Gay Marriage a Symptom, Not a Disease

[Said1]

 

[Annie]

Agreed, a diversion.

 

[Said1]

I had no point really, just stole from another "gay marriage" thread, on a Canadian board. I thought it was funny. Same bs going on here, with the exception of fema and Iraq.

 

[CockySOB]

Yeah, the whole gay marriage ammendment was a pretty blatant attempt to pander to the religious right who make up a large portion of the Republican base. The problem is that the current hot topic is illegal immigration and the apparent shift of the Republican leadership towards appeasement. If the Republican leadership can't identify their constituents primary concerns, then they're dooming the Republicans to the fate the Democrats now enjoy - irrelevance.

 

[musicman]

Yeah, the whole gay marriage ammendment was a pretty blatant attempt to pander to the religious right who make up a large portion of the Republican base. The problem is that the current hot topic is illegal immigration and the apparent shift of the Republican leadership towards appeasement. If the Republican leadership can't identify their constituents primary concerns, then they're dooming the Republicans to the fate the Democrats now enjoy - irrelevance.

Agreed. The gay marriage amendment was a political gambit in 2004, and was recognized as such by the electorate. It was also a successful gambit, in that it smoked out Democrats who would rather have kept mum on the subject in an election year. And, that's fine - politics is a rough and tumble game.

But, it is just as much a political gambit in 2006, and is again recognized as such by the electorate. This time, though, it is not having its desired effect. The conservative base are not distracted; they would like to know where the Republican Party stands on the matters of common sense, the rule of law, and the will of the people.

 

[Annie]

Agreed. The gay marriage amendment was a political gambit in 2004, and was recognized as such by the electorate. It was also a successful gambit, in that it smoked out Democrats who would rather have kept mum on the subject in an election year. And, that's fine - politics is a rough and tumble game.

But, it is just as much a political gambit in 2006, and is again recognized as such by the electorate. This time, though, it is not having its desired effect. The conservative base are not distracted; they would like to know where the Republican Party stands on the matters of common sense, the rule of law, and the will of the people.

Exactly. GWOT, immigration, taxes, etc.

I've always been against amending the constitution. I think marriage, like abortion belongs at the state level.

 

[musicman]

Exactly. GWOT, immigration, taxes, etc.

I've always been against amending the constitution. I think marriage, like abortion belongs at the state level.

Exactly. Look at the smashing successes we've had every time the federal government appoints itself Head Social Engineer In Charge: Prohibition and abortion!

 

[musicman]

I know that we have some board members (from all across the ideological spectrum) who are far better informed on matters of law than I am. If I'm wrong here, I will try to accept correction gracefully. But, here's my take:

I believe that some of the less cynical, opportunistic Republicans who support this amendment have their hearts in the right place. State laws defining marriage can still be struck down by activist judges; a constitutional amendment would stop this in its tracks.

But, aren't we then battling one form of federal intrusion with yet another? Better we should concentrate on eradicating judicial activism root and branch.

Thoughts?

 

[jasendorf]

My thoughts? I think you're making excuses for the supposed "conservative" Republicans who voted for this usurpation of States' Rights.



As for "rooting out judicial activism root and branch"... unless you're planning on burning the Constitution (or maybe repealing the entire third article)... I think you'd be hard pressed to do it.

Problem is simple, you're fighting against a judicial system that is already run by conservatives; they're just not conservative enough for you. Hence, either these conservative judges are the activists or the judiciary is just doing its job. That causes quite a conundrum for you.

There are currently 205 Bush selections among the 1,267 sitting federal judges, some of whom might well be around until the middle of the century. More than 100 judges still sitting on the court were nominated more than 30 years ago, by President Richard Nixon and his predecessors.

Overall, 741 of the sitting judges -- about 6 in 10 -- were nominated by Republicans, and 526 federal judges were nominated by Democrats, according to the Federal Judicial Center. All but one of the nation's 13 circuit courts -- the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco -- have a majority of judges appointed by Republican presidents. Citation

 

[musicman]

My thoughts? I think you're making excuses for the supposed "conservative" Republicans who voted for this usurpation of States' Rights.

Then, you have either not read any of my posts, or you have failed to understand them.

As for "rooting out judicial activism root and branch"... unless you're planning on burning the Constitution (or maybe repealing the entire third article)... I think you'd be hard pressed to do it.

See above.

Problem is simple, you're fighting against a judicial system that is already run by conservatives; they're just not conservative enough for you. Hence, either these conservative judges are the activists or the judiciary is just not doing its job...

Throughout your posts, you have remained steadfastly - perhaps willfully - blind to the true nature of conservatism. It is a worldview. Some honor it; others find it a convenient path to power. The latter cloak themselves in its resounding truths, only to sell out to Beltway elitism, or their own agenda, in the crunch.

Humans are imperfect, jasendorf. They succumb to flattery; they lust for power. Our founding fathers knew this; that's why they were so careful not to grant too much power to any one branch of government. Conservatism respects this design, though politicians may come and go.