Posted on 12/27/2003 3:08:49 PM PST by Federalist 78
Insist that Congress remove federal judical jurisdicton from Defense of Marriage Act /Public Law No: 104-199, 342-67 & 85-14 w/Clinton signature and allow each state to choose, or abstain from sodomy.
Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Article III, Section 2 - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Sen. Thomas A. Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, used the exception authority of Article III, 2.2 in order to cut some timber in South Dakota.
Reining In the Court - The New American - July 28, 2003 By simple majority vote, Congress could pass an act denying federal jurisdiction over social issues of any kind, such as abortion, pornography, and homosexuality. This would leave the state legislatures free to enact (or, in most cases, re-enact) laws on those matters reflecting the moral consensus of their constituents. This would leave the well-funded leftist network of legal agitators - the ACLU, et al. - without effective recourse, since they would have no access to their longtime allies in the federal judiciary. Rather than use the judicial system as a detour around representative government, the cultural left would have to contend, on equal terms, in state legislatures.
James Madison, His Legacy: Federalist Papers (FEDERALIST No. 51)
But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates
There is no way it would be 'repealed'. A constiutional amendment can only be repealed by another constitutional amendment, and while opinion my shift more in favor, there will never be enough support for a constitutional amendment to allow gay marriages.
A recent NY Times poll showed, to the Editorial Board's chagrin, that well OVER half of Americans rejected the idea of homosexual marriage. A large majority also expressed opposition to homosexuality as a lifestyle. This was a total shock to the Old Grey Lady which has been trying mightily to change public opinion in this regard.
If now, after several years of homosexuals on tv shows, in the movies and the tabloids, Americans are STILL not accepting of the lifestyle, I don't think that time will ever come. In fact, the more often homosexuals are portrayed in the media, the less average Americans are accepting of them.
Comparing antisemitism and homosexuality will only tend to strengthen the younger generations view of homosexuality as a civil rights vs. bigotry issue.
The problem with this argument is that it is akin to telling women not to fight back when someone is trying to rape them, since it's inevitable. If there are no moral absolutes, and the "progression" of societal change is inevitable (social Darwinism), then it is not only futile but wrong to try to stop change. In fact, might as well speed it up and bring on the pedophiles.
Actually, it is the duty of everyone who can distinguish right from wrong to defend what is right and fight what is wrong, not to cave in and accept rape as inevitable.
38 states already have defense of marriage laws, and the big polls are showing overwhelming support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Our founders put sodomizers to death, and they obviously didn't even imagine that sodomizers would try to legitimize something like marriage between themselves and fight legitimate parents for custody of their children. Our founders would be rallying around this Amendment as we are.
AEI - Publications (written before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act decision of Dec 03, where even J.Kennedy was correct)
Beneath the Supreme Court's many astounding decisions in its 2002-2003 term, and the shifting judicial coalitions that produced those results, runs a unifying basso continuo: Constitutional law, in the sense of judicial decisions that are guided--at least in aspiration--by the text, structure, and logic of the written Constitution, is dead. It has been replaced, often as a matter of explicit doctrine, with subjective judicial impressions of popular sentiment or political utility. Federalist Outlook, The Term the Constitution Died, Michael S. Greve,Friday, July 25, 2003
There is nothing wrong with the U.S. Constitution and nearly everything wrong with the federal judicary. Congress has the cure. They can amputate by removing jurisdiction, or use the guillotine and impeach/remove.
Try reading some history with "The Pink Swastika" by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Much detail and contemperanous documentation of the intimate connection between homosexuality and the Nazis themselves and their philosophy.
It might be advisable to inform yourself before defending homosexual marriage any more.
Only time will tell but, based upon my observations of todays teens and young adults, 90% of them view homosexuality as being normal and acceptable. Within a couple of generations they will be the majority. That majority coupled with homosexuals framing the debate of non-traditional marriage as a civil rights issue will provide strong support for the repeal of any Constitutional Amendment concerning marriage.
Secondly, the overwhelming majority of young folks are woefully ill informed no matter the issue. It is high time that this issue is openly debated and all possible ramifications to liberalizing, read redefining, marriage be placed on the table for one and all to ponder upon.
Thirdly, young people, as a rule, don't vote. Whether that is good or bad is up to the individual's to decide but it is none the less true.
Am I against the Gay Lobby because, as they would say, I am a hater, a Nazi, an admirer of Hitler? This is unlikely, because my wife was born in the Lida, Poland ghetto, and Nazis murdered her family. Indeed, if I oppose the Gay Lobby, it is precisely because I am deathly afraid of Hitler, and I believe that the Gay Lobby is one of those groups that will play propaganda songs until society falls asleep, and then seize power and destroy people like me. The Gay Lobby, as I see it, is not looking for Gay Rights, they are looking to seize power, like other secular radical groups. Napoleon was one of the most extreme fighters against the French monarchy until he came to power and declared himself Emperor. Rabbi David Eidensohn
UOR protests Reform clergy okay of 'Gay marriage'
April 2, 2000— The Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada (UOR) issued a statement today condemning the latest move by the Reform movement in the United States authorizing "Gay marriages" by Reform clergy.
Speaking for the UOR, Rabbi Yehuda Levin said: "This latest move by the Central Conference of American (Reform) Rabbis (CCAR) proves once again that Reform Judaism is not Judaism at all – it is nothing more than a pathetic parody of Judaism that makes a mockery of the sacrifices of our fathers and grandfathers, who gave their lives AL KIDDUSH HASHEM [in sanctification of His name].
"The Reform clergy does not teach Judaism – what they preach is a trendy version of the latest politically-correct new-age radicalism.
"The Reform clergy does not honor G-D. They openly defy his clearly-expressed commandments, as stated in the Holy Torah (Five Books of Moses). They pervert His Word by twisting His Law to mean the very opposite of what was intended.
"They are arrogant and dishonest. They are rebels against G-D and His people.
"They mislead their flock, who include many decent and well-meaning Jews seeking to find meaning in Judaism. Instead, they are fed a diet of fraudulent liberal hokum.
"If they retain any respect at all for their religious ancestors, they should stop insulting their holy memory by calling this strange new religion 'Judaism' and bringing shame and disrespect, a CHILLUL HASHEM [profanation of His name] , upon G-D's holy people.
"By issuing this statement, we publicly disassociate ourselves from this outrage.
"—May G-D have mercy on the remnant of His people."
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.