Posted on 09/07/2007 10:41:59 AM PDT by Josh Painter
Uh...no, Fred has always said marriage is between a man and a woman and that the principles of federalism are what he stands on.
No mind changing that I detect.
newzjunkey wrote: “Civil marriage licensing has always been a state issue and it should remain so.”
Actually, it has always been a county function.
“Like you I am confused by this new proposal. Why not let each state amend their state constitution to forbid state judges from interpreting that state’s constitution as requiring that gay marriage be allowed?”
For each state to amend their state constitution would take longer. My understanding of Fred’s proposal is that the Federal Court would mandate that State Courts could not overturn marriage as man & woman without the State Legislators voting for the overturn. This would put the decision in the hands of the people of each state where it should be.
“You seem to believe your will should supersede that of another state on the marriage issue.”
Yes, in our mobile society, different basic definition of mariage definitions between states, will be untenable. If a gay couple marries in Mass. and moves to Maryland and gets divorced, do they go to MD family court? What does the judge say?
It’s really simple: If you think gay marriage is a mistake for our society, you must consider it a mistake for our whole society, not just some fraction of states.
” That isn’t how we live in this nation.”
Yes, we do live this way. There is a lot of things defined in Federal law.
Slavery is outlawed by the Federal Constitution for example. This is a restriction on the kinds of relations and contracts that a state can regulate. Marriage as a legal institution is similarly a basic definitional matter.
“Fred’s proposal seems to protect individual states’ freedom to define civil marriage on their own terms without fear of being forced by the will of neighboring states (or judicial activism).”
- the latter part is incorrect, as I pointed out earlier. Your state *WILL* be forcd into gay marriage if another state passes it and a Federal Judge overturns DOMA. QED.
“FMA could be repealed within two generations.”
Genetically engineered pigs could fly. But they wont.
The more I think about this, the more I like it. I don’t want goofy judges in my State to be able to dictate morality to other States. On the other hand, I’m not comfortable with the idea of definitions of morality coming from the Federal Constitution either. That kind of top-down approach does indeed run counter to Federalism. We conservatives don’t like it when the Federal government does that in areas like education; so why do we want it with regard to marriage?
The “full faith and credit” clause does need some re-work. I find it odd that a State like California might want it to apply to gay marriage, but not firearms. Is it fair that they demand that CA gay marriages be recognized in, let’s say, Utah, while refusing to recognize a Utah CCW permit here? If one State issued license is valid in both States, then why not the other?
FRed’s on the right track here.
Just wait until my wives hear about that.
It is generally federal judges (or local judges who are mangling the constitution) who try to override the legislation on homosexual marriage that states have put into place. Seems to me that is what Thompson's proposal is about.
Why not have one definition of marriage nationwide?
“Personally, I support an amendment that would recognize the act of marriage between one man and one woman, only.”
As do I.
” Fred might be skirting the details a bit here, but I think its acceptable policy.” - But Fred opposes FMA.
“When one considers that any amending of the Constitution would be a huge undertaking, likely open to failure as the end result.”
- I agree, which his why his proposed very narrow Amendment by Fred seems a non-starter. Why bother putting forward an amendment at all that doesnt really settle the matter anyway? It’s not worth the effort and many people will not support it because it will either do too much or too little for them. He should have instead just jumped on the FMA bandwagon, which is a simple and clear Amendment. Arguments about the difficulty of passing amendments apply to both approaches.
JMHO.
“Conservatives need to take what we can get on these hot button social issues,” - I agree, but we also need the line-in-the-sand positions to show where we stand. Supporting FMA is a solid, sound and correct position.
“The chief problem is the full faith and credit clause. No state should be able to impose its domestic institutions on another state.”
But through the full faith and credit clause, they *do*.
This is why the argument about Federals wrt the Marriage Amendment is not correct.
Fred’s fuzzed up half-way amendment only makes muddy a situation that should be very clear: As a society, we should make a decision to maintain the definition of marriage for all of us as:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Settle it and be done with it.
“Amending a state constitution, like amending the Federal constitution, is not a straightforward task. Fred is a Federalist and he is acting as a Federalist.”
