Skip to comments.Chief Justice Roy Moore Wants U.S. Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage
Posted on 02/06/2014 5:31:21 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
Known for fighting to display the Ten Commandments in his state's judicial building, Alabama's chief justice is jumping into the national gay marriage debate. Roy Moore has sent letters to all 50 governors urging them to get their legislatures to call for a convention to add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizing only unions between one man and one woman.
Moore says the country's moral foundation is under attack, and a state-initiated convention under Article V of the Constitution is the only way to stop it. An Article V convention has never been held. An openly gay Alabama legislator who recently married her partner says she expects most governors to toss Moore's letter.
(Excerpt) Read more at waka.com ...
An unusual Article V ping.
God Bless Roy Moore! He is by no means fighting this thing alone.
Lord help him
I used to push for this exact thing... then someone pointed out to me correctly that a state-initiated convention under Article V of the Constitution ... has no rules... which means that ANYTHING could be changed in our present constitution..
Do conservative REALLY want to role the dice on what might come out of a complete re-write of our current constitution?
Lord, Help Us All.
Its an uphill battle and having it lead by a man who’s soldiered remarkably well for Moral Standards..in the past gives me some hope that it wont be lost.
He ought to run for Governor again, then Mr. Moore could really challenge the Feds.
Remember our current constitution came out of what was just suppose to originally be a small adjustment to the articles of confederation. But once a convention is called.. they are not limited to any specific changes and can literally throw out the current constitution and start fresh if they so wish.
And you can bet that our 2nd amendment rights would be gone on a re-write and that abortion would probably be written into any new constitution as well as homosexual rights, ect. This could be a nightmare that we might not want to push for.
Pray that he indeed does!
There is no point in a constitutional amendment; the Supreme Court no longer cares about written law. On issues of political correctness, they rule based on their personal biases:
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that Proposition 8 (California constitutional amendment banning gay “marriage”) was unconstitutional, violating both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Proposition 8 supporters did not have standing for an appeal, and thus left Walker’s arbitrary decision standing.
EXACTLY! Some sanity here. Article V would be a DISASTER.
And while I sure laud his efforts, no chance there are the votes for this.
You are absolutely correct. I fear any Constituional Convention would devolve into 0bama making changes with the support of his nazi followers like Harry Reid that would legitimize his dictatorial regime.
Marriage has always been between man and woman. What homosexuals want is to change the meaning of the word. They then claim that, under this modified meaning, they are being excluded.
If the meaning of words must be changed it is proof of a lie.
Must the Constitution be amended to prevent changing the meaning of words? Why stop at “marriage”, why not include other words? If the meaning of words can be altered then there are no limits, lies become truth and truth becomes a lie.
I agree with him.
"....Before I get to the point of how gay rights have been promoted at the expense of human rights and how the promotion of gay rights inevitably leads to the decline of freedom, it is important to note that homosexuals around the world already have equal rights which are clearly enshrined in the United Nations declaration of human rights. With regards to marriage, one of the principle complaints of the gays rights movement, is that gays are denied the right to marriage. This simply isn't true. The reality is that a homosexual man or woman for that matter, has every right to get married if they choose to do so. Just not to someone of the same sex. There is nothing discriminatory here, a homosexual has no more rights and no less rights than a heterosexual with regards to marriage. By the same token, sibling marriage or getting married to one of your parents is prohibited. Does a father and daughter who love each other have a right to get married?....
Tex, study Article V further ... you will see that such a convention can propose amendments. The amendments would need approval of 3/4 of states. 38.
By your logic, Congress can toss out the whole constitution and start over.
It will be fine for those who love Jesus. Hang on, the Lord has a plan, it may take the fall to completd, deliver us from evil. His will be done.
The product of a national constitutional convention is not an amendment to the Constitution. The outcome of such a convention is an officially proposed amendment to the Constitution. The proposed amendment is then either ratified by 3/4 of the states or ignored.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof (emphasis added), as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Note that the federal government has no constitutional authority to ratify a proposed amendment. Ratification is entirely up to the states.