Should ban on gay marriages be made through amendments to the constitution?

Dagens Nyheter (in Swedish) ^ | Thursday 26 February 2004 | Georg Cederskog

[fdsa2]

In the Swedish newspaper DN (Dagens Nyheter eng. Daily News - centre/liberal newspaper) the controversy regarding the proposed ban on gay marriages in the US is reported on. The journalist describes a site I have never heard of called www.dearmary.com, a pro-gay site using vp Cheney´s supposedly gay daughter to rally support for the gay agenda.

To ward of any unecessary critism I´d like to stress that I find using politicians relatives to make political points are disgusting no matter what and usually/hopefully backfires on those responsible.

The part I´d like FReepers opinion on is: (please have some understanding for my lack of knowledge about the american constitution):

1. Is there really no other way of introducing a ban on gay marriages in the US, without amending the constitution, which if I am correct, is supposed to regulate the relationship between the state and the citizen and lay down the basic rights that comes with a citizenship? Does amendments to the constitution by default not upset conservatives?

2. If there is then why was amending the constitution chosen? easier, quicker?

2. What is Freepers response to the dearmary.com site?

[longtermmemmory]

other states have to respect marriages from another state. For example some states have a waiting period and other states do not. Some states allow common law marriage (marriage by living together for a period of time and public and notorious stating your are husband and wife) and states which do not originate such common law marriage recognize the marriage. Ironicall Massachusetts allows such recognition.

The homosexual marriages which may occur on May 17 are arguably obligated to be recognized by other states.

The federal government passed a law called the defense of marriage in 1996. This law will be trumped by the Fedeal constitution's full faith and credit clause. The only way to prevent such a constitutional action is with a constitutional amendment.

There are a few, very very, narrow exceptions to the marriage recognition. Those all involved children and fraud. THey did not involve consenting adults in normal situations.

The proposed Federal Marriage Amendmtne incorporates the common law definition of marriage into written law AND it also returns the remain issue of civil unions back to the states for their individual determination.


The US gov did impose marriage is one man and one woman in its history. The Utah territory had to abolish poligamy and adopt the common law one man one woman, in order to be a state. Additionally for immigration, the US government does not recognize polygamous marriages even if legal in the home country.

The additional arguments relating to interracial marriage are ridiculous since those laws were to prevent mixed marriage children. Homosexuals do not naturally produce children via homosexual sex. The argument is irrelevant.

Homosexual marriage is about imposing public approval of the private homosexual sex act. Marriage and marriage laws are all related to the production and raising of children. (a us court in the 11th federal district court recently upheld the state of FL prohibition of homosexual adoption. Its an excellent opinion I encourage you to read it.)

As for soliciting the VP's daugher, it seems a desperation effort. It garners a rather large yawn.

[longtermmemmory]

forgot to add. Amendments always make anyone hesitate. However the amendment process is there for a reason. In this case to prevent on nutcase judge from the Mass. Supreme Court from imposing her opinion through full faith and credit upon the other states and jusridictions.


Amendments are generally give around seven years to pass.

As for conservatives in particular, no not when narrowly tailored to correct an error in judgement by a court.

[Bobby Chang]

The main purpose of the Constitutional Amendment is to restrain judges and keep them straight. Unfortunately, activist judges frequently will write their own opinion, using foreign laws as a base, and mandate the foreign laws, not American laws, be enforced as the law.

When judges are making law from the bench and writing their own laws, which is not what a judge is to do, instead of interpreting laws, overturning laws on a whim, they need to be restrained, and the Amendment would put the necessary leash on the judges.

In the Massachusetts case, the justices used Canadian laws and decisions, not American laws, to establish their cause.

P. S. If you are from Sweden, I must remember to say we have an AB Electrolux factory producing lawn and garden equipment here in SC.

[Taiwan Bocks]

I don't know if a constitutional ammendment is best, but we all must scream bloody murder.

For our children's sake.

And for our own sake as we will have to answer to God Almighty at Judgement Day.

[Chummy]

It's not necessarily a ban against same-sex marriage, but rather the establishment in our primary law of this land of what marriage is and its importance to the continuation of this nation of ours. Marriage, too, is without a doubt the stabilizing foundation of our families and as such has an importance that cannot be overstated.

Homosexuals in the basic definition of the term are nothing more than individuals whose behavior includes, and predominates in some lives, sexual practices involving one's own gender.

Should an individual who practices sexual behavior that alternates even beyond this be allowed to "marry" the object of their sexual gratification?

Homosexuals may marry; a male may marry a female, a female may marry a male.

[Always Right]

Let's see, all 50 states agree that a marriage is between a man and a woman.....why not put it in the Constitution.

[Always Right]

2. If there is then why was amending the constitution chosen? easier, quicker?

The states could call for a constitutional convention. It has never been done and no one really knows what would go on because it is not really spelled out how to operate one in the Constitution.

[Always Right]

The problem the liberals have with this issue is their candidate supports a State Constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage. What's the big difference????? Not much. If it is bigoted and hateful on the federal level, it is bigoted and hateful on the state level.

[longtermmemmory]

You forgot Guam, Puerto Rico, and the District of columbia.

[fdsa2]

I agree with all of you here, just wanted to know how and why the amendment solution was chosen before simply pushing a bill through.

[Always Right]

There has already been a federal law passed, the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. Massachusetts had a law too. The court overrode the law and made their own. You either have to start executing judges or amend the Constituions.

[taxcontrol]

As I see it, there are two possible amendments.

1) Marriage shall consist of no more and no less than one man and one woman....
(or some such)
or

2) With out regard to the full faith and credit clause, each state shall have the power to legislate the definition, practice and recognition of marriage and may decide to accept or reject the marriage licenses from other states...... (or some such)

Of the two, for political strategic purposes, I would favor the 2nd. This would focus election attention to control of the states and I suspect, we would in short order have the vast majority of states implement a ban on same sex marriage.