As Noodle says in #27: “ What Thompson is proposing seems far more violative of the basic principles of federalism than the amendment he opposes. “
It seems Federalism is one of those flexible use-it-when-convenient concepts. It would meddle far less in court and state legislative processes to simply pass the Federal Marriage Amendment.
“SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
I want to say yes, so much. :)
Those are some good points, and it’s an interesting subject. Important to me, is this shows FRed is creative and actively seeks creative resolutions to serious issues. I like creativity.
Having read as much of FRed’s papers and positions that I can, I really don’t think he’s playing two ends against the middle. He’s seems to take actions that force others to take a responsible action. It’s the same with his position on illegals. He wants to create an atmosphere that would create an incentive to go back. Like others, I eagerly await the wording of this. I am a huge believer in incentive. I feel our Country would NOT be in the shape it is today, if Government were to write creative laws that give incentive to do good, to do the right thing, to obey the law, rather than incentives to do the opposite. We have IMO, become a society out of control, with no tangible reasons to obey law or tradition, nor to be moral, have respect, and take American pride in ourselves anymore.
The Constitution is not easily amended, but it is up to THE STATES to let the PEOPLE decide, not some Judge.
If this isn't curbed soon, the Constitution becomes worthless, as these out-of-control Liberals/Socialists rip the heart out of the peoples' rights and wishes.
Alotta freakin good that would do. There needs to be a amendment that states that any judge that legislates from the bench is immediately terminated from his position, stripped of his pension, fined $25,000 and jailed for no less than 5 years, including and especially Supreme Court Justices! These clowns are out of control and need the hammer to come down on their activism! Screw impeachment!
Each state is free to reject legal legal anamolies IF it wishes. No state, for instance, is required to accept a contract that is invalid on its face. I know the matter has been fudged snce “no fault divorce” bit a contract is invalid if its contractees are incompetent. West Virginia says that a 10-year old can contract marrige, so Texas must accept?
So the agreement with the Federal Government said that if Utah went back and started to allow polygamy again then Congress could revoke Utah's Statehood...? Very interesting.
What were the other three States...?
Someone definitely needs to send this info to Barney Frank.
I know Fred opposes The Federal Marriage Act (Amendment). What I meant by skirting the issue, has to do with his support of a federalist approach, in the context of an unambiguous but satisfactory political policy which conservatives can support. Lets not forget that Fred did support the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. And since we agree, that no marriage amendment is going to get very far in the current political environment, why not offer an adjustment -— a compromise if you will -— that keeps his federalism in line with the Founders original intent. I see Fred as a straight talker and a man of integrity on this issue. I may not agree with him 100%, but his position is acceptable.
“The more I think about this, the more I like it. I don’t want goofy judges in my State to be able to dictate morality to other States. On the other hand, I’m not comfortable with the idea of definitions of morality coming from the Federal Constitution either.”
Red herring. The FMA has no definition of morality. Rather it is a simple legal definition of marriage and ensures that for our nation as a whole, the definition remains consistent as it has for 1500 years.
“That kind of top-down approach does indeed run counter to Federalism.”
It’s no more top-down than abolishing slavery, imposing trial by jury, requiring universal right to vote, and guaranteeing equality under law. All in the Constitution.
Family is a basic structure of society and marriage is a basic legal institution defining family.
“We conservatives don’t like it when the Federal government does that in areas like education; so why do we want it with regard to marriage?”
- The Federal Govt is not regulating anything when it simply declaring a basic legal definition remain that same legal definition that it has been throughout all states for their entire histories.
“The “full faith and credit” clause does need some re-work. “
Huh?!? It’s in the Constitution and not going away (thank God)!!!
“Is it fair that they demand that CA gay marriages be recognized in, let’s say, Utah, while refusing to recognize a Utah CCW permit here?”
Maybe it is ... but this example only exposes the necessity of an FMA.
Maybe if it was the “Federal Marriage Full-Faith-and-Credit” Amendment then pro-traditional-marriage federalists would “get it” and quit opposing an important amendment that strengthens not weakens our federal system of government!
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.