Posted on 06/03/2006 4:59:01 PM PDT by DBeers
The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) comes up for a vote very soon. Those who favor homosexual “marriage” or polygamy have obvious reasons for opposing the amendment. But some of those who claim to believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman also oppose the amendment, albeit for different reasons. Here are some of the most popular bad excuses for voting against the FMA:
1. Marriage should be left to the states.
The FMA does leave marriage to the states. If a legislature wants to legalize homosexual “marriage,” it can do so. What the FMA does is stop federal and state courts from forcing states to allow same sex “marriage.” So if you’re pro-state choice, you should support the FMA.
2. The FMA would write discrimination into the Constitution.
The Constitution already discriminates in countless ways. You can’t vote if you’re under 18. You can’t become president if you weren’t born a U.S. citizen. You can’t vote in the Senate unless you are a senator (or, in case of a tie, the vice president). The question is whether reserving marriage to a man and a woman is a worthy thing to do.
3. We don’t need the FMA yet. Let’s wait until a federal court forces a state to accept same-sex “marriage.”
This excuse is like saying we should not shore up the levees until after a hurricane or flood knocks them down. Be serious.
So far, every state marriage amendment has passed by overwhelming margins. But state laws, even state constitutional amendments, are no obstacle to a federal court bent on imposing its view of “inclusive” marriage. To oppose the FMA out of devotion to the homosexual (or gender-is-irrelevant) worldview is honest, if misguided. But to oppose the FMA for other reasons is, at best, just plain misguided.
—Walter M. Weber, senior litigation counsel with the American Center for Law and Justice, has specialized in constitutional law for over 20 years.
BTTT - great summary.
Very well said and logical.
First, of course marriage should be left to the states. Stopping federal courts from intervening is a wonderful idea, but hardly needs an amendment. Stopping state courts is completely outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government. If a state court finds it unconstitutional then the people of that state should change the constitution. To force a state to accept an unconstitutional law defies every principle of federalism.
As for number 2, it is irrelevant that the FMA writes discrimination into the constitution. Every single court challenge on this including the infamous 9th Circus concludes that a state has a compelling and legitimate interest in maintaining traditional marriage for heterosexual couples. As for No. 3, There is no, I repeat NO chance homosexual marriage will ever see the light of day in any state that does not desire it. Massachusetts has the ability to change its constitution, just as does every other state.
Then why this amendment? The president sees himself as weak in terms of his traditional base, and so in spite of the fact that this ludicrous amendment has no chance of success, and it is likely he would never push it by himself, he is doing it merely to placate the radical right. What he doesn't understand is that this pandering isn't going to help his ratings a bit. Good news out of Iraq and movement on the immigration issue are the two things that most intelligent conservatives want.
A tiny homophobic element in his base is driving it, and the rest who support it actually believe the lies being told. Wait until someone tells him that tiny element wants a hell of a lot more than just the marriage ban....
If 3/4 states agree to the amendment, than it's completely okay, since the states are the ones making this decision.
Absolutley it can be done. Unfortunately not for the right reasons. But you are absolutely right, except for the other 1/4. But that is what the Constitution is all about.
I give that hijack a 7/10.
LOL!
A tiny homophobic element in his base is driving it, and the rest who support it actually believe the lies being told.Further: It seems to be that after your introduction, to wit: "Totally illogical" I might expect some argument. But unless I'm missing something, all I get is assertions:
Stopping federal courts from intervening is a wonderful idea, but hardly needs an amendment.I don't get this. Federal courts have prohibited laws about abortion and laws against homosexual "sodomy". Why does it hardly need an amendment to stop them from prohibiting laws preventing marriage between people of the same sex, or what not?
Stopping state courts is completely outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government.That's a new one to me. At least theoretically the Constitution is all about saying in what areas the Feds and their courts may stop or limit the government organs of the states.
To force a state to accept an unconstitutional law defies every principle of federalism.That statement is almost a tautology, isn't it? But the problem is who gets to say it's unconstitutional.
There is no, I repeat NO chance homosexual marriage will ever see the light of day in any state that does not desire it. Massachusetts has the ability to change its constitution, just as does every other state.I watched how the Episcopal Church "decided" that priests who were, as they say, practicing homosexuals were not on that account subject to being deposed or any penalty of canon law. There was no explicit statement in the canons that homosexual practices were immoral or unbecoming or what not. So those who thought that it had "always" been understood that such behavior was worthy of canonical penalty, suddenly found themselves bearing the burden of passing a canon which said so explicitly. Because it takes a "super majority" to be sure one can pass a new canon, no such canon was ever passed.If some state supreme court decides that suddenly, after a couple of centuries of agreement that the opposite proposition was so obvious that it did not need to be stated, decides that whoever wants to have a legal relationship which grants him or her or whatever access to those rights and privileges available to the "married" ought to have the same access -- as long as there are more than one of him, her, or whatever. Then the people of the state will have to put together a super-majority to preserve what the founders intended a super majority to change.
-and yet given the futility of the effort that you espouse I see you repeatedly and persistently arguing against quite vigorously?
