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.
The problem isn’t the Constitution. It’s activist judges who find things in it that aren’t there. Fix that problem, and you don’t need an amendment about fag marriage.
I choose to fight ... thank you very much
Very brave of Roy Moore, but it has little chance. The bar is just too high at the state’s convention unless we get some real hardliners in there.
But let this be a reminder to everyone. The state legislatures are very important battles to fight.
I think same-sex marriage has progressed too far to reliably forbid it via convention. I don’t think that would prevent lots of other things from being passed.
For my governor to be able to read Roy Moore’s letter, unfortunately he’d have to write it in crayon.
WOMAN’S LIB AND ISLAM
There was going to be a federal convention in Philadelphia regardless of what congress did or did not do. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had no power over a convention. There was nothing to prevent congress from proposing amendments on its own, which it did, regarding taxes and trade a couple of times in the early 1780s. Why did congress need a convention to propose amendments, when it had already done so in the previous few years?
November 23, New Jersey elects delegates.
December 4, Virginia elects delegates.
December 30, Pennsylvania elects delegates.
January 6, North Carolina elects delegates.
January 17, New Hampshire elects delegates.
February 3, Delaware elects delegates.
February 10, Georgia elects delegates.
February 21, Congress calls for a federal convention.
Just as the federal convention of 1787 was extra-congressional, our future amendment convention of the states will also be extra-congressional. Unlike nullification, the state amendment convention will be constitutional.
We live in a burgeoning police state. Obama’s word is law. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain in an Article V state amendment convention. Most Americans think the purpose of congress is to do as it is told by Hisself. There is little time.
The convention will be extra-congressional, extra-presidential, just as the framers designed it.
I think an anti-fag marriage amendment is getting down too far in the weeds. Return the senate to the states and over time, the anti-10th amendment social justice judges will be replaced with constitutional jurists.
The crust of eighty years’ worth of Scotus outrages is too thick to be addressed via amendments. The solution is for future courts to overturn them.
when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States
OR < ————————
“by Conventions in three fourths thereof “
if a convention is called.. and 3/4 of the representatives of the states agree... they can do ANYTHING, no later ratification is necessary.
Ratification is only necessary when a constitutional amendment is put forward by congress. Since the states are the ones that are calling for convention, and since those very states will send representatives to said convention, agreement among 3/4 of said representatives is implicitly implied.
you also have to think about this... how will the states decide how the representatives from each state will be picked?
will there be an equal number of representatives from each state? (as I think conservatives wrongly assume)
will the big liberal states push for representation based population (arguing that is more democratic)...
remember... there ARE NO RULES once the convention is called (it makes it’s own rules), the supreme court can’t step in, the congress cant interfere.... ANYTHING they decide to do is fair game and stands since from the moment it is called it is extra constitutional and not subject to review by anyone.
I think Article V makes it clear that it's a two step process. A convention can be called if two-thirds of the states request it. Once convened the convention can propose constitutional amendments. That's step one. These amendments must be sent back to the states for ratification. The states can ratify either through vote of legislature OR convention on its citizens. But in any event three-fourths of the states need to do so. The amendments can't be proposed and ratified in the same convention.
After 2/3 of the states have called for a convention, congress will then be required to call said convention.
Upon the creation of said convention, our current government and constitution basically ceases to exist.
All the liberal states will send their most left wing nuts, and most of the red states will send RINO’s like John McCain with real conservatives being in the vast minority.
At the convention, the convention itself will decide upon the rules of the convention.
The large liberal states like New York and California will argue for proportional representation, while smaller states will push for equal representation.
The larger states will win the argument because “it's more democratic”, “one man one vote” ect, arguments.
Now that the liberals and RINO’s are in the vast majority at the convention (due to the proportional ruling), they will then unilaterally decide how to proceed.
They will then argue that only 3/4’s of the convention delegates need agree to any changes, instead of 3/4’s of the states. And since the only people voting for such an interpretation will be ... the previously agreed upon proportionally allocated representatives, this measure will pass easily over the objection of the much smaller conservative delegations.
Then they will proceed to fully implement the lefts entire agenda.
Then they will declare that no further ratification by the states is needed, and will then proceed to form a new socialist/communist government.
Any cries from the right that they broke the rules or didn't do it right will fall on deaf ears and any legal appeals to such affect will be tried by new judges appointed by this new government.
Before I address Article V conventions, I will state that since the Constituton is not broke, let's not "fix" it. In other words, the only problem with the Constitution is politically correct interpretations of it which promote unconstitutionally big federal government.
What the country really needs to do is for Congress to impeach activist justices and corrupt presidents for ignoring their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. The problem is that corrupt members of Congress need to be impeached themselves. So voters really need to wise up to major federal government corruption and use their voting power fire a bunch of "leaders."
Regarding conventions, the way that I read Article V is the following. A given proposed amendment can trigger possibly 0, 1 or 2 layers of conventions before it is possibly ratified.
For no conventions, Congress proposes an amendment(s) to the states, and also proposes that the state legislatures decide yea or nay on the proposed amendment.
For one layer of convention, a national convention, Congress calls this convention because state officials have indicated that they want to get together and agree upon the wording of an official proposed amendment(s) to the states, Congress also proposing that state legislatures, as opposed to state conventions, later decide yea or nay to the proposed amendment.
In all three approaches to amending the Constitution, the yea or nay on a proposed amendment is decided in a later stage, and most likely by different people than the ones who drafted it at a national convention if Congress didn't propose it.
Again, although I can recommend a few changes to the Constitution myself, repeal the 16th and 17th Amendment for example, the Constitution is not broke, so let's not "fix" it, particularly since the states are divided on so many issues anyway.
With the dictator we have in the white hut, that is a tremendous risk.
Yes, leftists would hijack any article V convention, and then either nothing would get done, or the Constitution would be destroyed completely.
There was a point in time decades ago where such a remedy might have worked, but we have long passed the point of no return and must now live on this sinking ship of liberal debauchery
Back when Bush backed the Defense of Marriage Act I thought that was the time to go for a constitutional amendment. It was dereliction of duty of the part of President Bush to not take that path. He merely set us up for Obama to ignore DOMA and instead push homosexuality everywhere after the Supreme Court smacked it down. This is what happens when the GOP is not sufficiently aggressive in defending what needs to be defended — in this case, marraige as an institution between one man and one woman.
The time has passed for that.
Even if an amendment had passed in the 90s, it would be easily repealed now.
I supported the original Federal Marriage Amendment in 03/04 but knew it didn’t have the required votes to pass.