Redstate

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.

Is so 1700's.

Why does this feel like pandering?

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)

Look here RedState posting rules, tips and etiquette

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.

I have no idea what you mean.

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.

Where?

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.

The executive enforces the laws under the Constitution.  The Court, since Maddison v Mulberry, has the authority to determine laws passed by the Legislature to be Constitutional or not.  If an amendment passes, the Court must abide by that amendment, it cannot say that the amendment is unconstitutional because the amendment was passed constitutionally.  Furthermore, there is no inherent right for homosexuals to marry; and by leaving this up to the 9th and 10th amendments you are allowing the courts to strike down those states that elect to ban gay marriage.  They did this with abortion, sodomy and they WILL do this with gay marriage.

I have no clue as to what Neal's problem is with McCain employing the word "heterosexual". last tiem I checked it was a perfectly valid and appropriate word, if a bit of a mouthful. I suspect he is trying yto split hairs right down to the quarks to find yet another reason he does not like McCain. If some politician he does like employed the word I suspect he would not see anything amiss with it.

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.

We have that Amendment now.

It's called the 10th.

I agree somewhat in what you are saying, but I think in light of the gay marriage debate, we seem to have wondered into a different topic.  My only contention is that a small group of people wish to redefine the English language.  I find it hard to believe that the homosexual crowd would be supportive of me wanting to change the definition of "gay" to mean six feet tall, brown haired males.  If they want the legal respect given married couples, let it be done through civil unions.  Don't redefine words and don't shove your lifestyle down my throat.  

PS--I using "your" I don't mean to signify you.  I am talking gay community generally.

Re: McCain already opened his mouth, though, and to speak of "heterosexual marriage" not only implies the existance of other forms of marriage,

Well, as of right now, other forms of marriage do exist: same sex marriage exists in Massachusetts as well as in Canada and several other countries. You may not like it or approve of it. You may in fact despise that fact with every fiber of your being, but you can't change the fact that these things exist. And even if they didn't exist in reality they might still exist as a potential and we could talk validly about them. I do not regard amnesty for illgal aliens as a good or wise policy, but I must still say "amnesty for illegal aliens" if I wish to talk about the subject, even ti express my disapproval.

I really have no problem with civil unions. The gay community has abandoned them because they realized once they get civil unions, they have no change of getting SSM.

They want to keep those utilitarian arguments for use in support of SSM to argue unfairness, but SSM is really about approval and confirmation of their lifestyle. It's about teaching little boys in kindergarten that marrying another boy when you grow up is every bit as normal as marrying a girl.

Yes, Kennedy's decision was on the surface based on the "liberty". But when it opens with puffery such as "Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions", one would be mistaken to believe that decision was truly limited and not a "building block" for future homosexual championing by Kennedy & gang, including marital rights.

Marriage has been around a lot longer than voters.  I don't like the comparison.  Marriage has a specific meaning--union between man and wife in the eyes of God.  Voter has a specific meaning too, but it can be relegated to a specific portion of people.  

Look here:  http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=voter

You will see that the definition does not say anything about women and minorities, it just says "vot·er    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (vtr)

n.

One who votes.

One who has the right to vote."

However when we look up marriage:  "mar·riage    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (mrj)

n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

The state of being married; wedlock.

A common-law marriage.

A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

A wedding.

A close union: "the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics" (Lloyd Rose).

Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle."

Now we do have here a definition saying "two persons,"  but the first entry, the traditional one, clearly states "man and wife."  Plus, the definition with "two persons" also mentions the legal difference.  I am going to leave it at that.

It has nothing to do with "love" for them.  It is about affirmation of their lifestyle which is not compatible with nature, in my humble opinion.

What if the Senate annually votes to reject this Amendment, while at the same time state's continue to enact constitutional amendments outlawing homosexual marriage? Would Kennedy & gang ignore the states actions and use the Senate's action(s) to find an "evolving standard of decency" in favor of homosexual marriage?  Given Kennedy's (and the ABA, law school faculty and "mainstream media") obsession with "gay rights", the odds are he would.

I am against the ammendment for a couple of reasons.  First of all I am against Federal Government involvment in the issue.  I would lean more toward allowing the states to decide the issue individually and allowing people to vote with their feet.  If a state decides to legislate in one way and that appeals to a large number of people, that state will gain population and prosper where if people don't like it, it will lose population.

I am against legislating moral values at any level.  It is a dangerous road to travel.  What is to prevent a group from gaining a majority in an area and legislating Sharia for example? The Marriage Protection Act that Clinton signed should be all that we need at the federal level in that it allows the Federal Government to recognize only a conventional marriage configuration.

Marriage is ultimately a cultural issue.  Cultures change over time.  I don't believe the Constitution is designed to enforce a particular culture.  While I agree with the sentiment that marriage is between a man and a woman, I do not agree that the constitution should be used by various factions for enforcing their cultural beliefs.  In 500 years time we would end up with all kinds of silly ammendments.

Part of what makes this country great is that various states can try various things and if they screw up, they only screw up their state. If it works out great, it can be adopted by more states.  Mandating issues like this at the federal level distract the federal government from doing what it is supposed to be doing and causes it to engage in highly divisive and emotional debates that don't put food on our table, don't defend our borders, don't provide jobs, and don't enhance freedom.  It is a concentration of effort on controversial issues that divide us instead of concentrating on the overall issues we have in common that need tending to.  This would be an issue that, at best, should be taken up when everything else is done.

This issue does not enhance the security of the United States, it doesn't enhance interstate commerce, it doesn't enhance foreign trade, it doesn't educate our children.  All it does is make one side feel good and pi** the other side off.  It generates internal domestic friction for no tangible benefit.

Regardless of one's position on the issue, it is my opinion that the Constitution is not the place for it. Allow the states to decide the issue themselves.

To evolve standards of decency.  We are headed down the road where government substitutes for parents and morals and faith.  It is as if people are saying that if we can't get people to adhere to a certain moral code though cultural institutions, we will mandate it by law and have the courts be our moral compass.  Bad idea.  I am not talking about this issue in particular so much as I am talking in the abstract about the entire notion of having "decency" enforced by judges.  What's next?  Witch trials?

"Marriage has a specific meaning--union between man and wife in the eyes of God."

You so easily demonstrate why your line of thinking is misguided. Marriage, as attested to by the state, has nothing to do with God or religion. Marriage as defined by the state is a legal structure serving state aims, not a religious doctrine or affimration of a relationship in God's eyes.

The definition of marriage has changed many times over the years; most recently it was adjusted to include in its tent interracial couples.

Whether to include same sex couples in the legal definition is a question of the state based on what purpose it wants marriage to accomplish - not one of religious doctrine.

"Marriage has a specific meaning--union between man and wife in the eyes of God."

If heterosexuals really acted like this is what marriage really was, I suspect that there would be fewer homosexuals who felt they had a right (unenumerated, of course) to marriage. If any.

There has never been anything in the definition that signified the groom and the bride to be the same race.  That was the LAW doing so.  

And the act of marriage is not something that is granted by the state for the act of marriage has existed longer than the concept of the state.  Whatever religion you want to put to it, the early societies of the human species were recognized to be married by the spiritual leaders of the society not the legal leaders.  It is only within the realm of recent history has the state gotten itself involved.  It is near impossible to discuss marriage without having first acknowledged its religious origins.

Then why do we outlaw murder or rape?

There are major world religions that have religious traditions outlawing, say, the eating of pork. (Or the eating of shrimp or the wearing of mixed fabrics or engaging in congress with one's wife while she is being visited by her sickness.)

The various religions that have these rules have had these rules handed to them by God Himself. They're right there in the Holy Book. (Chapter and Verse available upon request.)

If someone wished to make the eating of bacon illegal... or congress with one's wife while she was being visited by her sickness illegal (punishable by banishment), and someone else said "you can't legislate morality", do you really think that "what about murder or rape?" would be a sufficient counter-argument?

In order to have an orderly civilization you have to have certain criminal codes.  If you didn't punish murder and rape people would leave.  Your government would die by extinction.  People do not want to see their sons murdered and their daughters raped.  It is not a valid comparison to the marriage issue.  If I had a gay neighbor who "married" another person of the same gender, it wouldn't cause physical injury to me or my family.  I might not like it, but it doesn't hurt me.  

Now some might look at that "marriage" and see an invalidation of their own personal beliefs.  If one's faith is weak, they might want to eliminate this "invalidation" of their cultural values lest it serve as some kind of validation of that path and might serve to encourage others to follow that path.

I don't need to dictate moral paths do my neighbors.  I will instill my cultural values in my daughter and sons.  In 1000 years my family can compare notes and see who has been more successful over time.  I have a strong faith in that I know what is best for me.  Seeing someone else do something different doesn't mean I am stupid or weak or dumb, it just means I am different from them.  

Rape and murder are completely different issues from what is a legal marriage.  

I, like most, don't want to be murdered, and I don't want my wife or daughter to be raped.

Why do we outlaw speeding or evading taxes or drunk driving or [fill in the blank]? Because those things are immoral?

I agree with small-gov't independents on this one: let the states decide.

As an issue, though, it's not going anywhere. In fact, I would guess that R's don't want a ban to pass. If it were "off the table," they would be losing a huge voter-turnout issue. It's a gift that keeps on giving.

How important is GM to to R's?

1. You need only look at this blog thread to see that GM rallies conservatives. This post has 121 responses and counting. In contrast, Senate compromise gets 27 comments, Iran gets 11, War on Terror gets 75, and on and on. It's a political gift horse - Repub politicians don't look it in the mouth by trying to "get it off the table"
   
2. Robertm75 ties gay marriage to rape and murder. Rape and murder! Get it? GM gets conservatives angry.

The state MAs have all been terribly drafted.  They're open invitations to litigation.  

While the FMA should be opposed on federalism grounds, at least it isn't quite as terrible from a draftsmanship perspective as the state amendments.

are there same-sex marriages going on in NE despite the will of the people?  No.  This is a solution looking for a problem.  And the "solution" rules out states that may want to legalize same-sex marriage today or in the future.

If you can't come up with 66 Senators, it fails.  And it will.  It didn't even get 50 Senators last time.  Thanks to pickups in some Southern states it will probably get 50-51 votes this time.  And it will fail.  It will waste time and have no effect on the debate.  If people wanted to actually pass something, they should talk to the moderate Dems and federalist Rs to see what could actually garner 66 votes.  I think an amendment that read "Nothing in this Constitution should be construed to define marriage as more than between a man and a woman" may.  It would leave open the option of states legislatively changing the defintion.  If it doesn't, it will not get 2/3rds in the Senate.

I think it would fun to bring up the 10th amendment (and maybe the 2nd) as a vote in the Senate to pass them again.  That way maybe the courts would understand that they are part of the Constitution.

They will get at most 51 votes on it.  They are no where near close.

just as Republicans are campaigning as conservatives and then becoming pork-barrelers.  If they put a moratorium on earmarks maybe they could be taken seriously again.

Those amendments should happen at the state level.  The remedy should always be at the same level as the harm.

when it happens.  Right now, DOMA is still national law.  And one judge on one lower court has tried to use the 14th amendment.  If the SC rules same-sex marriage is legal everywhere, then I expect strong support for an FMA.  Until then, DOMA is doing what the legislature wanted.

If I had a gay neighbor who "married" another person of the same gender, it wouldn't cause physical injury to me or my family.  I might not like it, but it doesn't hurt me.  

Well that is not really true. If you are trying to raise kids, it does hurt you. They'll be exposed to homosexuality much earlier and much more often with SSM on the books. Homosexual relationships will be taught as being the equal of heterosexual relationships. Textbooks will start introducing the material in an attempt for balance. Much as "he or she" or "he/she" or "they" or just "she" is used now in an attempt to be politically correct, you'll have the same constructs to describe your mom and dad (or mom and mom or dad and dad or 3 moms and 1 dad or 3 dads and 1 mom). Most people do not want to expose their kids to this stuff, at least until they are past puberty.

That is the legitimate argument against SSM IMO. Personally, I don't care. But I would certainly care about what my kids were exposed to in say, kindergarten or first grade.

Neither one would stand a chance of passing.

If a couple gets married in West Viginia and then moves to VA and gets a divorce - are they still brother and sister?

I have no problem with civil unions either, and would be happy to see the issue settled there.

I suspect a lot of gay folks in committed relationships would be more than happy with civil unions as well.

I think that many of us can agree that longterm, committed partners should be afforded equal rights when it comes to healthcare, living wills, finances, etc.

Why it has to get all involved in whether it's called marriage or a civil union or whatever is beyond me.

I agree with you.

The efforts to amend the Constitution over this issue will fall well short. And what is so infuriating is that all involved know this.

