Amendment? We don't need no steenking amendment!

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/7.html ^

[djf]

Be aware that US Code is not necessarily binding on the states. Also, be aware that the US Code is a compilation, and the actual law as passed by Congress is contained in the Statutes at Large.

Title 1, General Provisions Chapter 1, Rules of Construction Sec. 7. - Definition of ''marriage'' and ''spouse''

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ''marriage'' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ''spouse'' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife

[expatpat]

Interesting point. But is the same sentence included in the actual law, as written up in the Statutes at Large or in the official Congressional publication?

[djf]

Title One is positive law, which means the legal beagles have gone over it, and determined the meaning and phraseology is constitutional, and reflects the original statutes. I don't have an annotated copy of it though, which you would need to find the original statutes.

[tuckrdout]

Are you saying that this is ALREADY in the Constitution? Or is this the proposal?

[djf]

It's not specifically in the Constitution. But if you walk into any agency or bureau of the United States (the federal government), this is the definition they are bound to obey. Given congress has defined it this way, the federal government could never recognize two people of the same sex as being "married".

[expatpat]

It would be good to make sure the WH Counsel knows this.

[djf]

This definition might destroy any challenge in a federal court based on 14th amendment "equal protection". It also muddies any claim to interstate "full faith and credit". I wish I knew where the original statutes were.

[tuckrdout]

But, that there is the rub....so to speak....ah hem....it is not the law, and can be rewritten at the whim of public officials.

So, WE DO NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. We needed to define people as humanbeings, women as equal voters and now we need to define marriage as between two adults of the opposite sex.

Seems we are getting dumber, instead of smarter, needing to define what "IS"....

[Unam Sanctam]

Dream on -- a mere statute can always be trumped by the Constitution, and the Constitution is of course whatever a majority of Supreme Court judges says it is.

[XHogPilot]

I have nothing against gay people marrying. A gay man has an equal right to marry a woman as a heterosexual man. The same applies for a lesbian woman marrying a man. However, gays should not have any special rights. A gay man has no more right to marry another man than I do to polygamy.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


Gentlemen,


Your legal points are (probably) valid, I suppose, being a Mechanical Engineer and not an Attorney.


However, the United States is reaching a genuine "Cultural Crisis Point" with respect to Homosexual-Gay (Sodomite) marriage.

The liberal media LOVES this issue, and will relentlessly support it (in all it's deviant variations) until even the NAMBLA perverts are running their own Day Care Centers.

The activist liberal (perverted) State-Federal Judiciaries (including the US Supreme Court) will also promote this issue, attempting to force (by judicial fiat) the final moral corrpution of America.



The "only" logical answer ?

A new Constitutional Amendment that precisely defines marriage as (exclsively) between a Man and Woman, and likewise takes the additional step of prohibiting "marriage status" between Homosexuals, Transexuals, and even between Humans-Animals, PLUS an "Age of Consent" clause (just for good measure).

This would effectively put a "death-stake" into the very heart of these sexul perverts.

Even a lower County Court judge would have to abide by the "clear" meaning of such an amendment.

BTW. My name is Douglas A. Coggeshall (Clearwater, FL). So all you "politically correct" bozos with the Sodomite "Pink Triangles" NOW KNOW precisely where this American stands (when you do your internet searches).



America faces "two" critical challeges at this point in her history:

1) Nuclear destruct from Islamic nations (Religion of Peace alert)

2) Moral destruction from the wealthy Sodomite Lobby.

Our childrens' America will only be safe if both these enemies (foreign and domestic) are destroyed.


Any questions ?



Patton@Bastogne
Member since 1998.


.

[djf]

For the vast majority of the history of our country, the state had nothing at all to do with marriage. Marriage was a social function, and usually had religious overtones. All that was needed to be married was to post a notice in a public place, a church door, or the door at the county seat, giving notice that two people (of opposite sex) had an intention to be married at some time in the future, usually two weeks, unless anybody had any reason to object.

Marriage "licenses" did not start in common use until about 1920.

It is interesting to note that a "license" is defined in Black's and Bouviers as:
Permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal.

If you read back into the common law definitions of marriage, there were a number of things that could give evidence that a couple was married.
If she adopted his name.
If they had purchased property together.
If they had made it plain to friends and family that they were living in a commited, monogamous relationship.
If they had announced their intent to marry, and had consummated before the ceremony.

Anderson's Dictionary of law has most of these, and a few more.

[expatpat]

America faces "two" critical challeges at this point in her history: 1) Nuclear destruct from Islamic nations (Religion of Peace alert) 2) Moral destruction from the wealthy Sodomite Lobby.

I don't believe the soddomites can destroy this country, but their close and more-numerous allies, the liberals, can. With that mocification, this threat is the more serious of the two.

[trek]

You are completely wrong here. The Constitution most definitely does not mean what a majority of the Supreme Court judges says it means. The Constitution means exactly what the clear text of the document reads.

While extreme deference should be given to the opinion of the Court when interpreting the Constitution, there is no obligation on the part of the Executive to enforce clearly unconstitutional orders of the Court. In fact, since the President swears an oath to obey and defend the Constitution (not the Court) he or she has an obligation to see that clear unconstitutional orders of the Court are not enforced.

It is my personal belief that Bush should invoke this power in the matter of Lawrence. This would swiftly put an end to the gay marriage anarchy sweeping the country.

[NYFriend]

anything common law is overridden by statute. However, if this definition is found to violate the Constitution, then it would be invalid.

[upcountryhorseman]

Let the homosexuals try to get the amendment. Why should
we (the majority) go through the hassle?

[Unam Sanctam]

How is it clearly unconstitutional if the court finds equal protection or substantive due process or fundamental rights include the right to gay marriage? There is nothing to stop the US Supreme Court from following in the footsteps of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Constitutional jurisprudence clearly rejects any rational limitations, such as strict construction, intent of the framers or even societal consensus.

[djf]

Common law is not overridden by statute. All the things that were ever crimes under the common law are still crimes, murder, rape, kidnapping, fraud, trespass. 43 of the States are still common law states, and usually have references to it in their constitutions.

[trek]

If by Constitutional jurisprudence you mean the rantings of left-wing blowhards like Larry Tribe then I might agree. Happily there are many others who understand properly the importance of concepts like strict construction.

[NYFriend]

I think you're missing the the point. First, criminal law must be by statute, but common law only lasts until a legislature addresses the issue.