Presidential Wannabees On The Marriage Protection Amendment
By California Yankee Posted in Culture — Comments (208) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
On Monday, President Bush will once again throw his support behind a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, just before the Tuesday Senate vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA).
Read the rest.
The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.
It stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate, where proponents are struggling to get even 50 votes. Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat — Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska — says he will vote for it.
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the amendment on May 18 along party lines after a shouting match between a Democrat and the chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa. He bid Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., "good riddance" after Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment and his intention to leave the meeting.
Gay marriage is likely to be one of the hot button issues in the 2008 presidential campaign. Courtesy of the NBC News' “First Read” here is a listing of where the 2008 presidential candidates stand on gay marriage and civil unions. Including, where applicable, how they voted on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which states that "marriage" can only be between one man and one woman and also whether they voted for or against continuing debate on the MPA back in 2004:
The Democrats:
Bayh: Opposes gay marriage, but said last month that he will not support the amendment in a vote and believes that the Constitution should only be amended when "absolutely necessary." In 2004, a Bayh spokesperson said that if the "Supreme Court ever strikes down the state or national laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, then he believes that a constitutional amendment should be considered." Voted against the MPA.
Biden: Has said he's against the amendment because it calls for revising the Constitution, which he does not support. In 2003, said he supports offering gay couples benefits and that a constitutional amendment addressing the issue would only make it more "divisive." Voted for DOMA and against the MPA.
Clinton: Opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions. Has said she supports "giving people the right to enter into recognized relationships, that whether you call him civil unions or domestic partnerships, enable them to own property, to have hospital visitation. To me, that's a human rights issue." In 2004, told NBC's Tim Russert that the "Republican platform" to deny benefits "for people who are in committed relationships" was "appalling." Voted against the MPA.
Edwards: Opposes gay marriage and thinks that any attempt to alter the Constitution would "divide this country." Missed vote on the MPA.
Feingold: Supports gay marriage and has called the bill "an extreme and unnecessary reaction." "Enshrining discrimination in our state's constitution is, frankly, an outrage," Feingold said at a recent fundraiser. Made headlines last month when he got into a spat with Sen. Arlen Specter (R) as the two discussed the bill in committee. Voted against DOMA and against the MPA.
Kerry: Opposes gay marriage but supports "[domestic] partnerships and civil unions" and is opposed to any federal constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage because he thinks the decision should be left up to individual states. Voted against DOMA and missed the vote on the MPA.
Richardson: Opposes same-sex marriage but doesn't support a constitutional amendment banning it. In 2004, said that it's a mistake to change "the Constitution on an issue like this that should be left up the states."
Warner: Opposes gay marriage and civil unions.
Vilsack: Has said he would sign a law allowing civil unions between same-sex couples if presented to him. "My view is the state ought to pretty much stay out of the church's business," he said in February. "I think there is a religious connotation to marriage that needs to be respected and understood... 'I don't think you necessarily have to redefine marriage to do it. A civil union set of rights would honor that... Marriage is already defined, and we don't need to change it."
The Republicans:
Allen: Opposes same-sex marriage and has said through a spokesperson that he would only support a constitutional amendment if it's "absolutely necessary." Otherwise, feels that DOMA is sufficient. Voted for the MPA.
Brownback: Was instrumental in pushing the MPA through the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, which he heads. "None of us takes amending the Constitution lightly," he said in November. "The plain fact is this amendment has been exhaustively studied and it really is time to act... We are deluding ourselves if we think these ongoing challenges... will not bear fruit." Voted for the MPA.
Frist: Opposes gay marriage and feels a constitutional amendment is necessary because marriage is "under attack" by "activist judges." Announced in February that he would introduce the MPA in the Senate on June 5. In a statement last week, said that the "American people deserve a full debate on this foundational issue before marriage is redefined for everyone" and said he wants to "ensure the definition of marriage endures and remains true to the wishes of the majority of the American people." Voted for DOMA and for the MPA.
Hagel: Opposes gay marriage but does not support amending the Constitution to ban it, and thinks the decision should be left up to the states. "Every American should be hesitant to let the federal government take rights away from the states," Hagel wrote in a 2004 statement. "If court decisions take away the ability of states to govern the issue of same sex marriage, we may need to address the issue through a constitutional amendment one day, but not today," he said. "Amending the constitution, the founding document of our nation, should always be a final option, not a first." Last month when a district judge ruled that a Nebraska law banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, Hagel said he was "deeply disappointed" by the decision. Voted for the MPA.
Huckabee: Said in 2004 that allowing gay marriages is allowing "lawlessness." "That's my major concern, that we've just got a whole bunch of folks out there that want to make up their own laws," he said. Later that year, said marriage "cannot be redefined to be something that culture wants it to be."
McCain: Said last week that he is against same-sex marriages but would vote against the amendment because he believes states should decide whether to allow them. "I believe in the sanctity of heterosexual marriage," McCain said. But, "the people of Arizona, I hope, would decide that a union between man and woman has a unique status." Voted for DOMA and against the MPA.
Pataki: Opposes gay marriage. When one local mayor began marrying gay couples in 2004, Pataki told reporters, "I've always believed that marriage in New York is between a man and a woman. That's the way it's been for 200 years."
