Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)

[NLuquire]

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001440.html

[s1n4m1n]

I'd thought I'd try and re-ignite discussion on this topic. The MassachuSEX supreme court is basically mandating same-sex "marriages" (btw, I strongly suggest everyone putting that term in quotes, to deny its validity) in its state. The State Senate gave every civil benefit of marriage to "civil unions" but that was not enough. I think that is a good thing because it stops the word games being played.

BTW, I reread this thread from the beginning. I find Janine's definition of marriage as incorrect. She said marriage was between "two persons". That is incorrect, the term marriage is and has always been more specific, it is between "a man and woman".

Ken

[boringoldguy]

Well, this is all fascinating for a variety of reasons.   Among other things, I think this makes an amendment to the US Constituion the only way to stop this from being forced upon all the states by means of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

It all has fascinating ramifications for the upcoming elections if GW can work it properly.   Politically, I think he is best advised to play this up as a democratic rule of the people kind of thing -  we want to make sure that a few judges in one little state don't get to change the law for everybody in the whole country.

That puts Kerry in a box - if he supports "letting the people decide" then a wealthy and important pressure group in his party is up in arms;   if he opposes the amendment, then Bush can lambast for supporting "judicial tyranny" (a charge that carries some weight  in this situation) and opposing the right of the people to govern themselves, and doesn't really have to hammer homosexuals too hard.  (There will be other folks happy to do that job for him.)

Alternatively, if Congress won't act, I think there are 37 or 38 states that have passed "Defense of Marriage" acts.  Perhaps those legislatures could be cajoled into calling a Constitutional Convention.  That would be interesting, wouldn't it?   Everything would be up for grabs then.

[Jim Abb]

BOG I think you are on the right track regarding the Constitution. The only remedy for both the homosexual marriage issue and the abortion issue can be in the form of a Constituional amendment.
 Even with 16 years of Reagan and Bush we still have abortion. Without  a specific Constitutional ban the courts will continue to rule the way they have.
But Charlie's "snowball and hell" come to mind.
Jim

[s1n4m1n]

How about a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to nullify Supreme Court decisions. This would restore some of the balance of powers that supposed to exist between the three branches of government.

Really, I think if the Congress and President grew some backbone, maybe do some impeachments for some decisions. The Court will be put back in its place.

Ken

[Jim Abb]

Just a reminder that the majority of members on the Supreme Court are Republicans. Sometimes an honest judge must rule against his own beliefs because he understands that without the law there is no law. That is why we need amendments that will enable judges to have a law to back their positions. From a legal standpoint I think the courts in Massachusetts ruled correctly. To rule differently will necessitate a change in law. And that falls back on the Congress.
Jim

[Arkstfan]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]How about a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to nullify Supreme Court decisions. This would restore some of the balance of powers that supposed to exist between the three branches of government.

Really, I think if the Congress and President grew some backbone, maybe do some impeachments for some decisions. The Court will be put back in its place.[/quote]
Congress can do it. If 2/3rds of each house agrees they can send a proposed amendment to the states and if 3/4ths agree they can change the constitution.

Mere nullification eliminates the need for a Supreme Court and all law will simply be a popularity contest. Given the chance in the 50's the Congress would have nullifed Brown v. Board of Education.

As to impeachment if you want break the law and impeach justices for not agreeing with you (despite scriptural calls to obey the law of the government) it is possible to do only if you ignore Article II, Section 4.  The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Personally I think Christians need to quit wasting so much time trying to get the government to enforce and regulate codes of conduct that they want and use these distressing developments to actually reach people.

Outlawing homosexual relations to force the non-believer to take on the outward behavior of the saved does NOTHING for the non-believer. The unsaved homosexual is sentenced to death at the judgement of the Lord. The unsaved who is forced into heterosexual behavior by law is still sentenced to death. The unsaved heterosexual is sentenced to death even if he has never once had the slightest urge toward a member of the same sex. The law of man does not save. If anything the law of man forcing moral behavior probably hurts evangelism since we believers on the surface would seem to act exactly like the people we are supposed to be encouraging to repent and accept Christ.

Reaching him or her and letting God change their heart is the only effective remedy, not a law.

[s1n4m1n]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Congress can do it. If 2/3rds of each house agrees they can send a proposed amendment to the states and if 3/4ths agree they can change the constitution.
[/quote]

Lots of hoops to jump through to rectify problems caused by a simple majority of SC justices who, in my opinion, seemed to make it up as they go along (I'm thinking of the Lawerance decision).

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Mere nullification eliminates the need for a Supreme Court and all law will simply be a popularity contest. Given the chance in the 50's the Congress would have nullifed Brown v. Board of Education.
[/quote]

Based on the decisions the SC has been making, it seems like the need for a Legislative branch has been eliminated.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]As to impeachment if you want break the law and impeach justices for not agreeing with you (despite scriptural calls to obey the law of the government) it is possible to do only if you ignore Article II, Section 4.  The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
[/quote]

I don't know why you think impeachment is "breaking the law" since the Legislature has the authority to impeach, given to it by the Constitution. Don't the Justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Shouldn't they be removed for violating their oath.

Ken

[janine]

Since the revival of the discussion has centered on political/legislative handles on the matter, I will shift this to Politics.

And yeah, I should have specified, re: the two persons in a marriage... one should be an "innie" and one and "outie". :thumbs-up: