« VICTORY! | Main

November 06, 2008

Marriage Amendment Opponent Proves the Point

As part of their campaign against the Florida Marriage Amendment, opponents repeated proclaimed that the measure was unnecessary because the Florida law already limited marriage to one man and one woman.  Proponents of the Amendment, of course, explained that the measure was needed because, as we have seen in numerous other states, activist judges are all to ready to impose their own will and strike down such laws.  By placing the language in the state constitution we protect marriage from these judges and other threats.

Given that the opponents used this argument so frequently, I could not help but chuckle at the response by Kenneth Quinnell, the Executive Director of the Florida Progressive Coalition (who himself promoted the idea that the Amendment was unnecessary).

"... this law will eventually be shot down as unconstitutional at the federal level..."

Odd, that while on the one hand we were supposed to believe that marriage was already protected by a state statute, it is now proclaimed that a federal court will abolish a provision of a state constitution.

Over 62% of Florida voters cast a vote for traditional Marriage this week.  30 states have passed similar measures.  And since opponents to traditional marriage are finding that they can't convince the you, people, to turn on marriage (not even in California) they're just going to try and get an activist Court to jam it down your throats.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/404188/35442126

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Marriage Amendment Opponent Proves the Point:

Comments

This argument doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Amendment 2 has no effect on what federal courts do, so you're making no sense. Just like the constant nonsensical claim about "traditional" marriage. The most common form of marriage throughout history was one man and multiple women. That is "traditional" marriage. Check it out, it's in your Bible.

What doesn't make any sense is the game that opponents of traditional marriage (defined in the context of our own country) are playing with voters in Florida and other states. The truth is that you and others are eager to get marriage protection statutes and amendments into the hands of an activist court. As a result, your claims that we don't need marriage amendments because there are already standing laws are, at best, dishonest.

What doesn't make sense Mr. Quinnell, is your argument about what the federal courts have a right to do. No where in my copy of the US Constitution does it mention marriage. It does however have the statement "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", commonly known as the 10th Ammendment.
Since the Constitution does not delegate the power to define marriage to the federal government nor specifically prohibit it to the states, it is a state right. The federal courts would be wise to keep it's nose out of states rights. The people are getting fed up with activist courts, especially at the federal level.
Over and over, states (i.e. the people) are voting to define "traditional marriage" as between one man and one woman. California passed Prop 8, again defining marriage as one man and one woman. The courts overturned the will of the people once, but they spoke up again. The courts need to stop "legislating from the bench" and writing laws. Its not their job.
Traditions change, old traditions die, new traditions are born and as of this date, the people of Florida have spoken and the tradition is that marriage is one man and one woman. If the day comes when enough people vote to change that, then a new tradition will be born. But until such time, traditional marriage is one man and one woman.

Proponents of the Amendment, of course, explained that the measure was needed because, as we have seen in numerous other states, activist judges are all to ready to impose their own will and strike down such laws.

I never made that argument. A disagreed with the state law and want the law changed. There would be no reason for me to support a ballot amendment. I do agree that people (such as Bob Graham) made the argument that the amendment was unnecessary because of state law.

The truth is that you and others are eager to get marriage protection statutes and amendments into the hands of an activist court.

I want state and federal legislation making gay marriage and abortion legal. That would make it harder for the courts to repeal. Courts getting involved in social issues are going to make a large part of the population unhappy. Whether the courts make a decision favoring the Left or Right. Congressional Democrats could have pushed legislation to make abortion legal. They didn't and Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Democrats try to sway social conservatives that will never vote for them.

Odd, that while on the one hand we were supposed to believe that marriage was already protected by a state statute, it is now proclaimed that a federal court will abolish a provision of a state constitution.

The Supreme Court will not hear a gay marriage case. That has more to do with avoiding political controversy than ideology.

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

PRFL Contributors

Syndication

Copyright and Disclaimer