Romney: Most recently, has said he opposes both gay marriages and civil unions. Last August, told MSNBC's Chris Matthews that "if you indicate as a society that you're indifferent between a same-sex couple marrying and a heterosexual couple marrying, then it means our schools and other institutions are going to have to indicate that there... is no difference whatsoever, and that obviously has societal consequences that are important."
President Bush is mistaken if he thinks promoting the Marriage Protection Amendment will regain the the conservative support he has lost over immigration reform.
« Hating James Dobson: To Heck With His Qualifications, He's a Meanie — Comments (14) | Protecting the Flag — Comments (81) »
Presidential Wannabees On The Marriage Protection Amendment 208 Comments (0 topical, 208 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I think we fell off the "limited government" bandwagon shortly after people got involved with government. Which incidently was the 1700's.
Good gravy.
Dittohead, it is pandering.
Let's take this opportunity to cram this amendment with all kinds of OTHER things on which Congress SIMPLY ISN'T EMPOWERED TO ACT, like maybe a Federal Sunrise Provision, defining what the sunrise is...
Thank God for the Republican majority because they obviously have solved all the major problems of the day and now can focus on the huge social problems ripping this nation apart...
You want to know something that could get me excited? Maybe a new plan in Iraq, or a new plan for health care, or maybe a huge shocker like an actual effort to balance the budget.
Could this be why Bush is at 29% approval? Lets not try to accomplish anything like real energy independence but lets talk about the gays... AGAIN.
Here is an idea have Bush come out with a firestorm of new ideas like building 100 new nuclear plants, a huge rebuilding of our infastructure by investing in high speed rail and other means to reduce our dependance other than drill for my oil. How about that talk of redesigning our tax system, maybe we can stop being socialists and stop giving money to corporations constantly.
Is anyone else here getting the least bit tired of the same circle of issues that NEVER GET SOLVED ANYWAYS.
This doesn't involve a likely misuse of taxpayer dollars.
Something that can't be said for Federal Health Care proposals.
Of people coming here and pretending to be good republicans and or conservatives and using that guise to bash the President of the United States.
There's a word for people like that....
And other places of them to be...
...but what is that word?
(actually can think of several)
Are you trying to get me banned because you know I won't be able to resist answering? ...must...resist...answering.
I believe first and foremost that marraige should be defined between one man and one woman, but should be left up to the states to decide. There are circumstances, like abortion where I think that a constitutional amendment is necessary to prevent the loss of lives. People die from abortions, thus the necessity to protect those lives in all 50 states is absolutely necessary. Gay marriage should be left to the state-unless activist judges begin to act as they did in Georgia and throw out the will of the people. Then I would support an amendment. So what I am trying to say is that I support this amendment because of liberal judges, but I wish I didn't have to on my principles
This is not 2003-2004, where gay marriage did seem a more relevant topic as far as the constitutional prerogatives of the states were involved.
For some reason marriage discussions always remind me of the following exchange:
"I can't believe you haven't had sex for 200 years!"
"204 if you count my marriage"
Diane Keaton and Woody Allen in "Sleeper"
...you'll get banned for saying the name of "our favorite musical artist" but you never know ;0)
Shame on me because I have voted for Republicans in the past, but am upset at my government right now. I am against abortion, against gay marriage (though I do think there are better things to talk about at this time), and I am a fiscal conservative. But, because I actually express displeasure at the lack of progress being done I obviously have a motive. I have never lied in any of my posts and I do consider myself very conservative in areas, moderate in others, and yes liberal in a few. Maybe though I am right and if Republicans want to win reelection they need to talk about things other than Gay Marriage. Consider that.
...to take a better tone in your posts and stop using Knownfacts™ or yielding PontiySticks™ like Trolls and Moby's do.
Example, your words:
Maybe a new plan in Iraq, or a new plan for health care, or maybe a huge shocker like an actual effort to balance the budget.
Just my opinion
P.S. I do agree there are far more pressing issues but thats all you had to say!
But, I tend to like to give examples of why we need to do other things hehe. If I just said that then what would I really be contributing :)
"So what I am trying to say is that I support this amendment because of liberal judges, but I wish I didn't have to on my principles "
We need to stick by our principles - once we start making exceptions, we no longer have principles. Yeah, sometimes things won't go our way but it will be very public and over time we WILL be able to something about it.
Bottomline - we don't need an activist federal government - regardless of the issue.
leaving things for the states to decide.
Except for the fact, that the Judiciary will not allow the states to decide on such matters. So rather than leave such questions for the Judges to decide, I say... heck ya, amend the Constitution.
Am I missing something here?
The meddling judges are all over this... State legislatures and State's Constitutional (approved by voters) Amendments be damned.
(:>|)
.
Two years ago I would not have supported this amendment for many of the same reasons a number of you have listed here. I remember well election night 2004 when 11 out of 11 states that had pro-traditional marriage measures on their ballots passed them with overwhelming majorities. This occurred even in true-blue states such as Oregon.
Then the liberal judges started to work, and today a number of those measures passed by such overwhelming majorities of voters have been declared invalid by the courts. If left alone, this issue WILL make it to the Supreme Court. We would then be only one slim majority Supreme Court ruling away from giving same-sex marriage the same footing as abortion. Five unelected people would get to make this decision for us all.
Are all of you so opposed to this amendment still so sure about that?
This is the time for addressing this issue. If it slides and the states cannot establish their will, and hundreds of thousands, or millions of marriages are established, it will be impossible to turn back the clock and undo the damage.
