Discussion in 'Big Brother 3: The Mods Strike Back' started by Darth-Seldon, Oct 18, 2004.
"It's not the call of the federal government, though - it's stated by the constitution."
And you have identified the specific reason that the amendment is necessary. No state legislature in the Union has legalized gay marriage. Not one. In the case of Massachusetts, the issue was forced by judicial fiat, not through duly elected legislative representatives of the People of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The only way to ensure the sovereignty of the People is by protecting them from activist judiciaries.
The Full Faith and Credit clause can be used to impose the judicially imagined standard on every other state in the Union, in direct contravention of the Will of the People. An amendment is the only way to protect the People's sovereignty.
Thank you, carmen for so effectively making a case for a Constitutional amendment to protect the People's sovereignty.
The amendment hasn't passed yet, correct? So if it hasn't, can we assume that it's because it's not the will of the people to do so?
Amendments require a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, and then three-fourths of the states. (There are some variations, but this is the primary way to do it.)
Not a single state legislature in the union has legalized gay marriage. Every state that has taken direct action to ban it has done so with an overwhelming majority. MO passed an amendment to their constitution with more than 70% of the vote. Most reliable polls in states with the language on this year's ballot are showing at least two-thirds support. The amendment fell short in the House and the Senate.
Does that mean that it isn't the Will of the People? I would say not. It was very clearly the Will of the People for years to pass a law banning partial birth abortion, and the law passed Congress several times, only to be vetoed by Clinton. Bush recently signed the bill into law, with another huge majority in Congress, but the law was overturned by the courts. Certainly, the Will of the People was to have the practice halted. And yet it is not.
Find a single state where gay marriage proponents out-poll those who oppose it and maybe you could make a point. As it stands now, it is clear that the People's Will is being subverted and undermined by activists courts. Because of these activist courts, the Will of the People is no longer sufficient to mantain a system of checks and balances. The People can no longer effectively express their Will through their state legislatures.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the amendment process, but if it's made as an amendment, then doesn't that mean that the courts can't do anything about it anymore? Because it's now part of the constitution, so by definition, isn't unconstitutional?
And that is why states are passing amendments to their constitutions. The problem is, however, when a federal court steps in and declares those amendments unconstituional, and/or demands that full faith and credit be granted despite those amendments. Already in Louisiana a state court struck down an amendment with overwhelming support as unconstitutional. By your explanation above, you would expect that to be impossible, but he did it anyway.
The point here is that as long as courts continue to tamper with and subvert the American system of checks and balances among three separate but equal branches of government (with distinct roles assigned to each by the Constitution), then the People have few avenues of recourse short of Constitutional amendments.
There is one more way Congress could do it, but I doubt very many of them are aware that they have this power. Most citizens certainly don't have a clue. Because the Constitution only establishes a single court -- The US Supreme Court -- all other courts are created by acts of Congress. In seeting up courts, Congress also has the inherrent capacity to define the jurisdictions of those courts. Congress could, in theory, simply take away from the courts all matters concerning gay marriage. They could just pass a law that says the courts can no longer make rulings on the subject.
On another subject, carmen you seem at the very least semi-litterate. Would you describe Obama's speech above as a "logical" argument or as mere rhetoric? If logic, what "logical" deductions are made? And if rhetoric, would it be "logical" for me to deduce that Seldon doesn't understand logic?
"Truth is whatever one person believes is a part of who they are. It makes up their very being. And they're going to use that to make their descions. If its Kerry or its Bush. You can't tell me that Kerry won't make choices based on his teachings in the Church. The same you can't tell me Bush doesn't make choices based on his religion. And if either of them claim they don't then they're lying."
WOW. I am really glad you have opinions based on nothing.
Kerry is a Catholic
Kerry is Pro Choice
Kerry agrees that Stem Cell Research is important
The Catholic church does not support any form of abortion and is against stem cell research.
Kerry has said he will not make policies that follow the teachings of his religion.
