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.
For the record, that is exactly what happened in California. However, that state's legislature has recently given the voters the finger in giving same-sex couples all the bells and whistles that go with marriage--save calling it marriage.
Now, under ordinary circumstances, such behavior would result in a clean sweep in state government. Thing is, the RATS have been orchestrating voter fraud and intentionally dragging their feet on a recall of Governor Gray Davis.
This complete and total disrespect for the citizens of California is nothing short of arrogant and outrageous. And the people are being left with few options.
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.
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).
I sort of agree here...I'm glad Frist is expressing concern about this "ruling", and a desire to take some action, but it seems the real issue here is "legislating from the bench" in the matter of a newly-discovered "right to privacy" that has overturned duly enacted state laws...
From the article:
Frist said he feared that the ruling on the Texas sodomy law could lead to a situation "where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned."
"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.
Clearly the Texas law was unconstitutional in that it prohibited a certain behaviour for only a limited group of citizens, while permitting it for others, and there were no reasonable age or mental health considerations involved. However, an amendment banning "gay marriage" addresses only that one issue, and of more concern I'd think is the "creative" and "activist" nature of the courts, and the precedents they're setting with this kind of broad interpretation and ruling.
I understand that the enumerated rights are not to be construed as limiting, but nevertheless, we arrive at the "slippery slope" (sorry...just had to say that!) when they start finding/interpreting/creating/establishing/declaring new "rights"...
I'm perturbed that the Supremes didn't just overturn the one specific law, but instead went far beyond what was called for. I'd hope for more "action" on this though, not unlike the "wrangles" involving the Roe-v-Wade rulings, regarding re-writing legislation (in the states, mind you...) on parental notification and etc. in order to "pass Constitutional muster"...
Our blessed free republic bump!