Principles are worth nothing in and of themselves. Principles are frameworks by which we guide our actions in a consistent way as we seek to live under overriding values. Principles support values. They do not replace them.
This issue must be addressed now.
.
The "Activist Judge" meme is getting really old. Save the term and use it where it actually applies, and not for every ruling that doesn't fit squarely within the social conservative movement.
Gay marriage should be left to the state-unless activist judges begin to act as they did in Georgia and throw out the will of the people.
The judge in the Georgia case threw out the amendment on a procedural issue, not because she is an "Activist Judge."
The Georgia Constitution requires that a proposed amendment to the state constitution be about one thing and one thing only. The amendment, as it was written, which was far different than the simple wording put before voters, was about two things: (1) banning gay marriage, and (2) banning any other conceivable legal relationship that might be similar to gay marriage (civil unions, etc).
Some people support civil unions for gays, but not marriage. The amendment took a position on both, but the authors of the amendment went to lengths to make it appear as if it only took on marriage.
The Federal Marriage Amendment, or whatever they're calling it this election year, is nothing more than a lame attempt to pander for votes. I think the flag burning amendment is slated for this summer, too. They'll both fail, and they'll both be back in 2008.
I'm surprised we don't have an apple pie amendment, too. How sad. There are so many other things to focus on.
Between a KnownFact(tm) and BushLied(tm) because one consistently rears its ugly head against the will of the people and one is something that liberals throw out when they have no rational arguments. And what I am trying to say is that I do not trust liberal judges to accept the will of the people as has been seen in Georgia or we could use Kansas where judges also threw out their DOMA on their own activist convictions. The point is liberals look to the Courts for ideas like gay marraige that would never fly in Congress and with the American people. Federalism is a principle that is forcibly abandoned when it is no longer respected by the Courts which seek to define the laws against the will of the people rather than interpret the laws as they were written and voted on by the American people. To the Christian base, which by the way makes up a significant portion of the GOP, this is not an issue like apple pie, but a real issue that we elected our President on with the promise that he would uphold the sanctity of marraige. This was a campaign promise in case you forgot.
Principles are frameworks by which we guide our actions in a consistent way as we seek to live under overriding values.
Too true.
This amendment has to be supported now because the damage will be too great if we allow the value of marriage and family to be destroyed.
I know people disagree with me on this, but long-term I really don't think there will be anything worse for the conservative cause than this. It is going to contribute to restrictions on freedom of religious speech, encourage the nanny state, make public schools a place where children are immunizied against traditional morality and values (even more so than they are now), and is going to screw up millions of kids as described in my diary entry earlier today.
Of course most conservatives will support this Amendment. I believe the issue would be better left to the states but we cannot ignore the liberal judges trying to disrupt those State level efforts. So I have to support this Constitutional Amendment. All fine and good, but they better not be under the impression that we will be distracted from all the other recent mismanagement by this rather weak offering.
If Republicans want to make sacrifice to the gods (us voters) they better start thinking bigger than this because the time is short.
It's like clockwork.
Natives getting restless? Trot out the FMA, baby!
Can we pass an anti-divorce amendment while we're at it?
I think an amendment like that would go a long ways towards protecting children who get completely screwed up by their parents divorce, and keeping intact heterosexual marriage numbers.
The reason the amednment is needed is because it only takes one misguided state to allow gay marriage and the other states (without the amendment) will have to recognize the marriage and the benefits that go with it by under federal law.
I believe states should make their own laws, but NOT laws that bind other states to accept deviant behaviour in states where said behaviour is not legaly allowed.
Remember, the right wing didn't start this fight. The Mass. Supreme court did.
Re: Except for the fact, that the Judiciary will not allow the states to decide on such matters. So rather than leave such questions for the Judges to decide, I say... heck ya, amend the Constitution.
OK, why not support instead the alternate amendment that many people (myself included) have suggested here, and which Sen Hatch actually did propose-- one which would basically write the DOMA into the Constitution but still leave the states and their voters free to determine their own marriage laws. Why tie the voters' hand? Isn't that every bit as bad as an "activist judge" doing the same?
Re: The reason the amednment is needed is because it only takes one misguided state to allow gay marriage and the other states (without the amendment) will have to recognize the marriage and the benefits that go with it by under federal law.
This "known fact" is not true, and it has been pointed out here before.
States have, in the past, been given wide latitude to set their own marriage laws, and that includes not recognizing marriages contracted in other states that are counter to their own laws. You can get maried at 15 in New Mexico ir marry your first cousin in (I think) irginia but if you move to a state where that's not legal, your marraige isn't there either.
And again, this could be addressed in a narrowly crafted amendment specifying this right of the states formally. The FMA is overkill.
other states (without the amendment) will have to recognize the marriage and the benefits that go with it by under federal law
- Why?
- What would they have to accept?
- What benefits will married people get from the states they don't reside in?
- And under what federal law?
But the principle that I value the most is democracy and the Constitution. To me, its much more important that if states allow gays to marry. Big deal - doesn't impact me at all, if that what a state wants, go for it - its their right and even if I disagree, I don't feel the need to have my federal government to tell them.
What happened to our principles? Reagan hated big government activism. We have hated big government liberal activism.
Do we think the answer is to replace it with conservative activism? NO! Our freedom and democracy allows people to make bad and good choices. As it should be.
Every single discussion of gay marriage amendment includes this famous liberal rejoinder.
you sound like a liberal. It's not conservatives who are being activist here. The judges who are throwing out laws passed by State legislatures are not conservative.
