Posted on 05/16/2012 9:26:17 AM PDT by txrangerette
Rep. James Clyburn, the House Democrat's third-ranking leader, said on MSNBC's Daily Rundown Monday that the question of legal recognition of marriage between same-sex couples should not be left to state laws, but instead ought to be decided at the national level, a position that puts him at odds with President Barack Obama.
Clyburn told NBC's Chuck Todd, "If we consider this to be a civil right, and I do, I don't think civil rights ought to be left up to a state-by-state approach. I think we should have a national policy on this."
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com ...
Clyburn, btw, voted for DOMA, as did most Democrats.
In addition, the article quotes Clyburn that he was "indoctrinated" while growing up that the opposite was true, but he has evolved to the point where he believes this is now the right thing to do.
SanFranNan at work?
Clyburn, a third-rate political hack, taking one for the team?
Or, just all in a day's work for your modern Dem party?
ping
Hmmmm...there’s that word “evolved” again. Funny how that keeps popping up in the Rat talking points ever since Zero came out of the closet.
Someone tell me where in the Constitution does it give the federal government the right to marry people?
"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.
Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."
“In addition, the article quotes Clyburn that he was “indoctrinated” while growing up that the opposite was true, but he has evolved to the point where he believes this is now the right thing to do.”
He was “indoctrinated” and “evolved”?
Man has wrong kind of talent, so he should STFU.
That's what constitutional amendments are for. In the meantime, the amendments we have say it's up to the states, and it doesn't matter that he doesn't like it.
Thanks for the question, Kevin.
The Constitution doesn’t.
The courts have been known to discover in the Constitution a right to something, or a ban on something, such as abortion on demand and no praying in school, any old way they have to in order to reach the Left’s goals.
Well this should go over like a lead balloon. 32 out of 32 states that put it up for a vote have said NO WAY. RATS cannot be this stupid - can they? IS this just a diversion to keep the American sheeple from the disaterous Zero economic policies? Me thinks so.
Article says he was a minister’s son who was raised to believe the opposite of this.
His family wouldn’t be proud.
After we take the WH, the House, and the Senate, we shoudl move to repeal it, immediatgely..Heck they're gonna scream at ANYTHING we propose...might as well get our money's worth..
The people of those states need to recognize, in the front of their brains, that democRats
WANT TO FORCE THIS ON US.
I always get so frustrated when talking with libinlaws -
I ask them if they agree with some policy that some ‘rat is trying to force on the rest of us,
and their response is “they won’t be able to do that”.
It doesn’t bother them in the least that the ‘rats WANT TO “do that”.
Tell me the mechanism for bringing it up for a national vote, and I’ll be interested.
Short story, the Constitution doesn’t provide for that.
States have the option to have popular vote referendum.
But even where they do, such as in CA, and even when CA voted for traditional marriage, their court struck it down.
That’s why people believe Clyburn is hoping for an eventual Supreme Court decision declaring so called marriage equality the law of the land.
Excellent point.
“If we consider this to be a civil right, and I do, I don’t think civil rights ought to be left up to a state-by-state approach. I think we should have a national policy on this.”
It may be Clyburn’s lips moving but that’s Obama talking.
OK, this ventriloquist is laying the crowd in the aisles, until he makes a joke about Democrats.
Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and James Clyburn all stand up and begin hooting and heckling, talking about how the Democrats are the `People’s Party,’ that they work hard for the country and ya da ya da ya da ...
The ventriloquist apologizes profusely, points out that it’s just part of his act, that he had a joke later about the GOP and even the TEA party, which everyone except most of the country hates, and Clyburn began jumping up and down and said:
“We ain’t talkin’ to you, white bread!
We talkin’ to that little SOB in your lap.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH5p5iMEbrE&feature=related
Oh I am well the Constitution doesn’t allow for it. Has that stopped congress before?
“Clyburn seeks ‘national policy’ legalizing same-sex marriage”
It’s called NO, Captain Slow Lane.
There is already a “national policy” on homo marriage. It is called DOMA. And the policy is: it’s illegal.
DOMA needs to be elevated to a constitutional amendment before the poofter mafia strongarms the feds.
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.