Mitt Romney: Amend The Constitution To Ban Gay Marriage
There is an article here about Mitt Romney calling for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Here is a little back-story about how gay marriage was forced on the Mass. residents.
Most Americans know that Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage. And they probably also know that Mitt Romney was governor when gay marriage was legalised. What I’m not sure many people know around the country is how this came to pass. This was not a bill that passed through the state house and senate, then on to Romney’s desk for a signature. This was a case of liberal, activist judges instituting their own personal policy preferences onto the citizens of Massachusetts, where they had no right to do so. They forced Mass. residents to accept something that polls show a vast majority of residents don’t want.
A citizen’s group gathered up more than enough signatures to have this issue go to the citizens for a vote in 2008 on this issue and have the constitution amended according to the vote. This meant that there had to be a constitutional convention,which there was, where a vote would have to be taken to put this issue on the ballet by Mass. law.
The constitutional convention, knowing Romney wasn’t running for re-election, illegally filibustered and the issue was never voted on in committee. Romney then filed a complaint with the state supreme court to have the committee reconvened and force a vote on the issue.
Unfortunately Romney was out of office before the final verdict came down. That is probably where he let Mass. residents down, if he did at all, by not running for re-election.
When gov. Patrick took office, the first thing he did was to kill the whole controversy by basically telling his law makers to ignore the law, and the wishes of the people, and not vote or send the issue to the voters.
America's Watchtower 
1) Conservative judges are just as activist as liberal judges. Conservatives are so quick to harp on “liberal, activist” judges when they forget that anyone who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade will need an activist judge.
2) Massachusetts is not the only state that allows gay marriage. Six other states and Washington, D.C also allow gay marriage or civil unions.
3) Banning gay marriage is a violation of the U.S. Constitution
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
Amendment 14, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction therof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviledges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Sounds to me like banning gay marriage would infringing on a person’s priviledges, not to mention their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And where do we get this hatred of homosexuality? From the Bible. From the Old Testament. From passages from books of the Bible that contain things like the ability to stone people for the following:
– disobedience
– wearing garments of two different threads
– eating any form of shellfish
– planting two different crops side by side
– touching the skin of a dead pig (football?)
– etc.
If we follow that homosexuality is an abomination, then the rest of those things should follow, from a literal interpretation.
I don’t know about you, but that sounds like an awful lot of stonings to me.
LikeLike
Only Mass. allows gay marriage, the other states have civil unions in one form or another. Like it or not marriage is a religious institution first and foremost.
If there is a seperation of church and state, how can the government legislate what religions must accept?
I don’t have a real problem with civil unions when it comes to legal rights in the eyes of the government.
But because of the slippery slope( I hate that term but will have to use it anyway) that will follow, I don’t want to change the definition of marraige.
Just as an example, Mass. is talking about recognizing any marraige, including poligimist marriages.
Is that okay? If so, how about pedophilia marriages?
Go ahead and insert your Mitt Romney, Mormon poligimist joke here.
LikeLike
The courts are not saying anything about making churches recognize gay marriage. Marriage is not just a religious institution. You can get married in a church, but without going to City Hall and filling out your license and paying your money, you’re not recognized as married by the government.
If you noticed, the marriages in Massachusetts and San Francisco were being performed at City Halls, not in churches with congregations screaming for them not to, and Massachusetts can try to define marriage as polygamist in nature – but they won’t because marriage is mostly a financial connection to the government. In reality its mostly about insurance, health care, and taxes.
As for “pedophilia marriage” as you call it, I assume you mean between an adult and a minor? Well in most states in the South, girls can get married under the age of 18 to someone over the age of 18. In fact in Alabama a girl can get married at the age of 14.
And, to repeat, the gay marriage issue is in NO way about “forcing churches to recognize gay marriage.” Its about the government recognizing the marriage of a gay couple, whether that be a “marriage” or a “civil union” (which are essentially the same thing, civil union is simply a different word). The churches don’t have to anything. In fact, marriage in a church, from the point of view of the law, is nothing other than symbolic. To many the marriage in the church is the true marriage, but not according to the law.
LikeLike
Marriage requires a license, and by the term license it means it is not an inherent right.
Although I do not support gay marriage, I am not inclined to either a Constitutional Amendment banning it, NOR, a court ordering it to be made into law. Legislative initiatives should lay in the hands of the people. Let the legislature vote, and take the heat from whatever side it may come. It’s called democracy.
LikeLike
It may not be an “inherent right,” but preventing people from getting a license simply because of sexual orientation is discrimination.
LikeLike
When I got married my future wife and I had to take blood tests. Based on the results of the blood tests, we could have been denied a marriage license. As a heterosexual couple would this have been discrimination? avoiceofreason is right, let the people vote!
LikeLike
There’s a difference between the two examples.
For example, when you take a driving test, if you hit 12 cones, you’ll be denied a license. This will happen regardless of whether you’re black, white, hispanic, gay, transgendered, or a dwarf. Its the rules of the test.
When it comes to marriage licenses, you can be denied a license due to a blood test that reveals if you both hold genes that can lead to diseased offspring that would harm others in the population. That’s the rationale anyway (and that’s a very questionable rule), but that applies to EVERYONE EQUALLY.
Denying a group of people the chance to even take the blood test, THAT is discrimination.
What you’re arguing is akin to me saying that three students take a series of tests. If you fail one of the tests, you’re not allowed to continue to the next set. One student fails the test. He’s not allowed to continue. Is this discriminating against him? No, he was given an equal opportunity to take and pass the test, and he failed. That’s not discrimination because he was given an EQUAL CHANCE.
Denying people the CHANCE is discrimination. Them failing when given that chance is another thing entirely.
LikeLike
7 Responses to Publius:
1) No, conservative judges are strict constitutionalists, who interpret the law as is on the books, without creating new laws for social policy. It would not take “activist judges” to overturn Roe v. Wade… what it would take is a new case, to be heard by the Supreme Court, as Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional decision itself. The constitution clearly lists that as a right of the states to decide.
2) Massachusetts IS the only state allowing gay marriage. The others allow civil unions.
3) Unlawful searches? You really are digging looking for it aren’t you? Ammendment 14 would be superceded by said ammendment banning it, wouldn’t it?
Allowing gay marriage prevents people from their 1st ammendment right, to practice their own religion, which doesn’t allow for gay marriage.
No one is banning being gay, no one is banning living with a partner of another sex. What should be banned, is the degredation of the institution of marriage, which is a church born institution, which binds couples of opposite sex together, to concieve and care for children, as a means of controlling the population, so only moral couple would be breeding, thus creating a responsible moral society. It’s even stated that failure of one partner to be able to concieve is grounds for divorce. That shows that it is implicit in the bond.
No it doesn’t come from the bible… it comes from every culture world wide. In every culture it is a religious ceremony, which binds the appropriate parents to mate…
This is a moralistic issue, not a religious one. It’s about a society that wants its children growing up in homes with a paternal male and maternal female figure.
Psst… you said 7, why stop at 3? Was it really that hard trying to come up with them?
LikeLike
Here is the real issue.
If you are worried about the relationship of two others more then the suffering of children, those who fight disease, and poverty. Then you need to evaluate your morals, and your faith.
The Israelites claimed the Exodus, without any true evidence.
Perhaps Egypt should have allowed the Hittites to conquer the Israelites, rather the forming the first democratic unity of nations to protect the northern territories where they were given land. Then we wouldn’t be having this debate at all. Nor would the stories have been fabricated.
LikeLike
Keep in mind you have to give and take.
Take away gay couples rights, and constitutionally, the government will have to remove benefits extended from the state and federal level to any married couple. Then you can keep it in the church, but don’t expect benefits on taxes, which all Americans put into.
The constitution get’s re-written on this level, there will be civil issues in the future. THe foundation breaks, and the nation will crumble.
I’m sure the same conservatives would have no issues setting womans rights back, or having people of race sit on the back of a bus again. We can pul la scripture for everything, but then again they failed humanity long ago and the history shows it.
LikeLike