Posted on 06/01/2006 8:28:01 AM PDT by Sunsong
The people of Massachusetts have it within their power to amend their constitution. There is a bill to do so in both wings of their legislature. It is their issue, not the government's.
The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law persuant to the FFC clause.
You talk as though this has been working just great for decades. Not quite. Massachusetts just legalized "gay marriage", and the ramifications are a long way from playing out.
The whole argument will be rendered moot as federal courts step in at the opportune political moment to declare some state's affirmation of marriage as a union between one man and one woman unconstitional. Already happening.
People arguing the other side here on this thread are just practicising "realpolitik", pragmatically pretending to be states rights advocates.
You in that category?
We insist people get help who are sexually attracted to young boys.
We insist people get help who are sexually attracted to their siblings, moms, dads etc.
Then why is it a No No to insist people get help who are sexually attracted to the same sex?
All are abnormal sexual attractions.
None have a place in "marriage"!
But that is the structure of Massachusetts' constitution. This is the essence of federalism. It is not the place of the federal government to remedy problems in a state's constitution. No matter how difficult it is, it is still only the problem of the people of that state.
When a state starts making up definitions for words, it becomes the country's business, since the objects in question (those with phony marriage statuses) work in different states and move. If Massachusetts started issuing phony currency in likewise it would also be a national issue.
No it does not. It becomes the business of the other states if Massachusetts does something that has an adverse effect on the other states. As for currency, the Constitution reserves that for the federal government. It is specified as one of the enumerated powers of the Congress.
If you could convince me that it was somehow anti-federalist to support amending the Constitution to not allow a state to pretend that formalized, institutionalized sodomy is worthy of the appellation marriage, then I would conclude federalism is obsolete.
Any restriction placed on a state not specifically the responsibility of the federal government is anti-federalist. There is no danger to the institution of marriage, as every federal court has found. Even the 9th Circuit affirmed that decision. There is no danger that any state will have to recognize the homosexual marriage from any other state. That has been affirmed by courts. So what is the need, other than an emotional concern that one day it might change? Let's all stay out of the business of the individual sovereign states.
I am about as far from a Libertarian as one can get, but in this case they are spot on.
Money is the real issue. Look around, homosexuality is currently treated as an "equally alternative lifestyle." Just try denouncing it and see what happens to you.
What they want is the right to tax breaks and survivor benefits.
This is a states issue and needs to remain a states issue.
So we are trying to fix a problem that is neither imminent nor defined?
The whole argument will be rendered moot as federal courts step in at the opportune political moment to declare some state's affirmation of marriage as a union between one man and one woman unconstitional. Already happening.
Quite a few federal courts have stepped into the fray, and every single one including the infamous 9th Circuit has affirmed states' bans on gay marriage as constitutional. There is now a fairly lengthy list of precedents reflecting that states have a compelling and legitimate interest in banning same sex marriages. If a renegade district court did strike one down, it would never pass muster in either the Circuit Court or the USSC.
People arguing the other side here on this thread are just practicising "realpolitik", pragmatically pretending to be states rights advocates.
You in that category?
Is that the extent of your argument? First you cannot even define the problem. Second, you cannot find a single case supporting the need. Finally, since none of that works, you take an emotional and hollow shot at those who disagree with you.
Wow -me too!.
The "conservative" author of this article who would attempt employing conservative principles in situationally and relatively premised constructs devoid of observing the reality of the clear and present danger of judicial activism already evidenced WHILE conversely touting the noble delusional goal of protecting the possibility of the impossible, that impossibly being the Rights of the States to possibly enact legislation to legalize homosexual marriage!
The "conservative" author clearly argues for something leftist and liberal -the possibility of homosexual marriage... OH the horrorrrrr if the conservative meanies prevent this from ever possibly happening again like it did in Massachusetts AND the horrorrrrr in actually kicking the Massachusetts' homosexual marriage "legislation" imposed from the bench to the curb ...
As to the "federalism" shell game (similar to the DOMA sky is not falling argument) --"federalism" is quite okay and quite safe -I do not see the "states" screaming with the enraged indignation as is evidenced by the homosexual left and the author of this "piece"...
I suggest you check out some of the other "conservative" works published by the "openly gay" apparently politically conflicted author of the article posted:
Dale Carpenter - Faculty Profiles - UofM Law School
I find it very odd that one of his Works in Progress is titled, "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage"
Why do I find this odd? -- WELL... I find it odd that an assumed intelligent individual with an as such assumed well developed cogent and coherent philosophy guiding him can maintain both conservative and liberal positions that diverge so greatly they appear at times irreconcilable, conflicted, and contradictory...
How is this possible?
MY theory is that the author has one master -HOWEVER, it is not conservatism or liberalism -- [IT] is the homosexual disorder AND it is ONLY in realizing the master he serves does one find a cogent and coherent philosophy evidenced in his writings and opinions...
What do you think on this theory? -Can one KNOW what one supports regarding the homosexual disorder via a cogent premised analysis that cuts through the mystique and argumentative window dressing?
ROTFLMAO
Yes, but is hasn't (yet) been challenged in the USSC -- some say it wouldn't survive a challenge since it goes beyond Congress' power to "prescribe...the Effect" which the laws of one state have in another.
Second, any "marital" court judgements made in a same-sex state against a person who resides in another state are applicable.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5164355
This is settled law at the federal level? Ha-ha. That's a pretty limp argument.
Why not? Look, There is no danger in us not giving women the vote, why make that a constitutional amendment?
It is to lock down this issue and make the matter settled.
Anyone who is against gay marriage should have no problem with this concept, at all.
OTOH, "Since there is effectively no danger to traditional marriage," ... this is obviously a false statement, given that more than one state has had judges imposing it on their state, and interstate issues have *already* appeared in state and Federal courts cases.
The real opposition to FMA are from those who wouldnt mind at all if gay marriage snuck in the back door somehow.
"But that is the structure of Massachusetts' constitution. This is the essence of federalism. It is not the place of the federal government to remedy problems in a state's constitution."
There was NO problem with the Massachusetts state constitution... the problem was with 4 Mass supreme Court justices who wilfully IGNORED the Mass state constitution to make that state imposed gay marriage.
Such a problem exists on the Federal level as well.
"No it does not. It becomes the business of the other states if Massachusetts does something that has an adverse effect on the other states"
Surely, then you are against the Lawrence v Texas decision, which imposed a Federal order on the states, in a matter in which the state was doing something that had no adverse effect on other states. Surely to be fully consistent, you will have to say that Virginia v Loving was also wrongly decided. ...
So, lets say we wok up and realized that the 14th doesnt actually cover the situation of interracial marriage, that it was an intrusion on Federalism and not quite the 'equal protection' issue some think it is, and there was a constitutional amendment proposed forbidding state laws against inter-racial marriage .... would you be for it or against it?
"There is no danger to the institution of marriage, as every federal court has found."
What an absurd comment. You just said it was a state matter, so how can Federal courts be the one to tell us that! ... Obviously w ehave seen several cases undrmining traditional concepts of marriage in states other than the one imposing gay marriage. Full faith and credit clauses comes into play, and hiding behind shallow 'federalism' arguments doesnt cut it.
Your own words make clear why a FMA Constitutional Amendment is ultimately necessary.
That could be handled with legislation -- we don't need to re-define marriage.
I seem to remember that some time ago that there was talk about creating "civil unions" which would address all these monetary and legal concerns -- that was rejected by the homosexuals if you recall. They want "marriage".
No, but is has been found constitutional in the federal court challenges to date. Even the 9th Circuit found that a state had a legitimate interest in banning same sex marriages. The 11th Circuit decision upholding Florida's legitimate ban on same sex adoptions was appealed to the USSC which chose not to hear it, an indication that it stood no chance. There is absolutely no evidence from any quarter that either DOMA or state same sex bans are at risk.
Second, any "marital" court judgements made in a same-sex state against a person who resides in another state are applicable.
You may be right, but I can't see any kind of significant issue here, as there would be if a marriage were required to be recognized. If it were, the first remedy would be a cure for DOMA, not a constitutional amendment.
Actually, [they] are leftists and like any leftists want a handout -they want their socialist share of the privelege and reward that society decided long ago was merited heterosexual married procreative families...
Let's not confuse the issue of same sex marriage with all of the other concerns associated with the homosexual issue. Same sex marriage bans are not threatened anywhere. If you are concerned about other types of same sex unions or relationships, schools, etc, then that is a different issue, not to be addressed even by the amendment.
Who said not imminent? The ramifications of homsexual "marriage" are happening now, and will continue to play out across the country, in court and legislative battles, in business and in schools, etc. The two are not mutually exclusive. Problem now. Problem growing.
When you say the ramifications are a long way out, but you don't define those ramifications, I wonder if the amendment isn't a bit premature. I have seen numerous definitions of the problems people see here in conjunction with their support for the amendment, but few would seem to agree on how those problems are going to be resolved by an amendment.
This is settled law at the federal level? Ha-ha. That's a pretty limp argument.
Well, first I obviously don't have your skills at debating. Second I never indicated it was settled, but merely not at risk, as every single decision supports a state's right to ban same sex marriage, and there is almost no chance a court challenge will succeed.
Therein lies the false brass ring. I am against same sex marriage, I am not gay or lesbian, so what the hey, why not. Ain't gonna hurt me any.
Well in fact, I am against same sex marriage, but even more I will challenge any illegitimate attempt to impose federal power on that of the individual states. Almost every supporter on these boards has for years screamed loudly at the growing power of the federal government, claiming a strong central government is the basis of liberal thought. But here in this issue, where it is easy to despise homosexuality itself, why not? Why should a state be permitted to legalize something I disagree with so vehemently? That's fair weather conservatism at its best.
The real opposition to FMA are from those who wouldnt mind at all if gay marriage snuck in the back door somehow.
I oppose the FMA, yet I will oppose same sex marriages in my state if the issue comes up. But Massachusetts and every other state are part of a constitutional Republic, not a democracy and certainly not a theocracy. As such each of those states has the right to do what it will with respect to same sex marriage.
Yes, many who are opposed to FMA are liberals and those with a homosexual agenda. There are however, many conservatives who support our republican form of government far more than any emotional and personal biases.
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.