It's the job of the Federal government to protect us from state level liberal judicial activism. If some judge in Vermont decides that it's just fine and constitutional for pedophiles to have sex with minors (which is pretty much what is happening), I sure hope there will be some "activist" interference from the Feds.
States do not have unlimited rights to do whatever they want. It has to be within our constitutional and other federal guidelines.
Yeah, I am one of those keep Big Government out of my life liberals - I got my distrust of Big Government from Reagan.
The Constitutions Full faith and credit clause
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
So say New York allows same-sex marriage then the all States must under the Constitution accept that they are married
The age of consent differs from state to state like speed limits and many other requirements
I still do not see the argument?
I'm not sure a federal law can grant exclusive authority to a state legislature (make state marriage laws) and simultaneously prohibit any review by that state's supreme court.
Full faith and credit is not an absolute, unlimited allowance between the states (public policy matters, typically says the Supreme Ct). Age of consent is a rather trivial difference and eventually become moot, thus doesn't dramatically impact public policy. Different genders is monsterously different and never becomes moot.
Steeling from Aleks311
Explain this:
This "known fact" is not true, and it has been pointed out here before.
States have, in the past, been given wide latitude to set their own marriage laws, and that includes not recognizing marriages contracted in other states that are counter to their own laws. You can get married at 15 in New Mexico or marry your first cousin in (I think) Virginia but if you move to a state where that's not legal, your marriage isn't there either.
You're arguing the emotions and not the law but nice try!
So it's all pretty irrelevant. If you're going to go pandering, might as well pander to the max.
I am happy that the marriage ammendment has been brought up this year - even if it is an election year. It reminds me who I need to support and contribute to. I beleive morality is the biggest threat the country faces today. Terrorists can destroy us, but we can destroy ourselves with immoral behavior. I beleive in stronger laws against gay marriage, adoption and behavior. We need to quit tolerating deviant behavior. This country is in a crisis because we have left the liberal judges, media and Hollywood tell us what is acceptable. We need tougher divorce and birth control laws. Parents need to do a better job of teaching their kids right from wrong. We need to start reading the Bible more to learn the morality by which our country was founded.
God Bless GWB and the Country
No unaccountable imperial state court has ever ordered a legislature to draft legislation to allow marriage between 15 year olds or first cousins, either. Gay marriage is not the same as marriage between first cousins. It will propagate, thanks to the out of control state courts. The state courts make the 9th circus seem completely reasonable by comparison.
Even if a state doesn't technically recognize a marriage, say, to your first cousin, how does that apply to real life? Where are you going to be challenged? When exactly is the state going to step in and say, "Hey, you people are not really married in this state, so you better stop filing a joint return or applying for benefits with your non-spouse?" Are they going to give you a blood test at the border or demand to see a family tree to see how closely you are related?
How did I guess this was your first post? Sounds pretty mobyish to me.
This topic is a bit out of my preview being I tend to shy away from these types of issues. So my knowledge isn't exactly up to snuff. With that said, the argument was this "other states (without the amendment) will have to recognize the marriage and the benefits that go with it by under federal law" I don't see how CA saying we allow same sex marriage has to be recognized by any other state?
I may have used and borrowed bad examples, I don't know (it's been a long day and I'm a little woozy)
But I think my base argument/question still holds.
The fact that he qualifies marriage as 'heterosexual' shows he just doesn't get it at all.
Lets focus on section 2 that I gave you.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states
When you get married you get all the privileges that go with being married. Full Faith and Credit and Section 2 of Article IV has been interpreted this way and I do agree with the interpretation. The founders didn't want one each state to be able to refuse to recognize the laws of another state. It in turn would create a very unstable form of government.
but full faith and credit does not mean that each state's laws much be a carbon copy of every other state's. The fact that one state gives you a tax break for something or other does not mean that you can demand your new state of residence must do so as well. If Roe vs Wade falls and some states allow abortion while other states do not, no one (I would think) would be able to challenge a restrictive law in her state based on the fact that she was able to get a legal abortion in another state. And in the past the courts have allowed an exception to full faith and credit in marriage laws as well.
Re: The fact that he qualifies marriage as 'heterosexual' shows he just doesn't get it at all.
Huh? As far as I know McCain is on record as opposing Same Sex marriage but not supporting the FMA, a position which many people here have taken as well.
If a state said if a person gets an abortion then she is guilty of murder then that would create a huge problem. Other states may allow abortion but then anyone that is a resident of the state if they go out of state to get an abortion could be charged with a crime.
Let me put it this way. Say Indiana declares abortion a murder, but Ohio says it is not. An Indiana resident goes to Ohio to get an abortion, and then the Indiana police charge her with murder. Ohio says we don't agree with that and Indiana then says we don't care. What would be the solution to this problem? It is not a very pretty thought.
The use of the word 'heterosexual' there suggests to me how he thinks of the matter.
Your statement about Republicans and Federalism are correct. The one aspect of this that I hope that you will think about is the courts. If marriage was left up to the States, then what would happen when the ruling in Mass. is forced upon those States where a majority of the People are not in favour of same-sex marriage? I think that this is the reason for an amendment. Suppose Texas passes a law/amendment that bans SSM, how long do you think it will take for the Supreme Court to rule it "unconstitutional?" Thus the spirit of Federalism is trampled by the Court. Had the homosexual crowd not ventured into an attempt to change the English language, there would be no need for any of this.
