This is the proposed Constitutional Marriage Amendment

self ^ | 6/30/2003 | unk

[TheDon]

If you really think the state has no interest in fostering strong, traditional families, that would be the way to go!

[longtermmemmory]

sorry I should have put a (/s) IMO states do serve a function. Especially in the electoral college and for flyover country. Otherwise california would rule the USA. Can U say senator streisand?

[FreedomCalls]

Define "man." Define "woman." Can a gay man get a writ from a judge declaring him to be a her? If he can simply redefine himself legally as a "woman" then he can meet the letter of the Amendment and get married anyway.

There is legal precedent. An adult can get a judge to redefine him as having the mental age of a child. At that point he is treated in the court system as a juvenile. Will a man be able to get a judge to certify that he has the mental sex of a female and then for the purposes of this amendment get treated as a female?

[Viva Le Dissention]

Exceedingly slim? I think you're living in a fantasy world, pardner.

Frankly, besides that the thing is just plain laughable on its face--I mean, a constitutional amendment?! are you kidding me?--it is enormously difficult to get one of these things passed.

I live in Indiana--a darn conservative state--and I have my doubts that the thing would even pass here. It's just...dumb.

[ChicagoGuy]

"An amendment that simply reversed Lawrence would almost certainly not get the votes of 2/3 of the members of the Houses of Congress and of 3/4 of the states needed to be ratified." The fact that a different amendment would be difficult to pass doesn't make this one a wise one.

"But after Lawrence, any state that exercised that power would probably force all other states to recognize such marriages too." Actually, no. The Defense of Marriage act already took care of that. The amendment proposed above goes far beyond this and usurps the power of the states, tossing 200+ years of history out the window. No thanks.

[Sam Cree]

"But the amendment that is proposed above is a gross usurpation of the states' traditional bailiwick."

That's my opinion also. I can imagine that the founding fathers may have considered sodomy an abomination, but I am also sure they would not have thought it a proper area of regulation for the federal government.

[Sabertooth]

Pretty much the only power this amendment would take away from the states is the power to declare that a same-sex couple is married. In the absence of Lawrence, that is a power that I would have been willing to leave with the states. But after Lawrence, any state that exercised that power would probably force all other states to recognize such marriages too.

Absolutely correct.

An amendment that simply reversed Lawrence would almost certainly not get the votes of 2/3 of the members of the Houses of Congress and of 3/4 of the states needed to be ratified.

Yes, although the cheerleaders of Lawrence aren't gonna admit that their SCOTUS legislators overreached, and that they are now reaping the whirlwind.

[aristeides]

Do you think the Supreme Court that just handed down the Lawrence and Limon rulings is going to uphold the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act?

[mvpel]

It's already the case in Kansas that a male->female transsexual can marry a born male, or vice-versa.

[longtermmemmory]

The same way we handle polygamy from the middle east or africa. The first wife is recognized the second, third, and fourth are not. (had a case with this issue)

Those marriages are not recognized. The suddan has slavery to this day. Those who bring slaves to the US today are not entitled to have thier slave property contract recognized.

That out of country issue is really a no brainer.

[Sabertooth]

They are super eager to elect Howard Dean.

You're high if you think Dean will beat Bush, especially on a same-sex marriage latform.

[FreedomCalls]

The Constitution was not established for the purpose of denying the people anything. The Constitution is solely about government and not about the people.

How about: "Congress shall make no law recognizing any marriage not made under a state's law. Each state shall have the sole power to regulate marriage within its bounderies. The state's Supreme Court shall be the final authority on any marriage law and its decisions are not reviewable by any Federal Court."

[NeoCaveman]

Just makes sure in the wording they stick with "shall" using "is" could get confusing.

[ChicagoGuy]

If the Court struck DOMA, then it should be made into an amendment to the Constitution. But the amendment proposed here is grossly overreaching.

[RightWhale]

Do not further amend the Constitution.

[Dog Gone]

So much for 'states rights'. Many of the people who will support this bs amendment (which deprives the states of their right to define marriage themselves as they have done for 200+ years) will claim they support states' rights and a smaller federal government. Don't believe them.

I'm going to assume that you're simply uninformed here. Because each state is required, constitutionally, to extend full faith and credit to the laws enacted by other states, it would only take one state to legalize homosexual marriage for all to have to recognize it.

That is tyranny of the extreme minority, and that is what this amendment would prevent.

[mvpel]

Actually, I think I got that backwards - Kansas' marriage law allows a marriage between a male->female transsexual and a natural female, and vice-versa - it's the birth gender that matters.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Believe one of the sponsors is a Colorado Rep -- do you know which one?"

---

Marilyn Musgrave is the chief House sponsor. Don't know who the Senate sponsor is.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

*sigh*

This crap is radioactive in the 'burbs on the coasts and in the Heartland. It probably doesn't play that well down South.

Its all part and parcel of what your average suburban voter is interested in government doing - the economy, national security, management efficiency, cognizance of how taxes are raised and spent, infrastructure. Most of them have gay family members, work with gays or have gay acquaintances, and will not sell real well on it as a whole.

And like it or not, those people are the swing moderates that decide an election - it is, in the end, all about the math.

[longtermmemmory]

I think the ammendment keeps lawrence in terms of privacy of the bedroom (not necessarily a bad thing for the bedroom) BUT is shuts the door beyond the bedroom and protect the institution of marriage. (A domestic threat)