The president sees himself as weak in terms of his traditional base, and so in spite of the fact that this ludicrous amendment has no chance of success, and it is likely he would never push it by himself, he is doing it merely to placate the radical right. What he doesn't understand is that this pandering isn't going to help his ratings a bit. Good news out of Iraq and movement on the immigration issue are the two things that most intelligent conservatives want.
A tiny homophobic element in his base is driving it, and the rest who support it actually believe the lies being told. Wait until someone tells him that tiny element wants a hell of a lot more than just the marriage ban....
You present here an argument devoid of substance, one dripping with vitriol and contempt -one not worthy of seeing the light of day even where darkness is light and conservatism is enemy -DU...
Go away.
Yes -simple and succinct without moral relative tap dancing...
Your true motives were revealed in that one statement. Your three points were poorly made, and perhaps the reason is that they were dishonestly made.
You just showed your true colors. Are you also a NAMBLA member?
"If a legislature wants to legalize homosexual “marriage,” it can do so."
This is clearly an inaccurate characterization of the Marriage Protection Amendment's effect. It would in fact declare marriage in the U.S. to be only between one man and one woman. Thus, a legislature would NOT be free to "legalize homosexual 'marriage'," and appropriately, shouldn't be.
Some argue, perhaps correctly, that the amendment would allow state legislatures to establish homosexual "civil unions."
I don't assume you are part of the tiny homophobic element that is pushing this, nor do I believe you are stupid. But being neither doesn't necessarily prevent someone from supporting something that fits in with their value system and would seem not to impact them. So they listen to the stories of how the courts are tearing down the meaning of marriage. But if you examine closely the rationale for court actions in this case, you find a completely different story.
I don't get this. Federal courts have prohibited laws about abortion and laws against homosexual "sodomy". Why does it hardly need an amendment to stop them from prohibiting laws preventing marriage between people of the same sex, or what not?
Most of us are unhappy with the Roe decision, not all for simply socially conservative reasons. But Roe goes all the way back to 1973, has nothing to do with marriage, and could itself be the subject of a constitutional amendment if one chooses. As for permitting homosexual sodomy, the court found that homosexuals could not be singled out as a class that did not have the same right to privacy and due process all the rest of us did. I don't like homosexual sodomy, but then I am not a homosexual. Many Christian fundamentalists do not like heterosexual sodomy, but 90 to 95 of all married couples engage in it. Is homosexual sodomy any different? Is one worse than the other? I support the right to consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual practices they want in the privacy of their homes.
Traditional marriage laws have been tested by the federal courts and in every single case, found to be constitutional. The only two struck down had nothing to do with the issue of marriage. The 9th Circuit has said the same thing. There is absolutely no chance a USSC decision would go in favor of striking down such laws.
But my point was that Congress could simply pass a law preventing the lower courts from taking such cases. It is clearly within their powers as Congress oversees the lower courts.
That's a new one to me. At least theoretically the Constitution is all about saying in what areas the Feds and their courts may stop or limit the government organs of the states.
Certainly the federal courts can review, if a case is brought, anything a state court decides that may constitute a violation of a person's rights under the US Constitution, or of federal laws. But this would be clearly the intrusion into state affairs having no rationale other than the desire of people from other states. Every state operates with a constitution, legislative, and judiciary. If a state judge strikes down a law that is against the state constitution, then the only right and just action is for the people of that state to amend their constitution, which they have the power to do in every state. There is never a need for federal intervention unless the rights of any persons are violated.
That statement is almost a tautology, isn't it? But the problem is who gets to say it's unconstitutional.
If the federal government tells a state that a decision by a state judge striking down a state law is unconstitutional because of a federal amendment, for example gay marriage, and the state doesn't go in and amend that constitution, then by definition the federal government would be forcing the state to operate outside of its own constitution.
I watched how the Episcopal Church "decided" that priests who were, as they say, practicing homosexuals were not on that account subject to being deposed or any penalty of canon law.
But churches are the the point here, and probably not a very good example. Churches make laws for reasons that no governmental entity should entertain.
f some state supreme court decides that suddenly, after a couple of centuries of agreement that the opposite proposition was so obvious that it did not need to be stated, decides that whoever wants to have a legal relationship which grants him or her or whatever access to those rights and privileges available to the "married" ought to have the same access -- as long as there are more than one of him, her, or whatever.
This is the case in Massachusetts. But again it is fixable by the people of Massachusetts. Their legislature has an amendment to their constitution that cures the problem. Why is it easier for the US to pass a constitutional amendment than it would be for the good citizens of Massachusetts?
Thank you for the post. My apologies to you if I offended you.
Just what are my true motives. Please illustrate which of my three points is incorrect, or dishonest. I am arguing with facts, you with simple personal attacks. Explain your points.
What is NAMBLA? What does it have to do with FMA, and what are my true colors?
Let me ask a candid question. Since you constantly crow about state's rights and your opposition to gay marriage, tell us if you have voted or would vote for a state marriage ammendment in your state uncategorically defining marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman?
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.