I am supporting this amendment BECAUSE of my principles. Knowing that leaving this issue up to the States will result in the Courts just knocking their decisions down in favour of same-sex marriage is precisely why this amendment fits in Conservative principles. We have a problem with activist courts and yet we have a problem with combatting activist courts? I don't see the logic in that.
By the law sanctioning divorce, the traditional definition of marriage is still entact. By allowing for homosexuals to marry, you are changing the meaning of a word. The definition of marriage has meant between man and woman for generations. Only recently have we, the human species, seen fit to change that just so we can accomodate a small sliver of the population that wants to shove its way of life down our throats.
No it is not the same. The amendment process is very hard to implement while all it takes is five justices, which given the make up of the court, is not very difficult. Plus, the American People get to vote directly for the amendment while there is no involvment of the American People in the Court's decision.
It's called the full faith and credit clause. The constitution is more than a known fact.
A pseudo-democracy (as opposed to a real democracy) is characterized by, most prominently, (1) the belief of its populace that they elect the government (and we know both 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen by Chimperor's Junta), (2) a ruling wealth-based oligarchy (in the case of the United States, that represents not just the billionaires themselves, but their alter egos, the major corporations), and (3) a need for an enemy, whether internal, or external.
The last clear example of a pseudo-democracy was the Third Reich. Its leaders came to power with the money from the Krupps, and the Essens, and other moneyed German capitalists, so that IG Farben, and Bayer, and Messerschmidt could continue to grow their profits skyward. The population did, actually, elect Hitler into power in 1933, though they knew not what they were doing. And Hitler found an internal enemy: the Jews. Germany's 1933 hyper-inflation, Germany's horrendous economic and industrial state due to the Versailles Treaty, and even Germany's loss in World War I were all blamed on the Jews.
And we know what they eventually did with 6 million of them.
Chimpie McFlightsuit came to power in a combination of a swindle, a propaganda blitz by Fox News, and over $100 million in corporate contributions.
(By the way, for those who still, for whatever inconceivable reason, support that triumph of inanity that calls itself the President of the United States, ask yourself this question: how much was a gallon of gas on Nov 7, 2000? And this one: do you, for one second, imagine it will ever get back down there? Then shut up!)
Gays have been used as internal enemies by the right wing for some time. I seem to recall a pronouncement from Pat Robertson, and Jerry Fallwell (sic; see fallwell.com) that 9/11 was the fault of the gays.
The chimaera of gay marriage brought an unprecedented number of bigots to the polls in 2004, and what with 340,000 votes disappearing or not counted in Ohio, re-election for the Bush Junta was guaranteed.
So here we are in 2006. At this point even conservatives and Republicans admit that this president is an utter and complete failure. The Republican Congress is reviled. A number of hard-right Republicans are having a hard time getting re-elected.
So, in the immortally black spirit of Lee Atwater and Willy Horton, they bring out gays. AGAIN. One only has to look at that bastion of all that is reprehensible, repugnant, and reviled about the ultra-right, Senator Rick Santorum, who is desperately trying to claw his way back into the Senate. Faced with a losing campaign, he is humping that dead horse back to his base, "The gays are trying to destroy marriage."
Isn't it amazing how this issue keeps re-appearing pretty much at election time?
The ultra-right needs someone they can hate, and because they can no longer do it like they used to, what with white sheets and burning crosses (I mean, have you seen the price of gasoline?!?! I'd buy Bill Maher's electric one if I were them!), they are going and trying to use common prejudices to reverse years of civil rights laws.
They keep saying that God hates gays. I keep wondering why God made so many gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people some of the most talented, creative, and spiritual individuals, and why She made these gay-hating Christians fat women in bee-hive wigs, polyester, and Tammy Faye Bakker make-up job.
I also think the 2006 version of Tammy Faye would be disgusted with them. She is a real Christian.
I also keep thinking back to those two conclaves that created the antecedent of just about every version of Christian Bible: the Constantine revisions, and the translation ordered by King James. We know Constantine was playing politics by which books were, and which books weren't included in the Bible, and we know those politics had more to do with fourth century Roman politics than God.
We also know that King James needed a way to divorce a woman he was married to, so he wanted the Bible to support that claim. Since, what, with the idea of the Dark Ages to kill anyone who might posess the ability to read, much less be a scientist, the monks who performed these translations were not scholars. They prayed for inspiration, and this is what got us mistranslations like "do not let a witch to live among you," a phrase that eventually led to tens of thousands of innocent women being burned at the stake.
I have yet to hear the Vatican, or any other Christian religious center to come out and say, "Sorry! Our fault! There was a mistranslation! None of those women needed to be burned alive!" But they are not doing it.
The phrase, by the way, when translated correctly, says, "do not let a poisoner to live among you," which, while being a perfectly reasonable rule, would have made it a bit more difficult for several Borgias, as well as Maria de Medici. But I digress.
These people who come to events and bring with them drunk young men with baseball bats and teenage girls with signs that say "God Hates Fags!" and who encourage those young men to use those baseball bats on people, these people call themselves Christians. From everything I've read, Jesus would have been ashamed to be associated with such high and mighty moralists. These are the same kinds of people he evicted from the Temple. These are the same kinds of people that told black slaves in the South that it's God's will for them to serve their masters. And where is their apology now?
