- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 24,826
- Reaction score
- 8,345
- Location
- Northern New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
An amendment, expanding the definition of marriage, would 'reel' the govt back in?
1.)and let's not forget that you are avoiding the underlying question of why not just amend the Constitution to change the definition of marriage?
2.) And we know that is because it would never pass, though the left claims that the American people are so behind this and want it.
3.)Sorry, not happening.
4.) That's why the left goes to the courts. Not enough support?
5.) Just get a handful of judges to amend the Constitution. That's the way of the left.
And let's not forget that you are avoiding the underlying question of why not just amend the Constitution to change the definition of marriage? And we know that is because it would never pass, though the left claims that the American people are so behind this and want it. Sorry, not happening. That's why the left goes to the courts. Not enough support? Just get a handful of judges to amend the Constitution. That's the way of the left.
Where's the amendment? When is it coming?
Why is there a need for an amendment?Where's the amendment? When is it coming?
Because Amendment efforts, for the US Constitution, to ban Civil Marriage based on gender have failed - repeatedly. So I guess the position is that citizens are entitled to equal treatement and due process from the States. So to get same-sex Civil Marriage a Federal Constitutional Amendment is required to grant a right from the government, instead of a document limiting the "powers" of government it is to become a laundry list of "rights" held by the people.
Previous Amendment efforts to ban SSCM failed in:
2002 - referred to die in committee
2003 - referred to various committees, failed to advance
2004 - failed a cloture vote in the Senate and failed on the House floor vote
2005/2006 - failed a cluture vote in the Senate and failed on the House floor vote
2008 - Introduced, referred to committee, no action
2013 - Introduced, referred to committee
>>>>
Why is there a need for an amendment?
1.)In my mind, there is no need, because I believe the Federal government should not play any role in this, it is up to the States.
2.) I think those that want to redefine marriage need an amendment because there is nothing in the Constitution granting Federal authority in this.
3.) The 14th amendment argument is B.S., but it is still used by activist judges to try and justify their crappy decisions.
In my mind, there is no need, because I believe the Federal government should not play any role in this, it is up to the States. I think those that want to redefine marriage need an amendment because there is nothing in the Constitution granting Federal authority in this. The 14th amendment argument is B.S., but it is still used by activist judges to try and justify their crappy decisions.
And so the problem is that there is only a "redefinition" in your own mind. It isn't really happening because marriage has never really been defined legally by who can enter into it, but rather by what it does, which is make a legal kinship between two people in the form of spouse. All removing the restriction of sex/gender does is make that kinship available to more combinations of people.
As far as I can remember in this country, marriage has been between a man and a woman only. I don't know of any time in our history that it's been anything else. That's why it's a redefinition. But the issue that bothers me, whichever way it goes, is that the Federal government has no authority to get involved. Those judges should be turning the cases away because it is up to the States. The Constitution does not give the power to them, so it automatically resides with the States and the people.
The federal government has every authority to get involved. It is called the "US Constitution". The 14th Amendment gives them that power. The Civil War is over, the South lost, that means state governments are limited in what laws they can enact by the US Constitution and the people.
You say they have "every authority"? How so? We know the complete history of the 13th, 14th, and 14th amendments. It's no mystery what they are for. And gay marriage isn't part of it.
The South lost the Civil War, which decided slavery and whether or not States can just leave the Union whenever they want. State governments are not more limited in the laws they can enact than they were before the Civil War. If that's what you mean? I'm not sure of what it is you are saying.
If you think that being against another person demanding handouts from the rest of us is suppressing their freedom, well that's just a complete disconnect from reality.
You have a serious lack of understanding of what freedom and Constitution mean.
You say they have "every authority"? How so? We know the complete history of the 13th, 14th, and 14th amendments. It's no mystery what they are for. And gay marriage isn't part of it.
The South lost the Civil War, which decided slavery and whether or not States can just leave the Union whenever they want. State governments are not more limited in the laws they can enact than they were before the Civil War. If that's what you mean? I'm not sure of what it is you are saying.
Yes, state governments are more limited, whether they like it or not. The Civil War was about more than slavery afterall. It was based on states' rights being supreme, over the federal government and individuals. They lost that fight. Individual rights trump state rights up to the point where the state can show a law/restriction furthers a legitimate state interest.
It didn't change the Constitution, it was enforced. There's nothing in there about States rights being supreme. It's more States and the people vs. the Federal government. And the Federal government only has power if the Constitution gives it to them, the people and States have power unless the Constitution states they don't.
It doesn't say you can marry a person of the same sex either.The 14th amendment doesn't say it applies to race.
On this issue, it is states vs the people, specifically people who are having their rights oppressed by the states.
You are skipping a part, you are assuming that the right already exists.
It doesn't say you can marry a person of the same sex either.
It doesn't say you can marry a person of the same sex either.
It does. It is the right to equal protection of the laws, including laws of marriage. 14th Amendment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?