The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum

URL:  https://boards.fool.com/gay-quotmarriagequot-our-future-21532864.aspx

Subject:  Gay "marriage" & our Future Date:  10/31/2004  11:49 PM
Author:  MrArbitrage Number:  627540 of 2303946

A great deal of lip service is being paid about how pivotal the coming election is by both sides and nothing could be more true. On November the 2nd we may be choosing whether this great American “experiment” is to live or die.

I Journalist Malcolm Muggeridge once said:
I conclude that civilizations, like every other human creation, wax and wane. By the nature of the case there can never be a lasting civilization anymore than there can be a lasting spring or lasting happiness in an individual life or a lasting stability in a society. It's in the nature of man and of all that he constructs to perish, and it must ever be so. The world is full of the debris of past civilizations and others are known to have existed which have not left any debris behind them but have just disappeared.

I believe it was Carl Marx who said that the only way to bring down America is to break down the family unit because the family is the microcosm of the nation. If the family is strong, the nation is strong; if the family is weak, the nation will crumble.

In a few days, America will speak. America will cast its ballot and decide whether or not we as a nation will protect marriage - or not.

George W. Bush wants to take a stand for the institution of marriage with a constitutional amendment to define marriage once and for all as being between one man and one women. John Kerry indicates that although he personally is against gay marriage, he believes it should be left up to each individual state. This notion has a false look of genuineness that will result in a tremendous amount of discord and eventually lead to the United States Supreme Court forcing gay “marriage” upon the rest of the states. Here is why: It will not work to leave it up to the states because there will be too much outrage among the “gay community” if they are married in one state and then suddenly have to move to a state that forbids gay marriage for whatever reason and to find their “marriage” all the sudden nullified by their new home state. It will only be a matter of time before they are launching lawsuits all over the country, trying to make the non-conforming states to placate them.

If America makes the grave mistake of electing Kerry, there is a good possibility that he will be appointing anywhere from one to four justices to the Supreme Court. If that is the case, the concomitant lawsuits that will be launched by gays for years to come will eventually be heard before that court. Yes, if it were heard by today's Supreme Court justices the recognition of gay marriage would not be forced upon the states who forbid it, but if Kerry were to be elected, it's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court resembles the ignominious ninth circuit court in California and when that time comes, you will see gay “marriage“ being forced upon this entire country whether they like it or not.

Critics of President Bush's proposed constitutional amendment contend that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over marriage and in the past I as well as our founding fathers might have agreed with that notion - but that was before the foundation of our society, marriage, was under assault. There never before was a reason why it should be addressed by the Federal government - but there is now.

In The Federalist Papers, the documents written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in order to persuade New York to adopt our constitution, these founding fathers elucidated on the proposed constitution and why it should be ratified. Therefore, it gives us a deeper look into what was their intent in forming this union as well as making clear what powers should belong to the Federal Government and WHY.

In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton writes that authority should extend to controversies to which the United States shall be a party… to controversies between two or more states between a state and citizens of another state, between citizens of different states… to obviate or remove these inconveniences.

We already have homosexuals like Rosy O'Donnell and many others who are going to states where it is legal to get marriage licenses in states where they do not reside. To contend that they are not going to try to get the courts to legitimize their “marriages” is disingenuous on the part of any politician who says otherwise.

Marriage has thereby already become a federal issue. Just as the famous “Interstate Commerce Clause” was used in instances of racism in the south in order to make a diner serve people of color on the grounds that although the state had given commendation to segregation, so to should this clause justify federal intervention in gay “marriage” on the grounds that people are going to states where gay “marriage” is legal and attempting to export it into states that stand against it.

To contend that the federal government has no interest in gay “marriage” with all of the aforementioned aside is incorrect. Marriage does in fact have federal implications as when one spouse dies, the assets of the one passes to the other without them having to pay estate taxes. I'm not an expert on Social Security as I'm only 33; however, if I'm not mistaken, as an example, when a husband dies for instance, the wife can collect Social Security benefits as a result of that death. What do you do in the case of gay marriage? Social Security is a Federal program.

All that being said, The Federalist papers lead me to believe that this “national controversy” can only be resolved by a Unites States Constitutional Amendment.

Much attention is being paid to this war in Iraq, but the future of our Republic is at hand. The war is important but the very pillars of our Republic is at stake in this election and regardless of what happens in Iraq, the family is the most important issue in this election. This Tuesday, vote for George W. Bush.










Copyright 1996-2020 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us