Yet they will waste their time going through the motions, demagoguing, ginger pointing, whipping up the base, and wasting the People's money, all in an effort to pander and play politics.

It's really disgraceful - particularly at such a crucial time in our country's national security.

First, I am not tying gay marriage with murder or rape.

Second, the legal punishment of murder and rape is, in fact, an act of legislating morality.  Granted there also happens to be a bit more two these two examples.  If you would like some other examples that are not so extreme, how about fraud or stealing.  All laws that target a behavior are rooted in morality.  

Third, in the debate of gay marriage--at least from my behalf--the issue is whether or not to redefine a word for the satisfaction of a small group of people.  I don't think this crosses into legislating morality.  If we were to pass a law banning homosexuality, then you would have a case.

is a small group of people wishing to water down the English language.  What gets me angry is the notion that leaving it up to the States will mean nothing because the Courts are just going to allow gay marriage anyway.  The People's will is being thwarted because the judges look at the case through political tainted glasses and not through the spectrum of Constitutional Law.

for trying to discuss this issue from the Republican point of view on a Republican site. They are wasting no money, why are you trashing our Senators on an issue most Republicans agree on?

Where do you stand on creating some new term (eg, Civil Union) for gay marriage, defining it such that it grants all of the same rights and priviliges as does traditional marriage and legalizing it?  Is it really your only objection that the definition of the word marriage is being changed?

-exits

Through the amendment process, these states that want to legalize SSM will have all the chance in the world to keep in in the hands of the States.  

And let's say for the sake of argument, that the amendment doesn't pass.  Then the States get to determine, but due to the current Court those States that don't want to recognize SSM will have their will trampled.  And once the Supremes get a hold of it and rule in favour of SSM, then you are going to have the same effect as the amendment but with one twist:  those States that do not want to recognize SSM are not going to have a hand in the process.  It will be up to nine judges.

I have no problem with the State/Government granting the same legal benefits to gays as they do to married people.  My beaf is with the attempt at changing the English language.  I believe that if two men who love one another spend the rest of their life together then they should be allowed all of the legal benefits:  medical, joint banking accounts access to one another's funds.  But to bestow upon them the title "married" that is where I draw the line because they cannot, by definition, be married.

While I'm not particularly bothered by the change in definition - the meanings of words change all the time; that's the nature of language - I do agree that this change is (in some part) what gay marriage advocates are trying to affect.

-exits

I agree it might not pass.  But consider:

1.  On principle it is correct that marriage is between a man and a woman, and we can probably agree that no state should be allowed to impose gay marriage on another state through the full faith and credit clause.
   
2.  An amendment process is more indicative of a democratic process than a court decision in a state.
   
3.  Polls and referendums in various states (even the blue ones) show an overwhelming conservative concensus on this issue, so the ratification process might be easier than you give it credit for.
   
4.  Don't really have a fourth point.  Just enjoy chatting it up with one of the sharper cookies on this site.  : )  

between the US Constitution and the Confederate States' Constitution:

Most obviously, the CS Constitution sanctioned involuntary servitude for reasons other than conviction.

The CS limited the President to one six-year term.

The CS had a plain language prohibition against national government spending for "internal improvements" in the states.

I think they were on to something with that third one, and maybe the second one too.

It also prohibitted the CSA from participating in the international slave trade.  Not sure what to make of that one; maybe it was a device to guarantee that only the South would profit from slave trading.

First, it is not that it might not pass.  It will not pass.  No one thinks it will pass.  It will not even come close to passing.  This is the main reason it is a demogaguing of the issue and what makes it so malicious.  People don't like demagogues and that is rightfull how most people of all political stripes see this.

1.  I agree that one state should not dictate the definition of marriage in other states.  I would further assert that the feds should not dictate the definition of marriage to the states.
   
2.  Absolutely and I don't have a problem with any amendment process.  It is this one that is set up to fail and demagague an issue instead of trying to come up with some real progress on anything else.  Put up an a vote on banning earmarks.  I don't know if it will pass, but at least it would have a chance and it would indicate real leadership.
   
3.  Ratification doesn't go to the states until 66 Senators vote yes.  This will not happen.  The vote last time didn't garner a majority.  This time it is expected that due to new Senators, the ayes will get 50-51 votes.  They are no where close to passing this out of the Senate.  Mr. Frist, Mr. Bush, the entire media, and all political junkies who care about the issue know that it won't pass.  Furthermore, polls on the FMA show a slim majority support it.  Opposing same-sex marriage and passing a Constitutional amendment to define marriage are two different things.  For example, Sen. McCain opposes same-sex marriage and opposes the FMA.  Ditto 40 Democrats.  This is true among many voters as well.  Until DOMA is overturned and/or the SC forces same-sex marriage on society, the FMA will not have supermajority support necessary for a successful amendment effort.
   
4.  Well thank ya.

the US prohibition.  Even with no importation after, I think, 1807 or so, the slave population had grown from about 400K at the time of the Constitution to over 3MM by 1860.

they are using inaction on this issue to cover their behinds for their inaction on other issues.  They could spend this time and effort trying to get some Circuit Court judges seated.  They could start a Coburn-McCain led effort to expunge earmarks from the budget process.  They could close an entire department and show a shred of interest in being the party of small government.  They could actually take a vote on introducing market based reform to SS.  They could bring up the balanced budget amendment.

There are many things they could do that could have an actual impact on an issue.  Bringing up the FMA to have it lose, again, is a waste of time and an insult to the intelligence of most people.  It's demagoguing an issue in the most blatant way.  And it exposes the fear that has enveloped the leadership at this moment.  They can't do anything substantative, so they do this instead.

The Congress can pass a law declaring that we have more hours of daylight, but it can't happen.

So just because the commonwealth of Massachusetts chooses to pass a bill claiming that a marriage between two men exists...

I don't know what's more disappointing: to see Congressional Republicans waste their time doing this (again) only to fail (again), or the base following along like sheep and not holding the party leadership to a higher standard and expectations.

As long as the Republicans (and the Democrats would do the same thing if they were in the same unenviable position) are rewarded for their efforts by their base even if those efforts are destined to not suceed, the party leadership will happily demagogue the issue and go through this political Kabuki Dance.

I'm not a Christian, though, and if you notice carefully words like 'morality' or 'sacrament' don't come into play when I argue against the redefinition of marriage.

The issue itself is not one of my top 5, maybe not even one of my top 10.  But I'm evaluating the personality of the candidate.

My experience is that Conservatism is a package deal, and those who are liberal on one component are ultimately liberal on others.

