ACLU Applauds House For Rejecting Gay Marriage Ban Amendment

Posted on July 18, 2006

The House rejects the gay marraige ban and the ACLU applaud!

The House on Tuesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, ending for another year a congressional debate that supporters of the ban hope will still reverberate in this fall’s election.

The 236-187 vote for the proposal to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman was 47 short of the two-thirds majority needed to advance a constitutional amendment. It followed six weeks after the Senate also decisively defeated the amendment, a top priority of social conservatives.

Ace has the idea.

A lot of people object to “imposing” a definition of marriage on the states, or passing substantive law in an Amendment (which, for reasons that aren’t clear to me, they claim should not contain substantive law but rather only procedural law about the workings of the government).

So, once again:

Drop the language defining marriage.

Instead, write an amendment that states that no court shall have jurisdiction over the issue, nor the authority to impose any definition of marriage upon a state, nor interpret any constitutional provision, state or federal, as mandating such.

Call the bluffs of the people who claim they are in favor of “states’ rights,” and appease those who don’t want an explicit “antigay” provision in the Constitution.

Such a hypthetical amendment does not take the power away from the states, but merely clarifies who has the power within the states to decide the issue, nor does it, by federal fiat, impose a national definition of marriage.

It could, and should, be passed, and then incorporated into the Constitution.

And then all of the dishonest gay marriage advocates will be left squealing and exposed as the disingenous brats they are.

Ultimately, they do want judge-imposed gay marriage. It’s the only likely way to get gay marriage made the law.

Deny them that and make them work through the democratic process. If they can democratically persuade states to adopt gay marriage, fine.

Yes, it would be fun to see if a democrat would try to convince people that a major decision like this should be decided by a court instead of the people. If a state elects to allow gay marriage, I will be happy for them. What people are sick and tired of are the attempts to force the homosexual agenda on them.

» Filed Under ACLU, Homosexual Agenda, News, War On Terror

Trackback URL

Comments

9 Responses to “ACLU Applauds House For Rejecting Gay Marriage Ban Amendment”

Maj M.T. Rational XXXIV on July 18th, 2006 11:33 pm

I couldn’t care less what the people want on this issue. On some issues, such as this one involving blatant discrimination, the majority shouldn’t rule. If it takes a court to allow for gay marriage, then so be it.
AShiningCity on July 19th, 2006 8:41 am

Maj M.T. Rational- I might get into a lot of trouble with my conservative buddies but screw it.

I believe that gays should be allowed to have civil unions (the government shouldn’t be in the business of “marriages” just contracts between two people).

However, it dampens the cause a tad when Pro-Gay forces do an end around the will of the people. I would like to see a greater grass roots movement take shape to convince each voter rather than taking the intellectual lazy way out and head for the courts.

The voters tend to resent this technique as well further damaging the cause of gay unions.

A strong foundation can be built for gay unions for years to come.

Look at Roe v. Wade… a strong foundation was not built… instead it was taken to the Supreme Court. Now Pro-Choice folks are bemoaning the fact that if one justice leaves all of their work will be gone.

That’s what happens when you rely strictly on the courts instead of trying to change public opinion one voter at a time.
Jenée on July 19th, 2006 7:15 pm

What people are sick and tired of are the attempts to force the homosexual agenda on them.
Sort of the way 40 years ago, people were sick of attempts to force the black agenda on them. Do these people really believe they should be treated equally with those of us born as straight white folks?
kerwin_brown on July 19th, 2006 9:12 pm

I see Mr. Rational is all for forcing his political on to the American people. I wonder what the difference between that ideology and other dictator’s agenda is. I know Mr. Rational is convinced he is right and every other person who disagrees with him is wrong so they should have no right to vote.

All I can say is we need to stop the tyranny of the left whatever the cost.
Maj M.T. Rational XXXIV on July 20th, 2006 12:46 am

I’m all for forcing gay marriage on America when the majority of Americans are being ignorant bigots. I see you took that, ran with it, and assumed I’m all for forcing my views on every issue on the American people, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Please, please argue against what I actually say and not what you would like me to have said.

P.S. - You need to stop throwing the “tyranny” word around so loosely. I’m the one supporting freedom and equal rights for homosexuals, but somehow I’m the tyrant. Where’s the logic?
kerwin_brown on July 20th, 2006 2:08 pm

Mr. Rational you are supporting the destruction of the right to life and health. You can call it freedom but it is still tyranny especially when you say that your say is all that matters. You like Hitler also support genocide by changing the definition of human being. That just happens to violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which reads as follows.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

You are the enemy of the free people of the world and I hope you change.
Maj M.T. Rational XXXIV on July 20th, 2006 3:30 pm

If Godwin’s Law were reinterpreted as a game, you’d win every time.

I’m now absolutely, 100% sure that you are a parody. No one can go that far to the right without wrapping around and ending up on the left. Well played, sir. Well played. You make me so happy that you must be made of kittens and moonbeams.
meatbrain on July 20th, 2006 3:47 pm

“Mr. Rational you are supporting the destruction of the right to life and health.”
Whose “right to life and health” is destroyed when a same-sex marriage occurs?

“You like Hitler also support genocide by changing the definition of human being.”
Where in this comment section has Major Rational advocated “changing the definition of human being”?

Kerwin, you damage your credibility immensely when you make ludicrous accusations that are not supported by the tiniest shred of evidence.
meatbrain on July 20th, 2006 3:55 pm

John Scalzi made an excellent point regarding the “Federal Marriage Amendment”:

1. Same-sex marriage already exists in the United States. It has for two years. The definition of marriage in the US already includes members of the same sex marrying each other.

2. By pressing for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between men and women, it is the marriage bigots who are looking to change the definition of marriage.

3. The language of the proposed constitutional amendment would end thousands of legal marriages — both the same marriages that legally exist now and all the same-sex marriages that would occur between now and whenever the theoretical moment would be that the 37th state ratified the amendment.

4. The proposed constitutional amendment would make second-class citizens of all same-sex married couples by stripping them of a marital status they currently enjoy, while allowing all other legally married couples to continue being married.

…We ought to be getting these marriage bigots admitting that they have to strip away rights these Americans already have to do what they want to do. And then we need to ask the people “who don’t know what they think about it” if they want to align themselves with people who want to destroy actual marriages in order to “preserve” a definition of marriage that doesn’t actually exist.

I have yet to see anyone who favors the “Federal Marriage Amendment”, or any other federal law that would ban same-sex marriages, explain why it is necessary to destroy thousands of existing marriages in order to protect a concept of marriage that does not match reality? What gives the marriage bigots the right to destroy other people’s marriages?