Skip to comments.
Top Senator Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage - FRist,TN
Yahoo! News ^
| 6/29/03
| Peter Kaplan - Reuters
Posted on 06/29/2003 12:32:00 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-169 next last
To: NormsRevenge
How can you ban Gay marriage now? On what grounds could it be denied without the Supremes nullifying it?
I also want to see how the government justifies no-knock raids now that whatever adults choose to do in their homes is okay.
2
posted on
06/29/2003 12:36:17 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Vote Dimpublican in 2004: Socialism's kinder gentler party: "We will leave no wallet behind!")
To: NormsRevenge
He should rather call for someone to submit articles of impeachment against the six unrighteous judges who are misleading the Republic.
To: DoughtyOne
On what grounds could it be denied without the Supremes nullifying it? Amendments trump Supremes.
4
posted on
06/29/2003 12:37:22 PM PDT
by
friendly
To: DoughtyOne
How can you ban Gay marriage now? On what grounds could it be denied without the Supremes nullifying it?
The Supreme Court can't declare a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional.
5
posted on
06/29/2003 12:39:24 PM PDT
by
Arkinsaw
To: friendly
Yes, this moron actually wants to change the Constitution. Do these people seriously have that little to do that someone actually comes up with this?
Maybe we could get a constitutional amendment that only allows Congress to conduct session for 30 days a year, if this is the stuff they are coming up with...
To: Arkinsaw
The Supreme Court can't declare a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional. I'm not so sure of this. It's certainly never happened, and I've been involved in several heated discussions over this very subject on this board.
I think the most you can say is that it has never been done before.
To: friendly; Arkinsaw
Thank you. Then I would suggest this ammendment be lengthy and address a multitude of 'rights' that deviants should be prevented from having, including beastiality and the presentation of this carp to our young children in school. And I might add, forbit schools from promoting their degenerate and anti-American agenda as well.
8
posted on
06/29/2003 12:44:10 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Vote Dimpublican in 2004: Socialism's kinder gentler party: "We will leave no wallet behind!")
To: NormsRevenge
As much as I like this amendment, and support it, I do honestly believe this is just a weak attempt to energize the base and motivate them. I don't think he is being genuine. Never the less, its not something thats not possible to pass. I would prefer the language read as something not banning, but specifying what marriage is and limiting it to a man and a woman (also human, I know sicko out there will look for a loophole).
9
posted on
06/29/2003 12:45:41 PM PDT
by
Sonny M
("oderint dum metuant")
To: Arkinsaw
The Supreme Court can't declare a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional. No, but they can pretend it says something it doesn't. From "Nor shall any state...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," the Supreme Court somehow created a right to discriminate against white people.
To: Viva Le Dissention
I'm not so sure of this. It's certainly never happened, and I've been involved in several heated discussions over this very subject on this board.The reason it never has happened is because its simply not allowed. Thats why the supreme court "re-interprets" amendments to say what they want them to say. Using "re-interpretation" and the concept of "living and breating" amendments, allows them to pull the stunts they do.
By definition alone, unconstitional means against the constitution, if its an amendment, its a part of the constitution, it not possible for it to be against itself.
11
posted on
06/29/2003 12:48:58 PM PDT
by
Sonny M
("oderint dum metuant")
To: DoughtyOne
"How can you ban Gay marriage now? On what grounds could it be denied without the Supremes nullifying it?"
With all due respect, this question reveals a real lack of understanding regarding our governmental system.
To: DoughtyOne
"How can you ban Gay marriage now? On what grounds could it be denied without the Supremes nullifying it? "
By doing exactly what Senator Frist is proposing. Adding an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which specifically defines marriage in the United States and all it's territories.
SCOTUS cannot override the Constitution. But I imagine that we will then have the problem of defining exactly what is a man and what is a woman. After all, if we don't even really know what "IS", is.
13
posted on
06/29/2003 12:50:02 PM PDT
by
navyblue
To: DoughtyOne
I would suggest this ammendment be lengthy and address a multitude of 'rights' that deviants should be prevented from having, including beastiality and the presentation of this carp to our young children in school. And I might add, forbit schools from promoting their degenerate and anti-American agenda as well. I was thinking the exact same thing.
14
posted on
06/29/2003 12:51:02 PM PDT
by
friendly
To: NormsRevenge
I can not back this. Good idea, wrong method.
I can not support any constitutional amendment banning ANYTHING, even murder. The constitution was created to limit GOVERNMENT, not the freedoms of individuals.
Gay marriage is a state issue. The feds did the right thing with the defense of marriage act. That's good enough there. This fight belongs in our state capitiols.
And on the state level, I would support a ban on gay marriage.
15
posted on
06/29/2003 12:51:17 PM PDT
by
Dan from Michigan
(Liberals - "The suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked")
To: Viva Le Dissention
What? Where do you people come from? The Supreme Court is in place to interpret the law. I guess you think the Supreme Court can get rid of the Bill of Rights? Geezus.
To: DoughtyOne
If you are going to be talking about rights, this, above all, should be pointed out:
Nobody has a right to marry.
If there was such a right, there would be no limits.
17
posted on
06/29/2003 12:51:57 PM PDT
by
Houmatt
(Remember Jeffrey Curley and Jesse Dirkhising!)
To: NormsRevenge
I think the constitution is fine as it is. I wish people would stop trying to change it.
18
posted on
06/29/2003 12:53:16 PM PDT
by
dead
To: Sonny M
It's happened in other countries (India and Germany, I believe, but I'm truthfully not sure about Germany), and I certainly think it could happen here, given the right circumstances. I doubt that an amendment banning gay marriage, regardless of its intellectual shortcomings, would be the one to make it happen, but let's say there was a constitutional amendment to strip Muslims of due process rights. This certainly flies in the very face of the goals of the constituion.
The question then becomes whether there are "higher" principles for which the constitution stands which are superior to the actual text of the document. I would argue that there are certain liberties and rights that are so fundamental to a free society that they cannot be changed by any government fiat, or a free society would simply no longer exist.
To: navyblue
And in my personal opinion, that is determined ONLY by the grouping of the X and Y chromosomes in the human gene system. You of course are entitled to your opinion.
20
posted on
06/29/2003 12:54:24 PM PDT
by
navyblue
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-169 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson