Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Senate Testimony on "Judicial Activism"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
lcooksey Donating Member (373 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 03:01 PM
Original message
Senate Testimony on "Judicial Activism"
I'm including more than 4 paragraphs because this is not copyrighted. is a conservative website which is against amending the Constitution to block same-sex marriage. Chuck Muth runs the site.

Go to / and click Senate Testimony for the whole thing.

March 3, 2004
226 Dirksen Senate Office Building 10:00 a.m.
Testimony of Chuck Muth


If the problem is judicial activism, then lets have a discussion and debate on how to address judicial activism. To address the perceived problem of judicial activism ONLY on this one hot-button issue is akin to putting a band-aid on a compound fracture. To move forward on the Musgrave amendment as written is to invite, deservedly so in my opinion, the criticism that this is solely a punitive, discriminatory anti-gay measure. And as such, it has no place in the greatest governing document mankind has ever seen.

Sadly, though, this is not the first time a constitutional marriage amendment with such ugly undertones has been proposed. In preparing for my testimony here today, I came across a paper titled Journal of African American Men which describes the objections many had in the early 1900s toward blacks marrying whites. According to this report, Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry, Georgia Democrat, proposed a constitutional amendment banning interracial marriages stating that, Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace.

This is not unlike much of the rhetoric you hear from supporters to todays federal marriage amendment.

Of course, supporters of the current Federal Marriage Amendment will say, That was way back then. You cant equate two gay guys getting married to the notion of a black man getting married to a white woman. However, taking into consideration the passions and context of the times, its not much of a stretch to believe that people such as Rep. Roddenberry found the idea of interracial marriage just as unnatural and abhorrent then as many today find the idea of gay marriage.

Today we look at how people such as Rep. Roddenberry felt about interracial marriage a hundred years ago and cannot, in our wildest dreams, imagine such ignorance and bigotry. But if Congress moves forward with this current marriage amendment, I suggest that Americans one hundred years from now will likely look back on this distinguished body with equal amazement, if not disgust.


Frankly, some of us are looking at the distinguished body with equal amazement and disgust right now. :) But if some conservatives, as well as 99% of liberals, are this much against the FMA it really does not have a chance in Hades of passing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CHestonsucks Donating Member (84 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. Someone explain to me
how upholding principle ALREADY WRITTEN into a state constitution, in this case the Mass. SJC correctly interpreting the language of the state constitution to prohibit dicrimination and require equal protection under the laws of the Commonwealth, can constitute "activism"? Typically "judicial activism" is a coded phrase meant to indicate actions on the part of the judiciary that are somehow NOT consistent with the language under review.

Clearly this is not the case here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jan 18th 2018, 03:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC