Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wolf
I'm actually hoping they make homosexual marriage mandatory.
Seriously though, given the utter farce that straight people in this country have made of the "sanctity" of marriage, there is nothing gay people could do that would make the act any more meaningless.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention! I'll be supporting it and anyone who supports it.
|
I was simply stating some facts concerning one identifiable group which is very much behind the ERA and what their goal is.
You seem to miss the point I was making which is, people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations. I thought I was clear in expressing my objections, a primary one being government force being used to violate one of mankind’s most important unalienable rights.
Generally speaking, I oppose legislation which interferes with people’s right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, whether in business dealings or their private lives. Of course, this would take into account that a single person or two people mutually agreeing to impinge upon another’s unalienable rights must, and should be, legislatively forbidden.
I also firmly agree with the legislative intent of our federal Constitution and following the rule of law which forbids government force to be used to “discriminate” based upon race or color [Black Code Law], and also forbids the right to vote to be denied based upon sex.
In addition I believe in federalism, our Constitution’s guarantee to a big tent system in which the people of the various States have retained all powers not delegated to the federal government by our federal Constitution, that if the people of Massachusetts decide they want to recognize and sanction homosexual marriages, that is their guaranteed right via the Tenth Amendment; that if the people of Massachusetts also decide to allow abortions on demand and at taxpayer expense, that too is their guaranteed right via federalism, our Constitution’s plan. But I also approve that if the people of Idaho decide to not recognize or sanction homosexual marriages, and they decide to place regulatory restriction on abortion and not fund them via taxpayer expense, they too are well within our Constitution’s plan of federalism to do so!
Federalist Paper No. 45 tells us:
Quote:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them.”
|
And keep in mind our federal Constitution’s first ten amendments were intended to make our federal government’s limited powers crystal clear which is spelled out in the
Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789
Quote:
|
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added …..
|
Now isn’t that something? Our first ten amendments to our federal Constitution were specifically intended to further restrict the government created under our federal Constitution and prevent misconstruction or abuse of
its powers. The unadulterated truth is, the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution were never intended to apply to or restrict the sovereignty of the various States or people therein nor interfere with their constitutionally established state governments.
It is also important to note that Madison states the following with regard to adopting the Tenth Amendment and federalism:
Quote:
|
“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution
|
And so, the very reason for adopting the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution was to preserve federalism, our Constitution’s big tent system.
The amendment in question would sabotage and overturn federalism and place extraordinary powers in the hands of our federal government. Why you have focused on the marriage question is beyond me. Do you have a problem with federalism as many of our political party leaders do, and who wish to impose their whims and fancies upon the people in every state in our union?
Regards,
JWK
" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison
Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87