'Marriage' couldn't possibly have existed longer that states as english ahsn't. If you really think that you need to enshrine semantics in the consitution you are sadly mistaken. A constitutional amendmant is solely about the legal definiton as established by the civil government. Marriage is a civil insitution, defined by those who control civil insitutions. In this country that means it is areligious.

As for the origin of marriage; its existence predates religion as much as it predates states so the only thing we need to acknolwedge is that the structure is rooted in human nature, even if it presents itself diffently across time and space.

maybe it should say something like this: (the words can be chaned if need be to make it more clear)

"Nothing in this Constitution should be construed to define marriage as more than between a man and a woman.  Nor shall any state dictate what marriage is to another state."

something like that to just show that the full faith clause does not apply in this matter.  again, if someone can come up with a better way to word it then please do so.  

for the record i believe that it should be up to the states.  a federal constitutional ammendment shouldn't be nessesary in this case.  as for "gay marriage," i do not support it but i DO support civial unions that have some of the benifits of marriage.

sorry... if you are going to type something that long out...either type part of it and link to the rest or break it up into several posts.  by the way from what responces i see to this it is obiously an incoherant (spelling?) rant (kinda like ted kennedy when he talks).

Which do you think is worse; the people voting (overwhelmingly everytime so far) to preserve marriage as it has always been, or a handful of judges redefining marriage for the entire nation?

The outcome of this debate is going to be 'dictated' by someone or some group.  Would you rather it be the people and/or their elected representatives, or as few as five judges hell-bent on doing the Left's dirty work.

I must say that I don't quite understand the zeal to protect the word 'marriage', but not the concept and institution.  But then again, it is a sign of how far the Left has come in that to deny them the word 'marriage', but lose the concept (i.e civil unions), would stand as some form of victory for conservatives and tradition.

But anyway, though I don't quite get the whole gay marriage-no, civil unions-yes mindset, there is no denying that many people hold it.  But that still leaves the bigger question of who should have the final say.

So do you think that it is proper and legitimage for courts to impose recognition of civil unions, or do you hold the (correct) view that this issue does not rise the level of genuine constitutional rights that the Court must protect?

...with regards to those support civil unions is which authority they think should settle the matter.

In other words, do you think that (a) Courts have a legitimage power to impose civil unions, and (b) do you think they should?  

In many places support for civil unions may now be considered the 'moderate' or compromise position, but in many other areas that is not the case.  Senator Lott told Rudy Giuliani (when the latter was complaining to him that his support for civil unions had be distorted and misconstrued as support for gay marriage) that in Mississippi they don't see any difference between gay marriage and civil unions.  And that belief is not limited to Mississippi, as the voters of many states have voted to ban both gay marriage and civil unions.  Do you think they should be able to do that, or should Anthony Kennedy tell them that they must recognize civil unions?

Well as a conservative, surely you realize that when (and they will eventually) the Sup Court imposes gay marriage/civil unions, we'll hear a steady stream of media outlets and politicians (including many Republicans) telling us that 'the courts have spoken', and 'its now a matter of settled law', and 'its time to move on', because there are more pressing matters to attend to 'at this time.'  

My point is that there will always be more pressing matters, especially as defined by the Left and its media acolytes.

And I'd also take issue with the claim that this is taking precious time away from other matters.  They are not going to spend long on it, and its unlikely anything else would be solved by forgoing the Marriage debate.  And if the immigration bill is any indication, then the less the Senate takes on, the better.

Yeah, like we've done something about Roe vs Wade, right?  

Thirty years later, that abomination lives on, and the lies and deception surrounding it plus the gravitas of a Sup Court mandate have served to build up artificial support from the public for legalized abortion.  With an equivalent decision on gay marriage, you can expect an almost immediate avalanche of media stories about how wonderful it is and how it has not undermined society at all, etc etc etc.  

If/when gay marriage/civil unions are imposed by the Sup Court, I think the GOP will have a short time to truly do something about it.  If they fail, then we can expect a large exodus of the evangelical base from the party's ranks into non-participation, as they will have correctly decided that voting does them no good on the most contentious social issues, as instead a few judges continue to set policy for the entire nation.

The gay lobby will never settle for 'civil unions', even though it would represent a tremendous victory as it would mean they have the concept and institution of marriage, just not the word.  Increasingly you hear more on the Left refer to accepting civil unions as being akin to accepting second-class status.  

They won't settle because they want it all.  They want the societal validation and endorsement that the word 'marriage' entails and contains.  They won't be happy until first-graders are taught that gay unions are just as normal and valuable to society as traditional marriage.  And if we rubes don't like it, then that's too bad, because judges rule this nation and that's who they go to to have their way.

Should this non-marriage recognition you speak of be mandatory?  In other words, should it be imposed by the courts, or do you think that the most conservative states should be free to offer zero recognition of same-sex unions, as they do now?

In all likelihood, that judge opposed the Amendment and wanted to throw it out.  Louisiana's Supreme Court overturned a similar decision from one of its lower courts based on the same single vs multiple purpose rationale.  So which judge or set of judges is correct?

I could just as easily argue that there is but one purpose of the Georgia Amendment; i.e. to preserve traditional marriage as the sole arrangement that will be granted legal recognition in Georgia.  The language in the bill that you say constitutes a second purpose is to me simply furthering the one overriding purpose.  

And it was necessary with regards to state courts.  States Amendments that only explicity ban gay marriage and say nothing about the various euphemisms are an invitation for state judges to impose gay marriage in all but name by simply calling it something else, like 'civil unions' or 'domestic partnerships.'  It would be nice if judges stayed within their proper and intended bounds, but those days are long gone.

First of all, no, its not as bad because with one at least the people have a say, whereas with activist judges they really have none.

But otherwise, I do sort of agree that the Alternate Hatch Amendment should be offered, as it would put the feet of all the McCains, Hagels, Landrieus,and Bayhs to the fire.  They would have no justification for voting against it, so then we'd see where they truly stand on the issue; do they truly favor letting the states decide, or is that just something they say as they wait for the Sup Court to relieve them of responsibility for the issue.  

Even if this, or a near-future Sup Court refuses to impose gay marriage/civil unions, and instead properly rules that its a matter for the states to decide for their own purposes, and Congress for federal purposes, then it will still be a matter of time before another Sup Court overturns that decision.  We've seen that precedent only matters when its a liberal precedent at stake, otherwise its completely meaningless.

Twenty years from now its likey that overall public opinion will be much more in favor of gay marriage and/or civil unions, but its also a good bet that in many states public opinion will still be strongly against both.  So the only way to protect those states is to have some Amendment that at a minimum strips the courts of power over the issue.

Well, there is another way, and that's to simply ignore the SCOTUS decision, but that's not going to happen.

So I guess if we would just meekly accept a few judges imposing a radical redefinition of marriage  -- without any Constitutional justification --on the entire nation, then we'd pass for good Christians in your book, right?  

And when you are conjuring images of racists in white sheets as you ponder this issue, how do you reconcile the fact that most blacks and latinos oppose gay marriage too, and vote against it when given a direct choice?  

And what 'civil rights laws' are being reversed here?  Congress has never passed a law recognizing gay marriage, and neither has any state (voluntarily at least).  That's the problem for your side, you can't pass such laws in most places so you rely on the Courts to issue bogus decisions doing it for you, and then you have a self-righteous hissy-fit when we dare protest such judicial usurpations of power.  

And I doubt anyone here will be impressed by a reference to the over-rated Aaron Sorkin.

The Sup Court is the one using the Constitution (albeit in an unjustified manner) to enfore a particular, leftwing culture.  

I'm always a bit puzzled when people argue againt Amendments on the grounds that they are 'divisive', because this places the blame on the wrong side.  It is the Left that has forced this debate on the entire nation with their misuse of the Courts.  Why is it divisive when popular and legislative authorities try to do something, but its not when the Courts get involved?  Is it not divisive when the Courts take the Left's side in the Culture War?  Is it somehow unifying when they do that?  

So forgive me if I think the whole 'divisive' argument sounds a lot like what we generally hear from liberals to try and shame conservatives into silence on the issue.

And what issues will unify us?  Pretty much any debate on any pressing issue is bound to reveal and stir up great division, whether its Iraq, the economy, taxes, healthcare, education, immigration, trade, ............

I answered it above. Age of consent/Blood relation distance is permitted to stand because it is not considered an essential element of marriage, while gender is an unequivocal element of marriage.  When the Supreme Court analyzes this distinction as they have in the past with public policy considerations, it's difficult to see them uphold such a dramatic difference (even Scalia agrees).

I hate quoting Wikipedia as it's usually unreliable and biased, but I will here: "The Supreme Court of the United States has long recognized a "public policy exception" to the clause. If the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts in the past have been reluctant to force a state to enforce the pronouncements of another state in contravention of its own public policy."

1.  We agree that no one state should define marriage for the rest.  Where we disagree is the part of your point about the "feds dictating".  The feds wouldn't be dicatating because of the states' ratification process inherent in the c.a. process.
   
2.  It is clearly pandering and I agree with that.  I believe, however, that on principle the ammendment is a remedy to courts thwarting the will of the people by ignoring legislative and referendums by openly changing definitions to suit a perverse notion.
   
3.  There are many sub-points here:

 a) McCain often says he supports something but is "compelled" to not vote that way.  It's called pandering in my book.

 b) Votes in the beltway are often taken on issues even without much chance of passage.  There are many reasons for this.  Priciple, defining one's opponents for elections, putting ones self on record, etc.

 c) I won't question your polls or what you believe voters will think since I honestly don't know.  My guess is that I am right since every referendum on this issue has passed with large margins in states ranging from red to purple to blue.  People may poll "tolerant" but it seems they vote "moral".

4.  I also like to hear myself type.  : )        

1.  In light of judicial activism and judicial supremacy, all Democrats who hold the 'let the states decide' position are being disingenuous.  It means nothing for Kerry, Bayh, Edwards, Warner, et al to say they personally oppose gay marriage, and that the matter should be left to the states when they know full well that the type of judges they would put on federal courts are precisely the type who would take the matter away from the states by imposing recognition of gay marriage/civil unions on the entire nation.  I should have known better, but I was still perplexed that Bush and the GOP never put it in such terms during the last election.  That the media never brings light to this phony Democratic position is to be expected.
   
2.  I also wonder about all the Republicans -- Hagel, McCain, several forum members here -- who say that as of now no Amendment is necessary, but IF the Courts usurp power from the states, then an amendment MIGHT be necessary.  What does that mean?  If the Courts strike down state laws and impose gay marriage/civil unions, then there are only two options in thwarting the judges; pass some sort of Amendment or simply refuse to enforce the constitutionally-unfounded decision.  It'll probably be a cold day in hell before judicial supremacy is actually challenged so directly, so we can forget the second option.  That leaves an Amendment.  So why can't Hagel, for example, say definitively that he would support an Amendment instead of saying it 'may' be necessary?  What else is there other than surrender?

(I realize that Congress could pass jurisdiction-sripping legislation -- as the House did in 2004 -- but what is to stop the Sup Court from saying that they can't?  And besides which, I don't think Frist ever even brought it up in the Senate, probably afraid of ludicrous charges of it being an assault on judicial independence.)

3.  Recognition of less-threatening sounding things like civil unions is no compromise at all if the recognition is imposed by the Courts.  This is so for at least two reason.  First and foremost, the Courts have no business being involved at all.  The Constitution in no way requires recognition of gay unions, therefore the Courts should stay out of it.  Otherwise, what is the difference between imposing 'marriage' versus 'civil unions'?  The answer, of course, is none.  Secondly, this 'compromise' would walk all over the most conservative states who have chosen to bar recognition of all non-traditional marriage, no matter what language is used to describe them.  Much talk is made here of federalism in opposing the current Amendment, but it cuts both ways.  The trend may be on the side of the push for civil unions/gay marriage, but so long as just one state choooses not to offer any recognition of gay unions, then they should be allowed to do so.

1.  "a) McCain often says he supports something but is "compelled" to not vote that way.  It's called pandering in my book."

Voting against your main constituency is rarely pandering in my book.  It often takes principle.  And it's sad to me to see so few Republicans standing up for federalism on principle.

2.  Polls.  Here is a roundup of polls on same-sex marriage and related issues:

54% believe homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle

39% support same-sex marriage

"Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples?"

for-against

50-47

53-44

57-37

48-46

The most recent one is on top.  Those are the last four polls by Gallup.

FWIW, 60% favor allowing gays to serve openly in the military and 46% support allowing gay adoption.

1.  Voting against one's constituency can be called several things.  A failure to represent is one.  Playing to one side while voting the other way is another.  At least Chafee says what he believes in and votes that way under pressure from his own party (ditto Lieberman).  McCain is all over the map (a kind of Sandra Day O'Conner in the legislative branch).  I chalk his principle on this matter to playing up to the DC social crowd to seem thoughtful.
   
2.  Constitutional ammendments are an act of federalism in a democratic republic.  A court creating a law where none exists is not.
   
3.  I don't know if I would base my morality on polls.  I stand by the assertion that people poll "tolerant" in your polls, but vote in the 70% range on referendums in every state they've been offered to ammend their constitutions to protect their state marriage laws from encroachment by gay activists (sorry for the run-on sentence there).  That's a more indicative poll I think.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I think all of your points are valid, I just don't concur with the conclusions.  It IS nice to disagree with someone who backs up their views with sound reasoning and facts.

Peace

I agree that so called 'hate crimes' are goofy but how does their exitstence support your favoring a ban on gays in the military?  Or, put more broadly, why, especially given your personal experience, do you support a ban on gays in the military?

-exits

There is no link between the my view on hate crimes and gays in the military.  I see them as seperate issues.

I will explain my views on gays in the military both in terms of policy and in personal terms (regarding my friend).

Policy -

The military is charged with national security.  It is allowed to set its own policies and even laws (the Uniform Code of Military Justice) because it has a unique role.  It is up to the military to set policies and laws that allow the military to do life risking work with as little distraction as possible.  Concepts like fairness and social engineering shouldn't enter the picture unless there is sound reasoning.

For example, we have rules that govern conduct in war (not shooting at hospitals) and rules that govern exceptions (you may shoot at a hospital if it is directing enemy fire against your location).  We have rules that protect our troops even though they may sound unfair.  I don't want to be the medic that is acting outside of my training because I hear a woman soldier screaming in pain and under heavy fire when my training directs that a male soldier screaming in pain needs my assistence first.

In the military we lived in close quarters.  We shared showers.  In special ops we even had to "poop" in front of each other in close quarters in territory we weren't supposed to be in.  The knowledge that someone is gay in your unit is a distraction, fair or not.  Just as having a woman in the same (combat) situation would be.  People often bring up Israeli women in combat units, often forgetting to add that Israel abandoned the practice almost as soon as they started it.  But that's another issue.

I could also go into the use of homosexuality as a blackmail tool against military personel in special units or posts to give away secret information.

Personal -

My buddy was in my unit before me.  He didn't tell, no one asked.  This was before the Clinton policy, back in the late 80's.

The nature of my unit was unusual.  Suffice it to say that the focus of our unit and the work that we did required us to know each other like brothers and to trust each other blindly.  There came a time when my buddy (who was like a partner of mine on our team) had to share the news with me and the team for personal reasons that any one of us could relate to.  It involved personal problems he was having and we were deployed in a very bad place and he wasn't able to stay focused on the job because of a very serious problem at home.

Our training was the best of the best (imo).  We stood by him and did all we could to help him out.  Just like he would for us.  Different guys had different views, but even though mine were more in opposition to his we were the best of friends.  We were both the educated guys (we both went on to grad schooling later and I to a commission), liked the arts, were well read, etc.  So that probably helped.  We were on a team that provided support work for some of this country's most unknown soldiers, so we had to keep a close knit group together and we watched out for each other.

My friend was a good soldier.  There should be more like him really.  But minus the orientation.  I use my friend as an example of the exception to the rule.  My experience was that most gay soldiers caused more problems than the effort it is worth to placate a political lobby.

Re: My beaf is with the attempt at changing the English language.  

Words change of add meanings all the time. It's a natural course of events. The pointing device attached to my computer is not a small rodent, but no one is up in arms about that change in the English language.

Re: But anyway, though I don't quite get the whole gay marriage-no, civil unions-yes mindset, there is no denying that many people hold it.

For many people marriage has a sacred or even sacramental nature which is what is most important about it-- they regard all the legal/financial stuff as unimportant, or at least as considerably less important that the sacred aspects. Since they regard homosexuality as immoral they don't want it touching on the sacred aspect of marraige, while the legal financial stuff doesn't matter to them.

I guess it depends on how you see marriage-- as a covenantal bond blessed by God, or as a set of legal arranegments created by the state. If the former then civil unions aren't marriage in way and you might not mind gay civil unions.

is vague in the extreme. Just what are "the legal incidents of marriage?" No one knows. This invites litigation galore.

If you want to pass a constitutional amendment it should be as clear and concise as possible. The 18th amendment was a very bad idea and the 13th amendment was a very good one, but both were entirely transparent as to their meaning and left no questions lingering as what they intended to do.

you have a couple of new word meanings here, I think:

My beaf is with the attempt at changing the English language.  

Words change of add meanings all the time.

???

Re: Marriage has a specific meaning--union between man and wife in the eyes of God.

There are a lot of people who would differ with you on the "eyes of God" part. Atheists do marry too after all. So right away you see that the definition of marriage is not as settled as you think.

had been largely suppressed by Britain and France by 1860 and there were laws and treaties against it. The South had not imported slaves for years, and the ban on the slave trade was a bit of harmless pandering to international opinion since the CSA was very much opinion to obtain recognition from Britain and France.

John Roberts or Sam Alito (or Scalia or Thomas or a future Bush appointment) voting to impose gay marriage?

if you redefine "hour" to mean a 30 minute time period you would double the number of hours in the day. A time unit like the hour is not a natural thing: we created it and are free to change it. This is true of our social arrangements too. Although some changes would be most unwise(instituting a dictatorship in this country for example) we have the ability to do so, else we could not even talk about such things meaningfully and this entire thread would not exist.

If my employer ever got hold of this idea there is NO TELLING how much more work they would think they can get out of me...I mean, I have hourly goals that have to be met. You want to cut me down to 30 minute hours?

By the way...some lady called the government complaining about Daylight Savings Time.  She claimed that the extra hour of sunlight was damaging her roses! True story!

I'm suggesting that at BEST, this new definition is to marriage what DST is to our clocks.

Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution defers federal power to limit the slave trade for twenty years.  On January 1, 1808, a federal prohibition on slave importation, signed by Jefferson, became effective.

The First, Second, Fourth, and Tenth Amendments would be fairly straightforward.

It's not about reading what they say, though. It's about finding an end that you want and then torturing the Constitution to be able to get exactly what you want out of it.

I am as hopeful as anyone with regards to Roberts and Alito.  I'd be very surprised if Alito issued such a vote; less so for Roberts, but I'd still be surprised.

But as of now, that makes four, as I do think Kennedy would side with the liberal block.

I think the quality of Bush's next nominee -- should he get one, and I hope he does -- may depend in large part on what happens this November.  If things go badly, and we lose Santorum/Burns/Talent, or two of the three, then I think the nuclear option will be gone, and the Dems would filibuster an Emilio Garza, Edith Jones, Sam Alito type of nominee.  If it holds, then we may get stuck with another O'Connor, and then that would most likely be another vote for gay marriage.

But even in the best case scenario whereby Roberts and Alito turn out as hoped and promised, and if Bush gets to replace Stevens and/or Ginsburg with a conservative, then the issue would be settled for decades perhaps, but so long as even one state refuses to recognize same-sex unions, there will be ACLU-types filing lawsuits to impose change on them, and therefore future Sup Courts will be revisiting the issue.  

The only way to stop that is to pass some type of Amendment that at a minimum explicity removes the issue from the courts, like the Hatch alternative.

1.  I really see very little evidence that McCain is panderer.  He sticks by his principles and many here disagree with those principles.  His efforts in campaign finance reform (which I oppose) stem from the Keating 5 scandal.  His anti-pork efforts are from his small government beliefs.  His stance on federalism is also from his small government beliefs.  In those ways he is a good replacement for the former holder of his seat: Senator Goldwater.
   
2.  I thought we went through this already, but it may have been someone else.  A constitutional amendment could be federalist, this version of the FMA is not.  It dictates a definition of marriage to all states that they cannot change in the future.  Thus it limits the ability for states to differ on a social issue.  I think it is to Republicans and conservatives best interest to stick to federalist solutions on social issues whether that be abortion or same-sex marriage.  If MA wants same-sex marriage, let them.
   
3.  I don't base my morality on polls and I didn't assert one should.  My point is that passing a state Constitutional amendment on the issue and re-writing the federal Constitution are different things.  People support the former by 60-70% and the latter splits about 50/50.  Acting like they are the same qusetion misses this point.  I also gave examples of many politicians who follow this same pattern of supporting state level amendments but not a national one.  People take changing the US Constitution very serious and don't want to do it unless it is absolutely necessary.  Many proponents of traditional marriage don't see it as necessary at this point.

1.  Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you.  This misunderstanding seems to underpin our entire conversation.  Isn't it a federalist approach when one involves the senate (which represents the states) and when one involves the state general assemblies directly?

1.5  You state that letting each state decide the issue is a federalist approach.  But my friend, this is not being done by each state so far because it is being done by their COURTS.  The Massachusettes Supreme court made law, not the people and not their representatives.

1.75  Further, in some instances the courts overturn the will of the people by overturning referendums where the people are simply reasserting the traditional definition of marriage.  So what good is the federalist approach when the courts break the rules?  In point (1.5) I point out that the left is using the courts and winning.  In this point (1.75) I point out that the right is using referendums and legislatures, and the lefty courts just throw them out.  Now what kind of constitutional, democratic, federalist, republic oriented solution is left?  I know!

2.  We may disagree on McCain.  There was a story or diary on RS not long ago about the pork slasher using some pork himself.  I have a hard time squaring his limited government approach with his record on taxes as well.  And perhaps his gang of 14 approach to preventing the constitutional option falls short of letting the states "advice and consent" for SCOTUS which doesn't seem federalist to me.  But really, McCain is an entirely different issue, and good republicans can disagree on him.
   
3.  I understand and appreciate your 3rd point.  I just think there is a disconnect between what people say in polls and what they vote on when they have the chance.  Polls (and I heartily lump Gallup in here) are to public opinion as exit polling is to the 2004 results imho.  I can appreciate your list of politicians, but allow me to go you one list further.  Look at those senators who vote for a constitutional ammendment on this matter and those who vote against.  Tell me I'm not in better company.

Re: But as of now, that makes four, as I do think Kennedy would side with the liberal block.

Kennedy went out of his way in the Lawrence opinion to state that it had no bearing on gay marriage. Yoyu may think he's wrong on any number of things but do you think he's a hypocrite?

If 38 states force their view on the other 12, it's still not federalist.  It's democratic, yes.  Federalist means that each state can do something different with respect to a policy.  Your point on courts is important.  But the court ruled that the MA Constitution required same-sex marriage.  Thus a state Constitutional Amendment would change that.  That is exactly what is happening in many states.  MA can do that without taking away HI or NY or CA's choice to institute same-sex marriage if they so choose.  Furthermore a national amendment that said "this constitution does not require same-sex marriage" would be more successful than one that says "no state can define marriage different than us."

If I were opposed to gay marriage (which I'm not; I'm nuetral to slightly positive on the issue) I'd be after an ammendment to the US constitution because without it, I think that the eventuality of gay marriage is almost fait accompli.  It's true that there is still majority opposition to same sex marriage but if you look at the polling data, it breaks pretty strongly with age - with (I think) majority support from under 30s.  It's possible, I guess, that this trend will reverse but my gut instinct is that support for gay rights have reached critical mass in the popular culture and there is no turning back.  I'd be shocked if there weren't 65 or 70% support for gay marriage twenety years hence.

-exits

Of these "relationships". Whether its called "civil unions", "domestic relationships" or worst "marriage". Simply put, these are illegitimate relationships not worthy of any government stamp of approval. They can live together in "peace", but I am against any effort to attempt to legitimize their cohabitation with a government paper.

I'm also tiring of the "economic conservatives" notions of "we have more important issues" and the resulting coddling of these people. Perhaps those of us who care deeply about this issue should take that attitude when it comes to the "death tax", minimum wage and other economic issues? Well, we're "against" the death tax, raising the minimum wage, but we really don't care, go ahead and let the left win those battles...we'll just sit those fights out? Some social conservatives do not have a taxable estate, why should "they" fight for a repeal?

Your use of scare quotes around the word "relationships" tells all we need to know about where your feelings lie.  It would seem that you have deep moral or cultural biases against gay relationships, or, possibly, gays in general.  I don't judge you for your feelings; your values are your own business and no one else's, but clearly we cannot allow this type of purely moral and visceral disapproval to shape civil and legal issues.

To wit: I respect a Muslim's right to believe that women belong in a second-tier status as citizens and people; I also personally find it distateful, but more importantly, I would never for one second allow that religious belief, held by no matter how many American Muslims, to ever hold women back or stop women from holding their full rights in our society.  Similarly, while I respect some Christian's beliefs that homesexuality is bad/wrong/evil, and even support their particular Churches right to harrange gays from their pulpits, their sectarian beliefs should not stop legal recognition for gays from our secular government.

Therefore, if our secular govenment gives two people living together some type of legal protection, things like property rights, tax benefits, etc., then I think they should be available to hetero and homo couples.  How does this threaten any straight person's marriage?

civil unions would necessarily mean approval as opposed to recognition of an existing reality --after all the government issues licenses to establishments that sell alcohol, tobacco and that profit from gambling. Does this imply approval of those activities?

I admit that I am very pessimistic towards Kennedy specifically, and the Sup Court in general.  Is there a case where a SCOTUS judge turned back from a leftward path like the one Kennedy has generally gone down?  

You're right of course about Kennedy making sure to say that Lawrence shouldn't be read as having anything to do with marriage, but the lofty, new age mumbo-jumbo language (that Scalia derides as the 'sweet mystery of life' doctrine) he used doesn't seem to lend itself to any limits.  Its just hard for me to imagine him saying that the matter of marriage/civil unions is a matter the states to handle.  And part of me thinks that Kennedy might have been trying to be pragmatic in declaring Lawrence to be unrelated to gay marriage, because he feared that taking that far might spark a backlash.  Yrs later, he may feel that chances for such a backlash are lesser.  But that's pure speculation on my part.

At a minimum, I think he would try to form a majority that would impose civil unions as some sort of compromise.  But of course, it would not be a compromise at all, for at least two reason; (1) the courts should not mandate ANY outcome, and for them to do so is an usurpation of power from the people and their elected representatives, and (2) most states don't recognize same-sex unions no matter what they are called, so such a decision would be an imposition upon them.  

So its not that I think Kennedy is a liar or hypocrite, its just that I fear he has 'evolved' further since the Lawrence decision.  

And going back to the original post, I just don't like our chances as long as the matter stays before the courts and judges have the final say.  Too much must go right for a lasting victory; namely never losing the presidency, and always maintaining a solid majority in the Senate, and avoiding Souter-like disasters.  

You're right about differences in opinion based on age.  But its fairly well established that people generally become more conservative as they get older, so the question is whether or not feelings on this issue will follow that conservative tilt.  Its much too early to tell, as this is a relatively new issue, and we have no long-term data on it.  My gut is that support for gay marriage among the now supportive 30 and under cohort will fall as they age, but probably not to the extent of how people become more conservative generally.  I think the overwhelming pro-gay messages of Hollywood, the media, the academe, etc will create a significant level of permanent support for gay marriage among our young.  Nevertheless, I think when most people have children, they will tend to be less supportive of the aggressive, in-your-face nature of the gay agenda that they may have been more comfortable with as teenagers and young adults.  

So who knows how it will play out, but I tend to agree with you that the trend is towards greater support for gay marriage.  But keep in mind that the experience of the state ballot initiatives shows that oppostition to gay marriage is usually understated in polls as compared to actual votes.  It was thought that Oregon, for example, would be very close, yet in the end gay marriage was voted down with 57% of the vote.  I think the average for the 19 or so state amendments is about 70%; well above the opposition to gay marriage stated in most polls.  Of course it should be noted that most of the direct votes have come in red states, so that 70% avg is likely not indicative of the entire nation.  Still, I don't think there is much reason to doubt that opposition would be understated in polls even in more liberal blue states.

And even if you are right, do you think that it will be true of the entire nation, or even generally true?  Do you think that there will really be majority support for gay marriage across the the Sunbelt, or the Midwest farm states, or the Rocky Mtn West, or especially, the South?  Do you think the 86% rejection of gay marriage in Mississippi will have reversed?  

And that gets to one of my main points; either one believes the Courts are right to impose gay marriage/civil unions, or one doesn't.  Either the Courts are right to do so, or they are not.  If you think the matter is properly left to purview of the states and the people, then the right of all the Mississippis should be protected, even in the face of what may be countering national opinion.  If, as you say, in 20 yrs there is strong national support for gay marriage, then the handful of states that will almost certainly feel otherwise should still be free to set policy accordingly.

And that is why the Courts must not have the final say.

except, of course, on the issue of whether or not there should be gay marriage.  

I agree that people generally get more conservative as they get older but I think that phenomenon is mostly applicable to fiscal issues - that's been my experience in any event.  There might be some erosion with age of a person's support for gay marriage but I bet it would be minimal.  

I also agree with you that support will lag (maybe dramatically) in the more culturally conservative regions of the country.  Of course, gay marriage will reach majority support sooner in massachusetts than it will in mississippi but that doesn't mean that it won't ever get there in Mississippi.  I suspect that it will follow a similar trajectory to acceptance for interracial marriage.  

Finally, I too, would rather see this (and most) issues settled by the people rather than the courts.  If Mississippians don't want gay marriage than, in my opinion, they shouldn't have it.  As a practical matter though, it is going to be, for a number of reasons, awfully tough to be one of the last few states to hold out.

-exits

If the battle to stop the Courts from having the final say is successful, then I do believe that the Left/Gay lobby will have at least one more powerful weapon in their arsenal --- economic coercion.

Its easy to imagine, for example, threats of boycotts, or internal pressure from increasingly pro-gay corporate culture to not build new factories or open new offices in states that don't recognize same-sex unions.  They haven't tried this yet, probably because they realize it would fail seeing as how such economic powerhouses like Texas just overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage/civil unions, but who knows what the future will hold.

clearly we cannot allow this type of purely moral and visceral disapproval to shape civil and legal issues.

Why can't we allow this? There is nothing in the US Constitution which prohibits passing laws based on moral or visceral reasons. If the majority of people want something to be the law, and vote for people who will enact it, then on what grounds do you say they cannot?

Long hair was considered "immoral" by my community. (Baptist, mostly)

Well, long hair on boys, anyway.

It was something that only immoral boys did and mockery and ostracization of boys who had long hair was considered fine.

It seems such a trivial thing, now.

If you consider rebellion from your parents to be an immoral thing, and a kid grows long hair purely to spite his parents and decent society, then that IS immoral.

It's a symbol of what's in a person's heart.

The Supreme Court intervened to put a stop to all that mockery and ostracization. :)

I'm just trying to elaborate on what you consider trivial.

I've no problem with mockery or ostracizing someone. Freedom of speech/association/etc.

If someone wanted to say "the government has the right to make long hair illegal" and someone else said "you can't legislate morality" and the first person said "we outlaw murder, don't we?"

Well, let's just say that I'd be spectacularly unmoved.