Now Kerry may make decisions in his personal life that are influenced by his faith. However he has said that he will not make decisions of national policy based on it.
It is fine for you to have opinions based on nothing. However I have listed several facts.
I'm not talking about Bush, Rhett. I am not saying that Bush is opposed to stem cell research or that he blindly follows his church. I am defending Kerry on this subject. PK said something which is completely untrue.
Okay. Well, I'll say that I think it's wrong to say that an amendment is unconstitional because it is, by defenition, a part of the constitution. If the marriage amendment passes I may believe it's against what I think is the spirit of the constitution, but I wouldn't say it's unconstitional.
Well what is the spirit of the constitution?
I think that the Constitution should serve as a general guide. Defining marriage is way more specific than the Constitution was ever intended to be, IMHO.
Then who should define marriage?
The states. As per the 10th ammendment.
Indeed, and they have been. Only the states' laws are being overturned by activist courts. So what is the answer other than via amending the Constitution?
Are the activist courts working within the boundaries of the constitution?
EDIT: and are the courts considered part of the state, as defined by the 10th amendment?
How is what I said wrong? You mean to tell me that not one person here and in the world does not make choices based on what they were taught growing up. That things you learn in church don't effect the choices you make? If your faith is a part of who you are then it plays a role in your life.
If I was faced with hey your President and these people here hate you and will do everything to destroy you and have proven it by attacking you. What do you do? I would pray and seek guidance from God. Because thats where I draw my stregnth. And Kerry himself said something simliar to that in the last debate the same as the President.
Truth is you can't just say I will make choices unbiased. Because you will, because everyone is biased in someway just by what they believe and what they were taught was right and wrong growing up. I think aborotion is murder but just because I do doesn't mean that Carmen doesn't. Doesn't mean she does either. Point is every single person on this earth will act and make choices based on those things. And if anyone says they don't then they're wrong and they're lying.
To clarify what I was trying to say in my last post, basically, if the problem is the activist courts, then deal with that, not with what they're overturning. Otherwise, an amendment will have to be written for every thing they overturn, now, or in the future. Write an amendment that deals with the ability to stop the activist courts for doing what they're doing, assuming what they're doing is wrong. Don't write an amendment that stops just this case.
Does that make sense?
PK, what I said was that Kerry has stated he will not let his beliefs interfere with national policy. So sure he can pray before he goes to bed and attend mass as usual. But he is not going to push for some law which follows his religion or make decisions about something like stemcell research based on his faith. As I said in my previous post, they still make decisions in their lives based on faith. However Kerry has said that his NATIONAL POLICY DECISIONS will not be influenced by his being Catholic.
I'm against gay marriage.
I am against the constitutional ammendment.
I am all for civil liberty unions and granting gay couples the same rights as everyone else.
Well I guess you're right, carmen. Let's just go with your "throw the baby out with the bath water" approach and get rid of judicial review entirely. Here are the changes your plan would make:
1. Most states in the Union would very quickly and decisively ban gay marriage (same effect as an amendment).
They would also likely do all the following:
2. Ban abortion
3. Affirmative action -- gone
4. Jim Crowe laws -- some might still be around in many states
5. sodomy banned
6. pornography banned
7. Patriot Act enforced without judicial recourse
Way to go, carmen. Or had you rather address each situation on its individual merits, just as the nation has done for the past 200+ years?
However Kerry has said that his NATIONAL POLICY DECISIONS will not be influenced by his being Catholic.
Ah, excellent. So rather than making his decisions based on his beliefs and what he feels is right, he's instead going to go against his personal beliefs to pander to those most likely to vote for him.
He really doesn't hold these (abortion is wrong, etc.) as his personal beliefs, but claims to so as to pander to those not likely to vote for him, but who can potentially be swayed.
That's who I want as my president! Let's all go goose hunting! And then maybe a rousing Kennedy-like family game of touch football with the cameras conveniently turned on.