Not all Christians fall into the rotting mud of homophobia and other ultra-right hysteria. Most of them actually view their job as Christians to spread love and hope and peace, rather than hate, and indifference, and war.
I just hope that those Christians, ones who are appalled at the abuse of their faith, will finally stand up, and let all these bloviating blowhards know that, to paraphrase Aaron Sorkin, their 15 minutes, however long that was, are finally up, and this country won't have any.
You said this (full faith and credit) has been refuted here before, but reading further (below) I see that it seems it is not my position being refuted "today".
; )
That explains the way I see this matter.
So does that mean you've got nothing to say about the facts?
I thought so...
In case you've forgotten:
A constitutional amendment lets the states decide. They participate in the process.
A ruling by a state supreme court doesn't taken into account the will of the people or the legislatures. Republicans favor changing the law by amendment, not the courts.
You're generaly quicker than that bro.
The fact is that you have maliciously misconstrued facts to insult people.
I am a Christian conservative right winger. My best friend in the army (who saved my life at least twice) was gay. I loved (platonicly) my friend, and would do anything for him. And I don't favor gay marriage (nor gays in the military). Sound hypocritical? Consider this:
In your world a straight man can protest with friends in a gay rights parade. An evil doer with a bat attacks the straight guy and a gay guy. The law (hate crime legislation) thinks it is a worse crime that the gay man was attacked. A just law would hold both victims as equally deserving of protection.
Why cahange the laws to recognize same sex or bestiality or any other thing people want? NAMBLA wants grown men to marry boys, am I nazi for opposing that too?
Comparing your opponents to nazis is always vile. I was with a Catholic friend in New York at a mass when Act Up or Queer Nation or some such showed up en masse and spit out the eucharist during communion. Nazi behaviour indeed.
prevents this right now. If DOMA were ruled unconstitutional then maybe a Constitutional Amendment would be necessary. But even then, I think it should allow for states that legislatively pass same-sex marriage to be allowed to do it. It irks me that the Northeast has imposed their values on the rest of the country w.r.t abortion, school prayer, and other issues. I have no desire to do the same to them. If they want same-sex marriage, they should be able to do so. The FMA prevents that. This is pandering. It is a solution looking for a problem.
States can amend their Constitutions to avoid this and many are. There is no need for an FMA. I favor changing the law by legislative act, not by courts. And the FMA restricts the ability of states to legislatively enact same-sex marriage. That's why I oppose it. Let states enact it if they choose to legislatively.
If one wants to prevent the SC from ruling it is requried by the Constitutions, then all it takes is restricting the jurisdiction of the court (which can be done through Congress alone) or DOMA which is still active law. If DOMA is ruled unconstitutional, there may be an argument for an FMA but even then I would not support it unless it allowed states to enact same-sex marriage legislatively.
"The judges who are throwing out laws passed by State legislatures are not conservative."
State judges are throwing out laws enacted by state legislatures due to wording in their state Constitutions. Where in this is there a need for the federal government to act? I understand the push for state marriage amendments to combat activist judges, but with DOMA in place there is no problem that the FMA is solving. It's pandering.
If the administration and especially Congress wanted to convince conservatives that they are still relevant they could shut down a department (maybe Commerce, Energy or Education) or at least pass a moratorium on earmarks.
States participate in amendment of the US Constitution too, not just state level constitutions. Ratificaction, as well as our office holders we send to DC.
We've been seeing courts thwart the clear will (and legal parameters) of legislation before (as in FL Supreme Court ignoring laws in 2000 Bush v Gore, NJ during the Torrecelli debacle, and now MA during the gay marriage silliness).
It seems (to me) a constitutional ammendment is the only way to force the courts to follow the intents of the states, the people, and the legislatures.
an AZ state marriage amendment and he's said plainly that he opposes same-sex marriage. Geez, if you're going to attack an '08 hopeful on this issue you'd at least expect someone to go after Guiliani.
Agree with everything you said, and don't care all that much about giving homosexuals the right to marry. If it happens, it happens. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I don't care all that much either way.
HOWEVER, the anti-divorce amendment point is useful, I think, because it highlights a utilitarian step for protecting marriage versus the theoretical step that is the FMA.
The theoretical side of the FMA is that by broadening the definition of marriage to include homosexual marriage, the institution of marriage will be weakened. Or is under attack. Or whatever the handwringers are saying these days.
There's no evidence, however, that passing the FMA and/or preventing homosexuals from marrying will protect one single heterosexual marriage from deteriorating. Not one.
The utilitarian side of an anti-divorce amendment is quite practical. It would prevent or significantly decrease the rampant number of divorces in this country which, by their very definition, are negatively impacting the institution of marriage, hurting children, and, again by its very definition, reducing the number of heterosexual marriages.
So, on the theoretical side, we have a belief that preventing a very small percentage of the population from marrying which in turn would theoretically diminish or weaken the definition of traditional marriage and therefore reduce or weaken the millions of actual heterosexual marriages. That's all theoretical.
On the utilitarian side, anti-divorce legislation would in a very practical, clearly defined way, objectively increase the number of marriages that stay intact thereby offering the societal benefit of strengthening heterosexual marriage.
As soon as he runs he'll be in my sights as often as McCain is. But right now Rudy is conveniently in position where he doesn't have to take public positions on issues, so he's pretty safe.
McCain already opened his mouth, though, and to speak of "heterosexual marriage" not only implies the existance of other forms of marriage, but it shows that he's thinking of this whole issue along the lines that his good buddies in the press are presenting it.
Once you start putting this as 'heterosexuals vs. homosexuals,' the pro-marriage side is in trouble becuase you start getting hammered by the 'civil rights' stuff. And I don't think McCain would stand firm against that kind of media blitz.
Welcome to our home. This is not the kind of attitude we allow here. Take it elsewhere. In case you want examples of what we don't allow, these count:
Chimpie McFlightsuit came to power in a combination of a swindle, a propaganda blitz by Fox News, and over $100 million in corporate contributions.
The chimaera of gay marriage brought an unprecedented number of bigots to the polls in 2004
The ultra-right needs someone they can hate, and because they can no longer do it like they used to, what with white sheets and burning crosses
And it's funny too because I'm one of the few editors who actually supports most of the efforts of the gay rights crowd. But instead of listening to people's legitimate concerns about changing the nature of a millenia old institution, you give in to the desire to see hate and bigotry. Your intolerance is not welcome here.
But recognize that the FMA will never pass through Congress much less 3/4ths of states. This futile effort is an attempt to avoid doing anything substantative. If people wanted to actually protect legislative decisions from the courts there are things that might actually have a chance of passing. The FMA didn't get 50 votes last time. This time it may just break into the 50-51 range. That's 15 votes away from passing. My guess is over time the number will fall, not rise.
This is pandering, plain and simple. And it's not going to motivate many people to vote for Republicans.
I'll be honest in saying that a person's position on same-sex marriage will probably not effect my vote for President. The President is the least empowered to affect the issue. Their position on abortion is supreme as they are the only person in charge of appointing SC Justices. Whereas marriage is still at the state level where compromises, debates, and votes can win the day.
You want to leave this to the States you go ahead. Just read this and tell me that I am wrong.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7834478/
That don't want the Constitution changed.
I can think of a handful that would be against the Amendment because they have sympathies toward the gay marriage issue.
I can think of a handful that would be against fiddling with the Constitution over trivia.
And, maybe, there might be a state out there that considers this an encroachment on its rights from the 10th Amendment.
If you can come up with just 13, it'll fail.
It's pandering, blatant pandering, and worse yet, Bush and the Republicans know there is no chance that the Amendment will pass with 2/3 majority.
No chance they'll get 66 votes. They may get close. But there's no chance they get to 66. They know it. Any reasonable observer of politics knows it. And I suspect many at RedState know it.
But that won't stop them from diverting the attention of Congress and the White House away from the many pressing matters facing our nation and to an issue that has no chance of getting the necessary votes.
This is not the first Administration to pander to their base at an inopportune time, and they certainly won't be the last.
The law has no business making sure that a marriage, in the traditional sense, stays together. That is the responsibility of the couple. What we are talking about here is the definition of the word. I am not interested in stopping devorces from happening. I am interested in the traditional makeup of marriage.
Some reports of actual people who have had their marriage canceled out because they moved to a state where it wasn't recognized, then couldn't file a joint return, qualify for their spouse's benefits, etc? If you can't find any, then this whole thing is theoretical anyway.
You also have the problem of whether the federal government recognizes it. If I'm married to my first cousin and move to a state where that is not permitted, do I file a joint federal return? Or do I file a single return? If I choose wrong, I can go to jail. Now if I decide to file a joint federal return and I live in a state with the income tax, I have to file a joint state return. Do I go to jail for that?
Indiana has no problem with you killing as many people as you want in Ohio. If Ohio has a problem with it you will be brought to justice there, and extradited to face justice if you returned to Indiana. At no point would you face Indiana charges if you didn't do anything in Indiana.
You going to have to show me some specific examples of that. And it is against the law in the US to be married to your first cousin. It isn't a state law it is a federal law.
I think it is more than just theory. Stanley Kurtz has the story.........
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDFhMjk0YjI4NzgyZGM4NjMxZmY4NTQwZWNjYz
kzYjg=
It is a way to make Congressmen actually take a position on the issue and then to use that position in the coming election. I consider that to be a viable and often vital strategy going into an election. Democrats are masters at campaigning right and governing left, so you put legislation out there that makes them show their true colors. It isn't necessary to pass it, just make them pick yay or nay.
Here are states that allow marriage to first cousins.
Then we can get onto "more important matters". Most every Democrat claims to be "against homosexual marriage" (other than Feingold), then why not just take the issue off the table? Dismiss with the legitimate fear that Justice Kennedy will dream up some "dormant marriage clause" constitutional right for homosexuals to marry each other after one of his summer sojourns to Europe where he is regularly berated for the US's position on "gay rights" and the death penalty.
I agree their are "more important issues", but I am also not blind to the reality that their is a concerted effort by the "legal elite" to shove this down the throats of the American people. The idea that this is pandering to a segment of society is insulting. It is no more pandering that other issues be it tax-related or other social issues with a strong constiutency in either party.
I read it before I asked.
I still have no idea why McCain in on the outs for using that phrase.
I think the charge of pandering carries more weight when realized that the amendment itself betrays the cause of federalism, which the GOP seeks to champion, except, as it seems, when its ratings are low and mid-terms are nigh. Also, as National Review pointed out in the Corner recently, if this was so important as to merit a Constitutional Amendment, monumental no matter the circumstances, why now? If Bush is throwing his weight behind it and we need to change our Constitution for the first time in x number of years, why is the GOP getting to it now of all times, with Iran, immigration, taxes, etc. seemingly so much more pressing.
now I get where you are coming from.
On my list of top 100 issues facing America, it comes in about 1000.
Of course, I have no problem if it used to get out the vote and get important things like tax cuts done.
And the decidedly un-Constitutional language Kennedy used in his "decision". It reads more like a university faculty Senate meeting minutes or a post at Daily Kos than a Supreme Court decision. Why now? The Massachusetts, Vermont & Connecticut Supreme Courts.
Which is why I'm in favor of passing the amendment. Take the issue off the table. Then we can discuss those issues that are deemed "more important".
To look at the current landscape of the legal system and take the view of McCain/Hagel that this isn't "necessary" is naive at best and at worst is extremely disingenuous and I strongly suspect their motives.
with liberal activist judges undermining the people's will
Have read a number of Kurtz's posting at NRO.Interesting stuff.
Nevertheless, he's still theorizing. And at times, doing a poor job of it. There are any number of articles and blogs that have debunked and/or called into question his logic.
You can find a number of articles at this blog highlighting the logical gaps in Kurtz's argument by starting here:
http://www.marriagedebate.com/2006/02/more-on-kurtzs-dutch-correlations-jon
.htm
No one doubts that marriage numbers are down. The question is one of causality and correlation.
Again, whether restricting homosexual rights to marriage will have the affect of strengthening the institution of marriage is open for debate. That's what this country is doing right now. Debating it. There is no verifiable, objective, credible set of data that such a move demonstrably proves that marriage will be strengthened.
By contrast, we can all say unequivocably that the consistent rise in the frequency of divorce has negatively impacted the institution of marriage by eliminating 50% of marriages on an ongoing basis. That's not up for debate. We can all look at the numbers and conclude that divorce is FAR to easy to execute these days and FAR too common.
Too many people in America get divorced. Too many families are ruined. Too many children are negatively impacted by the fracturing of their family unit. This we all know.
You are correct.
It is not just pandering. It is also playing politics.
At a time when there are a lot of very important, national security issues left unresolved, Congress and the White House are pandering AND playing politics.
If everything in this country were humming along great, Iraq was a smashing success, Iran's nuclear ambitions squelched, the rampant Federal spending tamed, and the deficit brought under control, then yeah sure, maybe we can all get into the issue of gay marriage.
But given that those considerably more pressing issues are left unresolved, I'd just as soon Congress and the White House not engage in a little summertime, pre-Election Pandering AND Politics.
And Congress wonders why they are held in historically low regard by the public. It's because they get nothing done and so blatantly pander and play politics.
They will never learn.
If 13 states say "no way"?
Will you then take it off the table?
How about if it doesn't get the necessary votes in the senate?
had nothing tod with gay marriage. If fact the concurring opinions stated that explicitly. Moreover the case was decided on privacy andl iberty groundsm which have no bearing on amrriage since marriage is an inherently public institution. Had it been decided on equal protection grounds (and Justice O'Connor desired) there might be some concern of exapnding the ruling into marriage, but it wasn't.
enforces Constituitional statutes?
That's right-- the Courts!
So pasing this by amendment invites more judicial meddling, not less.
Especially since the second clause of the proposal is ridiculously vague and ill-defined. You hate judicial activism-- fine, then donlt put badly worded amendments in the Constituition.
enforces Constituitional statutes?
That's right-- the Courts!
So pasing this by amendment invites more judicial meddling, not less.
Especially since the second clause of the proposal is ridiculously vague and ill-defined. You hate judicial activism-- fine, then don't put badly worded amendments in the Constituition.
He was using that an example of the kinds of lousy decisions SCOTUS is (was?) capable of, not saying it would directly apply.
Divorce is NOT weakening traditional marriage. Divorce is a tool used by those who are at fault. What weakens traditional marriage are people who get married for the wrong reasons, or those who do it without fully contemplating what it is they are doing. Marriage can only be weakened by weak participants. Even if you outlawed or curtailed divorce, you are still going to have these types of things happen, or worse, you are going to have people trapped in a situation that they would otherwise be able to get out of.
Your arguement is tantamount to saying that the government is corrupt because of the Constitution and not because of corrupt people.
hasn't really cahnged meaning-- rather its meaning has been expanded. same thing happened when the word "voter" was expanded to include Blacks and wome nansd 18 year olds. White men 21 and over continued to have the same voting rights they did before each of those changes was made. Even with same sex marriage, every hetrosexual married couple will continue to be...a married couple.
Where's the change?
That easy divorce certainly devalues marriage. People get married for the wrong reasons because they can easily get a no-fault divorce. That horse has already left the barn, however, and shouldn't even enter into the gay marriage debate. As far as gay marriage weakening traditional marriage, I don't know if weaken is the right word. I think a better word would be devalue. As it gets expanded to fit other situations (gay marriage, polygamous marriage), you can't help but devalue traditional marriage.
has ever been cancelled since the marriage remains valid-- but only in the state where it was contracted.
Compare this to alcohol laws. If Ohio gives you a liquor license can you use that liquor license if you move to Michigan? No.
Oh for the days when Republicans believed that these decisions should be left up to the states. Is anyone trying to push an Amendment that says "Abortion and Marriage are not addresses in the Constitution and are thus the purview of the states." That might actually get majority support.