--and LAW these have made a Federal Marriage Amendment necessary- though I would prefer a
Constitutional amendment that would address the problem with our ACLU Led Judges.Even though I believe Congress did
address the "marriage issue" in 1861 pursuant to Utah being admitted.And the Courts in a series of legal decisions 1878
Reynolds- 1890 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
v. the United States -time and again upheld the Congressional act of 1861-and the Christian Bible based
definition of marriage.


31 posted on 06/01/2006 10:07:28 AM PDT by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lekker 1
"Only if they meet the qualification requirements of the new State."

Well, yes. Of course.

But my point was that the new state allows for professional licensing and may not allow for same-sex marriage licensing.

So it not that they merely wouldn't be licensed in the new state -- it's that they couldn't be licensed in the new state. And that may be grounds for a federal lawsuit based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

32 posted on 06/01/2006 10:08:16 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
If you allow tax breaks for sexual preferences, many people will actually fake their preferences.

Homosexuality is about sex, not marriage.

If Mary Cheney wants benefits from her fellow citizens to subsidize her sexual proclivities, she is abusing them.

But one thing you pointed out is painfully clear, most of this is about money,,as usual.

33 posted on 06/01/2006 10:08:59 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
"If these are the real issues why not just pass something that gives them these two items."

Because it's NOT the real issue. The real issue is public recognition, then tolerance, then finally acceptance of homosexuality as an equally alternative lifestyle.

Same-sex marriage is one part of that process. Non-discrimination against homosexuals is another. Hate speech protection is another. Educating our children on homosexuality is another. Homosexual adoptions are another. Research into the genetic background of homosexuality is another.

Each are pieces of the whole.

34 posted on 06/01/2006 10:19:22 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

[...a constitutional amendment defining marriage would be a radical intrusion on the nation's founding commitment to federalism in an area traditionally reserved for state regulation, family law]



This is absolutely correct.

The constitution is supposed to define what the government does and does not do. It is not supposed to limit the behavior of citizens. Like abortion policy, state law is the only proper place for this.


35 posted on 06/01/2006 10:20:29 AM PDT by spinestein (The Democratic Party is the reason I vote for Republicans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
the national debate didn't last long, as in 1973 the court shut it down

Yeah, that's why nobody for the past thirty-three years has ever raised the issue in political debate.

36 posted on 06/01/2006 10:22:03 AM PDT by steve-b (hardcore 'social' conservatives are to the Rs what the hardcore moonbat eco-nuts are to to the Ds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

Obviously, the correct solution is to remove the subsidies in all cases (and to cut spending and taxes across the board by the corresponding amount).


37 posted on 06/01/2006 10:24:14 AM PDT by steve-b (hardcore 'social' conservatives are to the Rs what the hardcore moonbat eco-nuts are to to the Ds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
the facile judicial-activism argument

It is facile to label it facile.

Who would have predicted that Roe v. Wade really meant ... any abortion, any time?

38 posted on 06/01/2006 10:27:25 AM PDT by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
"This paper is written for conservatives (except for those who are social conservatives)"
39 posted on 06/01/2006 10:27:34 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
The thing she said was something to the effect that if her girlfriend of 13 years (surprised me) died tomorrow she would not get any social security (at 67 for her and of course herself)and that she does not share any tax breaks.

So Mary Cheney doesn't pay social security in the job she holds? As to tax breaks, gee, that's too bad. I still don't support legalizing gay marriage.

If these are the real issues why not just pass something that gives them these two items.

I wouldn't support that. Why give them all the benefits of marriage? That's the same as saying "I'm against gay marriage. nug, nug, wink, wink."

First of all, Social Security is being given to illegal immagrants (possibly) and I truly would rather give it to Americans.

Instead of granting social security benefits to another new class of people, we should work to take it away from illegals.

40 posted on 06/01/2006 10:34:01 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
"This paper is written for conservatives (except for those who are social conservatives)"

Maybe better put "This paper is written for those who may feel they are conservative e.g. RINOs"

---some links to what I have found to be a good method by which to measure and appraise just where you morally "fit" politically whether you may specifically realize it or not...

The Moral Matrix - Political Systems

The Moral Matrix - Recent US Presidents

Moral Politics - A Morality-Based Political Test

41 posted on 06/01/2006 10:36:12 AM PDT by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Lekker 1

Right. And that's going to going over with the gay "rights" advocates. They'll draw analogies to "slave states vs. free states", because, after all, it's a "civil rights" issue.

So your answer doesn't cut it.


42 posted on 06/01/2006 10:45:53 AM PDT by olderwiser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

At this point, a Constitutional Amendment does not go far enough. We need a UN resolution banning gay marriage globally.


43 posted on 06/01/2006 10:46:06 AM PDT by Heartofsong83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

" suspect that it can also prevent such "couples" from using the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution in *forcing* a state to recognize such a "marriage" performed in another state (e.g.,Massachusetts)."


Correct. States could still vote to make it legal for homosexuals to marry, the amendment would prevent the courts and legislatures from imposing it on the voters.


44 posted on 06/01/2006 10:50:21 AM PDT by gidget7 (PC is the huge rock, behind which lies hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Heartofsong83
At this point, a Constitutional Amendment does not go far enough. We need a UN resolution banning gay marriage globally.

LOL -first things first...

45 posted on 06/01/2006 11:04:24 AM PDT by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Heartofsong83

The UN passes tons of pointless, unenforceable resolutions. What's another to add to the pile to ignore?


46 posted on 06/01/2006 11:05:06 AM PDT by mjwise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
I keep hearing about this SS thing, and how a partner would not receive both theirs and their partners SS upon the death of one partner.

My Mom is a widow, and she had to choose to get hers, OR my fathers SS upon her retirement. It seems to me married couples do not get both. She was to choose whichever was higher, hers or his???
47 posted on 06/01/2006 11:08:43 AM PDT by gidget7 (PC is the huge rock, behind which lies hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: trebb
I don't guess it can be construed as an agenda when the author so easily dismisses the "facile" judicial-activism argument.

How about the as yet unheard of "facile" argument from this homosexual legal scholar or any other regarding the possibility of ANY legislative process to legalize "homosexual marriage" being successful? The author argues in defense of the impossible (possible legislatively legalized "homosexual marriage) while ignoring the reality of the possible and the realized (judical activism)...

48 posted on 06/01/2006 11:12:22 AM PDT by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

####Yeah, that's why nobody for the past thirty-three years has ever raised the issue in political debate.####

They may have raised it in debate, but a judicial fiat makes the debate mostly irrelevant.


49 posted on 06/01/2006 11:12:30 AM PDT by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"Each are pieces of the whole."


Absolutely!! Homosexual marriage is only the gateway. The gate which opens to the rest.
50 posted on 06/01/2006 11:13:17 AM PDT by gidget7 (PC is the huge rock, behind which lies hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-350 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson