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 previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-169 next last
To: Viva Le Dissention
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 think your right about germany, never the less, if our scotus did it, there would be nothing that would at that point stop say the president, from essentilly ignoring there ruling, and saying "go ahead and endorce it yourselfs" (this actually has happened in the US, I think it may have been Jackson, and I think he actually used those words).
Never the less, Declaring an amendment unconstitional, would essentially draw a crisis on the spot, as the system of checks and balances would essentially be destroyed. The check on the supreme court is constitutional amendments, there is no other real check. Appointments aren't even a real check, and impeachments are not a solid check either, those amendments are what keeps the court from essentially usurping all the power of the executive and legislative branches.
YOu could and would have an instant dictatorship if they could declare amendments unconstitutional, hence why they dance around it by calling the document living and breathing. More likely then not, if say all 9 said an amendment was unconstitional, then there would be nothing to stop congress and the president from also ignoring the constitional in total either, and basically ignoring SCOTUS, or simply declaring they they can now outrank scotus. All crazy and hypothetical to be sure, note, that the constitution is explicit enough to declare that it is the supreme law of the land, and specifies how to make an amendment, and that it does trump anything and everything else. It also specifies the only way to change an amendment or get rid of one, it to amend again. SCOTUS overruling the law of the land, is hence illegal, by violating the check and balance, and usurping the amending process would bring about more then impeachment, it could actually result in there arrest. (scary stuff).
41
posted on
06/29/2003 1:36:04 PM PDT
by
Sonny M
("oderint dum metuant")
To: Viva Le Dissention
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 Marriage is not one of those.
42
posted on
06/29/2003 1:37:46 PM PDT
by
Houmatt
(Remember Jeffrey Curley and Jesse Dirkhising!)
To: RJCogburn
Political posturing....reminding me of the flag burning amendment.Crazy as this may sound, the strongest supporters of the flag burning amendment, according to every poll I have ever seen, seems to come from people in the middle. Hard right conservatives in general don't like or aren't to keen on actually having a flag burning amendment, liberals also abhor the idea, but the majority of americans do support it.....untill you change the wording of the question around.
43
posted on
06/29/2003 1:40:08 PM PDT
by
Sonny M
("oderint dum metuant")
To: Grut
What if a gay marriage is performed by a church... If it is not legally recognized by the state, it does not matter who performs the ceremony. A marriage without a license is not legal, and the state will not, in most states, grant such a license to a same-sex couple.
It's not rocket science.
44
posted on
06/29/2003 1:41:53 PM PDT
by
Houmatt
(Remember Jeffrey Curley and Jesse Dirkhising!)
To: Dan from Michigan
The constitution was created to limit GOVERNMENT, not the freedoms of individuals.
Slam and dunk. Nicely done.
45
posted on
06/29/2003 1:53:20 PM PDT
by
gcruse
(There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women[.] --Margaret Thatcher)
To: Houmatt
It's not rocket science. ...but it is a sacrament, which Frist seems to think qualifies it for federal protection!
46
posted on
06/29/2003 1:57:05 PM PDT
by
Grut
To: The_Pickle
If the Ninth Amendment makes your case, why didn't the Supreme Court use it in the decision?
47
posted on
06/29/2003 2:02:29 PM PDT
by
NoNewTaleToTell
(Hay for my men, tequila for the horses.)
To: NormsRevenge
I hope Frist is serious about this; I strongly support this amendment. It's about time that we, the People, take back our right to govern ourselves. The amendment process is a check against the abuses of the judiciary, and we ought to make us of it. If there is a silver lining to the atrocious fiat rulings handed down this week, it is that they have energized conservatives to fight back.
48
posted on
06/29/2003 2:07:00 PM PDT
by
Rebellans
(Judgment, not Will)
To: NormsRevenge; AntiGuv; Sabertooth; jwalsh07; sinkspur
And I'm thinking of, whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home, and to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern," Frist said. Did Frist just have a Rick Santorum moment? Oh dear.
49
posted on
06/29/2003 2:08:13 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: NormsRevenge
This is definitely necessary, or else we might just go the way of Canada and her prissy European sisters. This is something that could definitely pass the Congress and the states, with a lot of Southern Democrats supporting it, especially if it was voted on before the 2004 election. Lincoln, Breaux, Bayh, Dorgan, Dashcle, Hollings, Specter, and other liberals in conservative states would be inclined to vote for it. What's interesting is how the Democrat candidates would vote.
Regarding the Court, I don't think everyone realizes truly how powerful it is. You have to realize, anything it says goes. If the five of the liberals on the Court got together and decided to severely mess up our country, they could. The court could say that under the nineteenth amendment, women are prohibited from voting, though we can all tell that it grants them just that right. The Court could say that the 2nd amendment explicitly prohibits individuals from owning firearms, though it clearly does the opposite. Anything siad by five justices on the Court becomes law, as absurd as that is. Obviously, if they made decisions as incomprehensible as the ones I just mentioned, they would be impeached. Yet decisions that by a very far stretch lay some sort of claim to properly interpreting the Constitution, such as the universal right to abortion and racial preferences, result in consequences for the justices and no rectification of their wrongdoing.
50
posted on
06/29/2003 2:09:36 PM PDT
by
mugler
To: Dan from Michigan
I can not support any constitutional amendment banning ANYTHING, even murder. The constitution was created to limit GOVERNMENT, not the freedoms of individuals.Do you oppose the Thirteenth Amendment?
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.
I wish marriage WOULD remain a state issue. But right now, with the Lawrence decision, it is only a matter of time before the homosexual lobby convinces the Supreme Court to rule that ALL states MUST recognize same-sex "marriages." That is what this amendment would prevent.
To: DoughtyOne
If a constitutional amendment passes and 2/3rds of the states ratify it,there's not a thing the "supreme court joke"can do about it!
To: Torie
Did Frist just have a Rick Santorum moment? Oh dear.At the very least they seem to be trying awfully hard to write off the million plus gay votes which Bush received in the 2000 election. I suppose we'll have to wait & see what, if anything, Sullivan does with this; he seems to be on a roll lately...
53
posted on
06/29/2003 2:20:05 PM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: NoNewTaleToTell
I would say that the USSC did use it in the decision, as evidenced by their repeated refernces to the "right to privacy", a right niether spelled out, nor referred to in the Constitution. By Confirming that this "right" did indeed exist the USSC upheld the tenent of the 9th, by stateing that, even though such "right" was never explicitly written into the Constitution it's exclusion from said document should not be used to construe that it did not exist.
54
posted on
06/29/2003 2:21:09 PM PDT
by
The_Pickle
("We have no Permanent Allies, We have no Permanent Enemies, Only Permanent Interests")
To: Dan from Michigan
By the way, this is the text of the amendment, as introduce in the House:
FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (H.J.Res. 56)
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
This amendment does not "ban" anything so much as it DEFINES marriage and explicitly PREVENTS the judiciary (the least accountable branch of government) from imposing same-sex "marriage" on an unwilling populace. The people of each state could still vote to establish "civil unions" (though I myself would oppose such legislation in my state).
Comment #56 Removed by Moderator
To: AntiGuv; Sabertooth
I wonder if Frist would have said that if he had read the most excellent threads in which you and I and Saber have particpated in, thanks in large measure due to your efforts? Because, that drug dealer thingie is way, way out there, with prostitution almost as ludicrous. He is of course right on about gay marriage. What is funny though, is that what states are going to call it is "civil unions" for the time being, so this amendment seems well, circumventable.
57
posted on
06/29/2003 2:24:14 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: Grut
Re-read post #44, and continue to do so until you finally understand what I am saying.
58
posted on
06/29/2003 2:31:27 PM PDT
by
Houmatt
(Remember Jeffrey Curley and Jesse Dirkhising!)
To: AntiGuv
Who the hell cares what Andrew Sullivan thinks about anything? He is a NOBODY!
To: AntiGuv; Torie
Did Frist just have a Rick Santorum moment? Oh dearSantorum's analysis of wht SCOTUS was up to was prescient. Frist got carried away.
Most of the bones in my body drive me toward federalism and freedom for people to live where they want based on community standards but because the SCOTUS has gone "rogue" again, I'm 100% behind a Constitutional Amendment reserving marriage to one man and one woman.
60
posted on
06/29/2003 2:36:20 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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