The Federal Marriage Amendment Is Hopeless....(long, but worth reading!)

The Daily Standard ^ | 11/19/2003 12:00:00 AM | Dennis Teti

[livianne]

I can only hope that someone on Bush's team has someone telling him the same thing.

[JohnnyZ]

The writer seriously underestimates the chances of the FMA passage.

[Scenic Sounds]

I wonder when it was that marriage licenses first became required. I'll bet none of our founding fathers had to get a "marriage license" from the state. ;-)

[Libertarianize the GOP]

You might find this of interest.

[longtermmemmory]

I agree. This seems more like a plant story to discourage.

This is the committee that has the amendment.

Call and write to show support.

 

US House of Representatives

Committee on the Judiciary

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman

---

Chairman's Welcome

Weekly Schedule

Press Room

Committee Members

Hearings & Markups

Committee Documents

Documents of Interest

Judiciary Democrats

Special Needs

Congressional Links

About the Committee

Student Research

Privacy Policy

Intern Program

Contact the Chairman

Homepage

---

Subcommittee Members

Subcommittee on the Constitution Mr. Steve Chabot, Chairman
362 Ford HOB, Tel: 202-226-7680
Mr. King	Mr. Jerrold Nadler
Mr. Jenkins	Mr. John Conyers
Mr. Bachus	Mr. Robert Scott
Mr. Hostettler	Mr. Melvin Watt
Ms. Hart	Mr. Adam Schiff
Mr. Feeney
Mr. Forbes

 

[Viva Le Dissention]

(The alternative procedure, a constitutional convention, has never been tried.)

Dennis Teti is a writer who lives in Hyattsville, Maryland, who has taught political philosophy and constitutional law.

I'm puzzled, because I see the language of the 21st Amendment:

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

[livianne]

Even if he is wrong about the odds of it passing, he is right about the time frame. Amendments take a long time, for good reason. An action to get in the way of this ruling that comes quickly and decisively sends a strong statement AND has the effect of keeping marriage to it's traditional definition.

For the record, I have signed a petition for the FMA and I have written in support of it. I would LOVE to see it passed. But the fact is that it's not a fast response - that's not how amendments are designed.

[JohnnyZ]

The Republicans on that committee are very strong on social issues, I believe. And most hail from districts that are Very pro-marriage (Alabama, Tennessee, suburban/rural Virginia . . .)

[JohnnyZ]

But the fact is that it's not a fast response - that's not how amendments are designed.

Who said it was fast? The author's point was that it was damn near hopeless, and he's wrong.

[billbears]

The point is that it's none of the national government's concern. This issue belongs to the separate and sovereign states under the 10th Amendment. The same should be said about laws of sodomy. SCOTUS ignored the 10th Amendment on that one too, all in the name of inclusion

[HarleyD]

"THE SLIM POPULAR MAJORITY now in opposition to "gay marriage" is not nearly sufficient to ratify a constitutional amendment.

The last count I read was that 77 percent of the population oppose "gay marriage". I would not call that a slim majority. The RATS have always worried this would be an issue in the election. I say bring it on.

[livianne]

Well, this is Sensenbrenner's reaction to the Mass court decision:

Sensenbrenner Statement on Today’s Massachusetts State Court Ruling Regarding Same-Sex Marriage

WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.) released the following statement regarding today’s ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court:

“While the decision of the Massachusetts court is unsettling for many reasons - including its reference to ‘evolving’ constitutional standards and its reliance on a decision by a court in Ontario, Canada - it is important to note that the decision of the Massachusetts court today addressed only the requirements of Massachusetts law, and not federal law. In fact, federal law under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) already provides that other states need not recognize marriage licenses granted to same-sex couples under Massachusetts law or any other state law. I expect state and federal courts will appropriately enforce DOMA.

“If the people of Massachusetts and their Legislature wish to address today’s ruling, I would encourage them to follow Hawaii’s actions when it faced a similar ruling by the Hawaii Supreme Court in 1997: Hawaii enacted a state constitutional amendment in 1999 providing marriage as between one man and one woman.”


As someone who lives in Massachusetts and just recently got married, I'd really like to see something done before the 180 days are up and same sex couples can start picking up their licenses. I'd like to know that marriage license in Massachusetts will remain a meaningful document, not a part of the rapid decline of values.

[livianne]

actually, one of his issues IS that it isn't a fast response.

"The long delay connected with getting an amendment through Congress would allow incumbents to obscure their position. Neither Republican nor Democratic lawmakers want to vote on divisive issues like gay marriage. Some in both parties would say they support traditional marriage, yet find a multitude of objections to the amendment: the idea of changing the Constitution, the need for more expert testimony, etc. Even now the amendment's sponsors don't agree with each other about the proposed text's meaning and whether it should be changed."

things that take a long time are more apt to be corrupted, which is one of the points he is making. Not only can smaller actions go through faster, but it is more likely to find agreement among those who oppose same sex marriage but may not support an amendment.

[longtermmemmory]

Somewhat good statement. However, based on the reports in the media, the only way to ammend the Mass constitution is by election. This is not set to happen untill 2006.

Homosexual Senator Barny frank was stating that there was going to be two years of homosexuals having marriages licenses. He was saying lets try it for two years. (would anyone allow a child molester to take care of their children for two years to see what happens?)

Is there a way for mass to amend the Mass constitution within 180 days?

[longtermmemmory]

Last time I checked we had the 2/3 of the states to ratify such and amendment. We have enough.

[Viva Le Dissention]

if you got 2/3s, you'd fall short. You need 3/4. And don't hold your breath.

[JohnnyZ]

actually, one of his issues IS that it isn't a fast response.

Which you pointed out: "Even if he is wrong about the odds of it passing, he is right about the time frame."

To which I said, "Who said it was fast?" Half the article is fairly obvious, half is just wrong.

[livianne]

As far as I know, Mass cannot amend the constitution in anywhere close to 180 days. I've been doing some research but I'm still not sure if there are any other avenues of blocking this ruling.

The one thing that has been brought up is that the court gave no "or else" What happens if the legislature DOESN'T change their laws in 180 days?

As for trying it for two years, there is no way that after two years of homosexual marriage happening it could be taken away. It has to stopped before the fact or the odds of doing anything about it get pretty low.

[longtermmemmory]

Did the court say they have to issue marriage licenses or that they have to "adress" the issue. I would say they have "adressed" the issue. They have put it before the voters in the most expeditious manner.

I think the 180 is an effort to force Mass to have homosexual marriage at least for two years. This will give the homosexualists (new word) a "so what" argument.