http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...uggests-constitutional-amendment-against-gay/ I believe this woman would make a good president! :type:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Bachmann: Marriage for Man, Woman
- Thread starter Jedi Knight
- Start date
I think it is just time to move on.
A constitutional amendment is never going to happen.
Like it or not, DOMA is indefensible legally.
The constitutional amendment would really be the only way to stop this trend, but it would be well nigh impossible to pass.
Here's why:
1) It requires 2/3 of each house of Congress. It's hard enough to get 60 votes in the Senate, let alone 67. The House is more likely but still unlikely to have 2/3 in favor.
2) It requires the ratification of 3/4 of the states. 38 state legislatures have to ratify the amendment. This will never happen. Only 13 state legislatures have to reject the amendment.
Think: California, Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Illinois, Maine.
If any of the above by chance didn't reject the amendment, I'm sure you could find some more states that would reject it.
I think we would be better off focusing our energy on other matters. Besides, legalizing same-sex marriage won't really have any effect on the number of same-sex relationships. That's the bigger issue.
A constitutional amendment is never going to happen.
Like it or not, DOMA is indefensible legally.
The constitutional amendment would really be the only way to stop this trend, but it would be well nigh impossible to pass.
Here's why:
1) It requires 2/3 of each house of Congress. It's hard enough to get 60 votes in the Senate, let alone 67. The House is more likely but still unlikely to have 2/3 in favor.
2) It requires the ratification of 3/4 of the states. 38 state legislatures have to ratify the amendment. This will never happen. Only 13 state legislatures have to reject the amendment.
Think: California, Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Illinois, Maine.
If any of the above by chance didn't reject the amendment, I'm sure you could find some more states that would reject it.
I think we would be better off focusing our energy on other matters. Besides, legalizing same-sex marriage won't really have any effect on the number of same-sex relationships. That's the bigger issue.
I don't
Not sure how you came to this conclusion
Speculation
You are missing the fact that they are working to make illegal anyone who disagrees with this. This would be a step in that direction. There is much more to it than just getting married. And it is not an either or scenario.
It basically authorizes states to reject the legal unions of other states. Despite DOMA's wording, I don't see how this avoids violating the full faith and credit clause in the constitution. Also, you are finding several federal judges ruling against DOMA because of equal protection. In our current legal environment, DOMA will not stand.
Of course it's speculation, but if you think the legislatures of moderate to liberal states are going to vote to ratify such an amendment, you are living in a dream world.
Why not focus the energy on this then? We could more likely achieve consensus for protecting freedom of conscience than an outright ban on same-sex marriage, IMO.
freeatlast
New Member
I agree with her stand against homosexuals being allowed to marry, but that alone is not enough to decide she would make a good president. This country has many serious issues right now from getting control of a run away court system which now makes laws including the supreme court, illegal infiltration, to a national debt. All those things need to be weighed for any candidate, not simply their views on one moral issue.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree and have watched her on many issues. Perhaps I should have given more but I was pointing out one of many qualities our current President is a total fail on.:wavey:
To what extent is she just Sarah Palin with a law degree though?
dwmoeller1
New Member
An article explaining how a precedent has already been set making DOMA unnecessary.
DOMA is something it seems conservatives should be against as it solidifies more power in the Federal government.
Well, that's a HUGE difference.
Well, as someone who has a law degree himself, I would hope so! But I wasn't terribly inspired by her blunder in NH when she gushed that this was the State where the American War of Independence started. Here's hoping for better things...
Michele seems to have several canned answers of which she is able to vary the elements within these responses (her past service, doctorates, businesses, adoptees, children).
But she did seem a bit elusive when Chris Wallace ("Flake" intervew) asked her if she would support a Constitutional amendment against same-gender "marriage". She immedialtely started talking about States-Rights but finally came around at the end and said she would support such an amendment.
All well and good but IMO and FWIW, she needs to present more detail in her answers rather than the canned responses aimed at the Tea-Party constituency.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with the Tea Party "We the People" Agenda.
But she needs to widen her response scope when it comes to politically charged questions in order to reach and affect the left side of the Tea-Party (just about everyone else).
Not every conservative marches to the Tea-Party drum but if she explained in greater detail the benefits of small-as-possible federal government IMO many more would be attracted from all sectors.
Newt, on the other hand, goes into a great deal of detail in his answers to questions with well thought out, in depth and rational responses aimed at the public at large.
Yes, he has other issues and he's trailing in the poles.
HankD
But she did seem a bit elusive when Chris Wallace ("Flake" intervew) asked her if she would support a Constitutional amendment against same-gender "marriage". She immedialtely started talking about States-Rights but finally came around at the end and said she would support such an amendment.
All well and good but IMO and FWIW, she needs to present more detail in her answers rather than the canned responses aimed at the Tea-Party constituency.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with the Tea Party "We the People" Agenda.
But she needs to widen her response scope when it comes to politically charged questions in order to reach and affect the left side of the Tea-Party (just about everyone else).
Not every conservative marches to the Tea-Party drum but if she explained in greater detail the benefits of small-as-possible federal government IMO many more would be attracted from all sectors.
Newt, on the other hand, goes into a great deal of detail in his answers to questions with well thought out, in depth and rational responses aimed at the public at large.
Yes, he has other issues and he's trailing in the poles.
HankD
Excellent post. I'm from Minnesota and I've seen Bachmann get into more detailed answers. The problem is that in today's sound-bite TV culture the candidates have to stick to two or three themes and pound them into the ground. She is quite articulate. This is a stark contrast to Sarah Palin.
Bachmann's weakness is that she's been a congresswoman for 3 terms and has an undistinguished legislative record. Same thing in the Minnesota state senate. Her claim to fame is social conservative issues, not legislative accomplishments. Also, she seems more intent on being on the national stage than working for her constituents.
Could you elaborate? Do you think criticizing her for having no legislative accomplishments is a dishonest criticism?
BTW, I support Bachman and/or Pawlenty.
This is 100% correct. There is no Biblical mandate for legal recognition of marriage.
Michelle Bachman has bigger issues to face than this. I will not vote for her.
I have some question marks about her as well.
Are you willing to offer one or more of these issues for discussion?
Thanks
HankD