Community Page
- randythomas.org/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- Are Gay Christians Really Saved?
- Michael Jackson Became A Christian Before Dying
- An Explosion In The Kitchen Of Mentos Proportion
- Engaging Our Gay Friends and Loved One’s With Honor and Respect – Bridging The Gap Synchroblog
- Mainline Denominations & Evangelicals Unite for Counter-Cultural Conference on Homosexuality
-
Recent Comments
- Randy, (laughing at self) You're right, I think it's that time in the day when I need a cup of caffeine. Sorry about that it has been a long day for me. *shrug* I never did get that error...
- RaLph - I just don't know that I can do that. You have at it though. I have heard cokes being referred to as a "cold drink" as in "you wanna' col'drink?" before. In...
- Actually it says, "Right now the MJ post on his becoming a Christian says it has 139 comments on the “Home” blog page but the actual page itself has 28." I can now kind of see where you...
- Above it says "Christian says it has 139 comments on the “Home” blog page but the actual page itself has 28.". Have you installed any new plugins recently? Can you email me your error log...
- I am the one catching the discrepency. Not sure how you got that "Christian" was catching it. I am using Firefox. Now the home page matches the disqus count but if you look in my sidebar...
ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collected
Personal Blog of Randy ThomasGay Marriage in Connecticut - White House Predicts Need for Federal Marriage Amendment
Started by Randy · 8 months ago
Last Friday, Connecticut became the third state to have four judges overthrow the will of the people and re-define marriage … the White House issued the following statement. (my thoughts after the jump.)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release - ... Continue reading »
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release - ... Continue reading »
8 months ago
I'm against both options, but I feel like saying the FMA would avoid this interstate conflict is a bit simplistic to what a FMA really means and would do.
8 months ago
Your option to amend, is already happening on the state level and won't stand the test of time. We both know that same sex couples who get hitched in one state won't restrict themselves to living in "gay marriage" states their whole lives. Some will even purposefully move to a non-gay marriage state to challenge the system with regard to the equal protection element already afforded through the Constitution. A federal amendment has to bring uniformity to the entire union or remain silent allowing for states rights to fill the void ... which is what is already happening.
Again, I could be wrong. I am not a lawyer.
8 months ago
Regardless, on this one, I saw your caveat. I still feel the argument is too simplistic. For me it's kind of like the argument you brought up about the gay activists saying a state constitutional amendment isn't necessary because the law already exists. You're right...the real reason is they don't want the amendment, and the "law already exists" argument isn't covering the totality of the issue.
For the FMA, anti-gay marriage folks simply want to ban gay marriage....avoiding the interstate conflict isn't the reason or even a main reason, it's an argument that isn't covering the totality of the issue.
It's really similar to the "law exists' argument of pro-gay marriage folks--both arguments are kind of watered down ways to to try to convince people one way or the other. If you're in the middle on this issue, It's a lot easier to say you voted for FMA to avoid interstate confusion and battles than to say you voted against gay marriage. Conversely, it's a lot easier to say you voted because the amendment was redundant than because you wanted to ban gay marriage.
8 months ago
It may be because it is late but all I can say further is thanks for your perspective :).
8 months ago
But "uniformity of policy across the nation" is a concept that a conservative -- by definition an advocate of a state's rights over the rights of the Federal government -- should loathe. Yes, different states having different definitions of marriage is going to lead to problems and lawsuits and all sorts of things... Just like different state's gun and abortion regulations already do. But that's just a side-effect of the ideal of anti-Federalism that conservatives should support.
Let's say the voters of California and Connecticut had voted for same-sex couples to marry. Would you still consider the Federal Marriage Amendment necessary? I certainly don't agree with Supreme Courts overturning the "will of the people" (though since they are appointed by elected officials that argument has the tendency to fall on its face), but I also don't think it is right for the Federal government to limit the rights of the voters of the states to decide these issues for themselves.
8 months ago
Also, the ratification process can only be accomplished through the will of the people. It starts in Congress and ends with 2/3rds of the state legislatures approving it. All of that is based in "the people's" branch of representative government. The ratification process is a beautiful element of our Republic because it requires grassroots involvement (on the state and federal levels.) It doesn't start and end on Capitol Hill.
8 months ago
Incidentally, the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, also present in a similar form in the Articles of Confederation) speaks directly to this concept. The founding fathers recognized that the country couldn't stay unified if each state was acting like a seperate nation, refusing to accept the official business of other states at its own discretion. This makes it so that a citizen of the United States, who gets married in North Carolina, can move to Vermont and remain married. It also makes it so that the citizen married and then divorced in North Carolina cannot escape to Vermont to avoid paying child support in North Carolina. And you'll be hard press to argue that these are bad things.