Constitutional Amendment introduced to ban same-sex marriage MOD ALERT

Why is the right so willing to indulge the moral turpitude of bearing false witness to our own laws, without a morals test.

 

The Constitutional Amendment we need is one banning false political advertising.

This would solve many of the problems caused by people being tricked into voting against their own interests.

It would also put talk radio and Fox News off the air, as they are essentially false infomercials for the GOP.

 

I agree with the first two statements. Banning commercials would also have the bonus of taking a lot of the influence of money out of campaigns. As for Fox and talk radio, that would pose some gnarly First Amendment sorts of issues. People need to hear all sides of the argument.

 

As well as MSNBC, who are infomercials for the Gay Agenda.

 

Good idea but impractical as the courts would be hopelessly clogged with 'what is truth' cases. I favor an amendment to just ban all electronic media political advertising. It's mostly deceptive and otherwise awful, and it gives big money most of its influence. Leave them with print, and actually speaking to actual audiences.

 

I protest; would the left even be objecting to our form of Government as established by our current regime, if we really could be more grateful to an almighty god for our freedoms.

 

I agree it has no chance. But they have to do it to appease their constituents. Now they can honestly say "well, at least I tried" and win points with their voters.

I do not take it personally myself. I understand their reasoning and do not think it is necessarily hateful. Not everyone who is opposed to gay marriage wants to see homos burned at the stake. But I don't agree with it and will oppose it.

 

And people like you can't stand the COTUS. Right or wrong they have a right to try to change the COTUS however they see fit.

THis will NEVER get passed.

- - - Updated - - -

And people like you can't stand the COTUS. Right or wrong they have a right to try to change the COTUS however they see fit.

THis will NEVER get passed.

 

and or make divorce illegal

 

Contrary to the ignorance abounding both parties, marriage is not a Federal Issue, as the Supreme Court just ruled. This attempt at amending the Constitution over a virtual non-issue is nothing but a waste of time wrapped in a disingenuous attempt at pandering to a demographic (the anti-gay Christian demographic). No body believes that a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is achievable and I doubt anyone believes it is worth while or even a reasonable priority to be devoting the people's resources towards. Perhaps reigning in a runaway quasi-private monetary monopoly, prosecuting perpetrator's of massive white collar crimes, improving our decaying infrastructure, and/or cutting out the abundant waste in the Federal budget would be better issues to spend such effort on.

 

From a legal standpoint , COTUS > SCOTUS . So the Court can today rule that the federal government has no such power and tomorrow a COTUS amendment could be passed that says yes in fact they do have such power and the COTUS is the law of the land.

If you want absolute proof of this look up Dred Scott where the court upheld slavery and that pretty much was the law of the land until a COTUS amendment was passed making slavery illegal. Among many other examples.

I find it sad that so many people get pissed when people who have ideas that are opposing to their own use the very system that was put in place to try to get laws which they favor passed.

This amendment will NEVER pass, as indeed most never do, but they have a right to try.

 

I never said that they don't have a "right" to try to pass an amendment. The reality is that there is no grounds to establish marriage regulations as Federal issue. It's absurd, it won't pass, and it's at once both a waste of time and a fraudulent attempt at convincing the people that their interests are being represented. Big government does not care if homosexuals marry or not. It's irrelevant. The corporate media pushes the issue because it is irrelevant yet divisive, and thus is a nice distraction for the people so that they don't consider how both parties have been together selling them down the river for decades.

 

Oh I absolutely, 100% agree that marriage is none of the government's business.

However, would you like to take turns listing federal laws that concern things that should be none of the government's business?

 

I would gladly see all of those items, of which I suspect we would undoubtedly agree on far more than we would disagree, withdrawn from the public sphere. The problem, though, is not the populace, but the corporate oligarchy that dominates government policy through it's vast undue influence on the electoral and legislative processes. I am absolutely against expanding government powers, particularly as that government becomes less and less observant of the interests of the people it exists to govern.

 

Such an amendment would be repugnant to Article 4, Section 2 and immoral as a form of false witness bearing to our own laws.

 

Oh, I don't think we disagree at all. The government SHOULD get out of a lot of things.

I'm just saying that a COTUS amendment changes the game completely. I mean if a COTUS amendment were passed making it okay to beat your wife once a week. That would be the law, wouldn't be very fair to women, but they certainly wouldn't be able to claim it was an illegal law.

 

It's too bad that it's come to this, but I'd vote for that Amendment.

In my opinion, telling gays that "being gay is jussst fine", is doing gays the greatest possible injustice.

 

who says its your place to tell consenting adults anything?

Mind your own business.

 

This is just another reason why I believe we need to seriously consider two separate nations now. One based on a liberal constitution, and one based on a conservative one. Americans would then have the choice to live under the rule that most fits them.
I'm all for exploring the idea, or at least consider the idea of a parliamentary style government.

 

It is not your place to tell them anything. They are not subordinate to you.

 

The same thing who tells you that it's YOUR place to tell me to mind my own business.

And we tell consenting adults that they can't do lots of things. Just because two people consent to something doesn't give them a right to do it. If you and I agree to set fire to a maple tree it doesn't give us the right to do it. Even if you consent to letting Joe kill you, it doesn't give him a right to do it.

 

That's odd. I'm of the opinion that we should tell fruitcakes on the left and on the right to all shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up and worry about themselves.

Each side has nut bars who depending on circumstances are more than happy to have the government tell other people what they can and can't do.

I don't care if my neighbor is having sex with a man, and he shouldn't care if I have a house full of guns and neither of should care if our other neighbor is smoking 8 pounds of marijuana every night.

etc etc.

I'm sick of people trying to blame this all on one side or another. Both sides are guilty depending on the issue.

 

Then why is it YOUR place to tell me how to act like you just told me?

 

Um what? Depending on where that tree is, certainly we could burn it.

And there is no federal law concerning assisted suicides either.


As for telling you to mind your own business. That is my First Amendment right as to the extent which this board lets me use it here. Likewise you have a right to post here that gay sex is gross.

However, I have NO right to pass a law telling you to shut up and mind your own business, and neither should you have a right to pass a law telling gays they can't have sex or marry.

 

Dictionary definitions reflect usage of a word applicable to numerous applications throughout society. What we should focus on is the specific usage of words when we address the applicable definition as well as the reasons for that definition.

For many, based upon their religious beliefs, the only definition of marriage that is applicable for them is the union of one man and one woman in the holy institution of marriage under the religious beliefs that they hold. This addresses the religious/social institution of marriage and there is no problem with this definition for those that hold these beliefs. No one is asking them to change their definition related to the religious/social definition of marriage based upon their personal religious beliefs.

But it is not a "legal" definition of marriage as applicable under the marriage laws. The First Amendment, based upon the US Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v US 1878, actually prohibits religious opinion (e.g. the religious definition of marriage) to be incorporated in the laws of the United States.

So if the "legal" definition of "marriage" cannot be based upon "religious opinion" then what does it need to be based upon? To my knowledge every single law that uses "marriage" or "spouse" (established by marriage) relates to the financial partnership where income, assets, and liabilities are being addressed by the law. Even when we address "divorce" by the Court all of the issues addressed, including child custody, child support, and even alimony are all matters of "property" division based upon the dissolution of the financial partnership between the couple. The "child" is treated as both an asset and a liability in a divorce.

Based upon the "laws" relevant to "marriage" the word "marriage" is used in a financial context related to a personal partnership created by those involved and that would, or should, include any personal partnership established between consenting adults as all those partnerships are equal. That would include opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally because both form the identical personal partnerships were financial income, assets, and liabilities are shared which is what the laws address. This is what the "legal" definition needs to be based upon.

The "legal" definition of marriage must be based upon the laws and is completely unrelated to the "religious/social" definition of marriage and does not disparage a person's personal "definition" of marriage whether they believe in same-sex marriage or not.