THE LUNGREN AMENDMENT

NRO-TC ^ | 3/15/05 | Ramesh Ponnuru

[swilhelm73]

Rep. Dan Lungren (R., Calif.) is getting set to introduce his own version of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It would read as follows:

SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of a legal union of one man and one woman.

SEC. 2. No court of the United States or of any State shall have jurisdiction to determine whether this Constitution or the constitution of any State requires that the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon any union other than a legal union between one man and one woman.

SEC. 3. No State shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State concerning a union between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage, or as having the legal incidents of marriage, under the laws of such other State.

From reading it (and listening to Lungren describe its aims), it sounds a lot like the Federal Marriage Amendment. Lungren says he "tried to take a fresh look . . . to see what would pass muster not only with the Congress but to bulletproof it against the courts." He says that the drafting has benefited from his experience of serving as California's attorney general. Referring to his legislative director and himself, he says, "We’ve had to go through the ninth circuit many times and realize how they can torture the language.”

Lungren says, "If you would have asked me 5 years ago if we would ever get involved with this, I would have said no. But it has been forced upon us"--forced, he says, by the courts. "It's not a radical notion. It's a response to a radical notion."

[Disambiguator]

Didn't he used to be the state AG in California?

[balch3]

Outstanding!

[GOP_1900AD]

Yep, and he ran for governor as well. I am glad he's still alive and kicking. Another remnent of sanity here in the used-to-be-Golden State. ;)

[Disambiguator]

Seems like he was quite anti-gun, if I remember correctly.

[Godzilla]

Takes the courts right out of the mix - sweet.

[afnamvet]

Works for me.

[Dark Wing]

For your information.

[calcowgirl]

There are also two bills pending in the State Legislature:

Senate
MEASURE: S.C.A. No. 1
AUTHOR(S): Morrow.
TOPIC: Marriage.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
TITLE : A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution
of the State, by adding Section 7.5 to Article I of the California Constitution, relating to marriage.

Assembly
MEASURE: A.C.A. No. 3
AUTHOR(S): Haynes.
TOPIC: Marriage.
HOUSE LOCATION: ASM
TITLE: A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution
of the State, by adding Section 7.5 to Article I of the California Constitution, relating to marriage.

 

[GOP_1900AD]

Not as I recall. However, our current AG is very anti gun.

[isom35]

I wish there was a Dolph Lungren amendment that states "Dolph Lungren can't make any more movies"

[Amerigomag]

Marriage, like abortion and privacy, are neither guaranteed or even mentioned in the constitution and are therefore outside the purview of the federal government.

A federal statute mandating a state responsibility is a genuinely bad idea and destructive to our concept of government.

[farmer18th]

Dan was/is very anti-gun, and although an ardent pro-lifer, he wimped out big time against Gay Davis when campaiging. Davis, proud of his pro-death credentials, kept defending "choice." Lungren barely mentioned life issues in the campaign. He's not a bad guy--just a bit weak.

[goldstategop]

Its a reasoned response to the Left and its repeated attempts to impose their policy preferences through the courts. I'm under no illusions this amendment is going to pass Congress in the short term. That's as it should be. But Dan Lungren's proposal is an idea that will be fought out in successive campaigns. We can get the American people on our side because of judges like Richard Kramer. More power to them!

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[heleny]

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of a legal union of one man and one woman.

Can a person enter into more than one marriage concurrently? Or is prevention of polygamy not as important?

No State shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State concerning a union between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage, or as having the legal incidents of marriage, under the laws of such other State.

What about other prohibited unions from another state, such as underage, incestuous, polygamous, or non-human unions? Why not simply say states need not recognize marriages from other states, or that marriage contracts are excluded from the full faith and credit clause (art.4 sec.1) of the US Constitution and eliminate the words "between persons of the same sex" from this amendment?