Will Bush use Defense of Marriage to enact judicial reform?

[Cannikin]

Forgive me for this, but I went over to FR to get their perspective on the gay thing and I read something I found that I had considered but dismissed early on. What do you think?



"If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process.

Carefully note the EXACT meaning if that sentence...

Even though uttered in the CONTEXT of preserving Marriage, it is at it's core a drive for JUDICIAL reform!!

The 11th Amendment to the Constitution reversed a decision of the Marshall Court involving States being sued by Citizens of other states, and "foreign entities" like Indian Tribes."

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. He will use it to do a lot more than that. The core issue is not

"gay marriage," but equal protection under the law and separation of church and state.

Gay marriage is an emotional hotbutton issue that has the potential to convince voters, legislators and jurists alike to effectively invalidate the constitution.

"Wedge issue" is an interesting term here because in this case, it is not only about driving a "wedge" between theocrats and secularists, but more importantly it is about driving a wedge between the regime's agenda and long-established constitutional principles.

[Homer12]

2. I see more clearly now. It makes more sense now.

I keep on overlooking the "modus operandi" of Buscho.

[Cannikin]

3. Me too. Fortunately, freepers outed him on this one!

[alarimer]

4. So basically

because judges will over rule their (anti-gay) agenda, they only way to deal with it is with an amendment to the Constitution? That's how I read that anyway. IF legally their position is tenuous at best, the only way to make it legal is to amend the Constitution. I certainly hope that doesn't happen. The Constitution should only be amaended for important things: to outlaw slavery, give people more rights (rather than less) etc. I don't believe an amendment to ban flag burning or gay marriage is necessary.

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. A proposal to amend could be good, or bad.

It would be good in that it would bring things to a head, and however popular such an amendment might be among the voting class, it would be impossible to prevent opponents from getting it into the record that such an amendment does indeed establish a precedent of hard-wiring doctrine of a particular religious sect into the constitution of a state into which secularity is supposedly already hard-wired.

It is an amendment that comes with its own constitutional crisis, right in the package!

If the amendment was actually passed, that would be very bad for the obvious reasons, but it would also be bad because then we would have in essence, a contradictory constitution, and the obvious way to solve this problem is to amend the first amendment to remove the religion part.

That might not be as easily done as one to "ban gay marriage," although in the current climate, it is not out of the question.

Or, as an alternative, the Congress could vote no on an amendment to make the doctrine of a particular sect federal law, and instead vote to affirm equal protection under the law, AND separation of church and state, and put in some pretty words about respecting the rights of every American to "sanction" their own marriages in accordance with their religious beliefs, separately and independently of, any civil agreement (which would be ONE agreement, called ONE thing, for everybody) pertaining to inheritance, property, taxes, testifying in courts of law, spousal benefits at place of employment, child custody and zog zog zog.

[Sapphocrat]

6. DuctapeFatwa, have I ever told you...

...how much I appreciate your perspective in all things?

No, I'm sure I haven't. But I do.

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. Wow, Thanks! What a nice compliment :)

:hi: