This is the proposed Constitutional Marriage Amendment

self ^ | 6/30/2003 | unk

[longtermmemmory]

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

"Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

[TheDon]

"What makes you think that the government needs to be involved in fostering strong families, anyway?"

That is the question of the hour. If you understand that strong traditional families are the strength of a nation, you understand that society, hence government, has a strong interest in promoting the same. If you do not have that understanding, you don't see the point. And rightly so.

[mvpel]

"Lets go one step more:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of, one natural male human with one "Y" and one "X" chromosome, and one natural female human with two "X" chromosomes." "

---

You stole my post. Better safe than sorry. If we don't mention the chromosomes, transexuals could claim they "became" female and thus can marry a man.

I think you two are a little unclear on the concept.

This wording would mean that a XY male who has undergone a sex-change operation -- including the surgical construction of a vagina and breasts, removal of facial hair, administration of female hormones, etc, someone who was born male but who lives and dresses and looks like a woman -- would be legally permitted to marry a woman.

Likewise, a woman who has undergone a similar sex-change to live, dress, and look like a man, would be able to marry a man.

For all outward appearances it would be a same-sex marriage, unless you did a genetic test or careful physical exam.

I guess what you guys need to figure out is whether it's the genetics or the appearances that principally concern you.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Hey, I'm not the world's biggest fan of gay marriage, but the fact is that it just plain doesn't affect me, whether it's legal or not, and I'm SURE not going to vote for any Constitutional Amendment.

Sounds eeirely like the "first the came for the Jews, but I said nothing for I was not a Jew" line of reasoning.

We're aren't dealing with Gays here, we are dealing with precidents in the cultural war. This ammendment is cumbersome, but the fact is that Big Brother is alive and well in SCOTUS because we have near sighted, irresponsible judges committing the Cardinal sin of the Supreme Court, ruling without Constitutional basis.

This proposed Ammendment is as much about a check and balance with an out of control SCOTUS as much as it is about definition of marriage.

[Man_of_Reason]

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

You nailed that one! Leave the Constitution alone!!!

[AuH2ORepublican]

"What about people born XXY? Hermaphrodites? They have both male and female sexual equipment."

---

Gosh, if they're born XXY (called Turner's Disease, if I recall correctly from my ninth grade biology class almost 20 years ago) I don't know how the courts would interpret it. But that's what, like 100 people nationwide who are XXY and live to adulthood? (If I'm way off here, please enlighten me.)

As for having both male and female "equipment," that doesn;t necessarily mean they have both male and female DNA. I would look at the DNA, not anything else.

[jpsb]

"I have no problem with gays marrying"

Just get government out of the marriage business entirely. I could go for a admentment that would ban forever income taxes. No more IRS, no need to know ayone marital status. If the homosexuals want to get married and cen find a church to do it. Cool, who cares.

[Sabertooth]

now that Frist has come out for it, Anti-Guv is probably right that the Democrats will have to openly oppose it to stop it in the Senate. If they do, then it becomes an issue in 2004

That would be political suicide. A lot of Dems will brank ranks if their leadership comes out against marriage.

There's a reason why Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. He was a scumbag, but no dummy. If the Dems make this an issue in 2004, they will be crushed.

[Diddle E. Squat]

This is a dumb idea right now. The Supreme Court ruling was on sodomy, not gay marriage. So any constitutional amendment(a constitutional amendment, for goodness sakes!) is just going to be seen as petty and a backlash.

HOWEVER, let a single state authorize gay marriage, and a federal court suddenly force it everywhere else, without the public's input, and the their outrage at the methods will likely be quite pronounced. Only then would there be the kind of broad public perception of an unfair loophole exploitation that would be needed for a CA to have any chance of passage. Exactly which states do you think would be the ones to get to 2/3rds passage? I guarantee you it would require socially moderate states, so like it or not, you must accomodate them in your strategy.

[StriperSniper]

What about Jamie Lee Curtis?

Is all that true?
Assuming it is, I don't know what to do then, I just promised the next logical step. ;-)

[aristeides]

3/4 of states needed. But, for this amendment, I think there is an excellent chance of getting that many.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Less so because it sets a dangerous precedent that, up until now, we have more or less avoided (with some exceptions, of course).

When you try to back-door this stuff (no pun intended), it totally destroys the purpose of the Constitution, which is designed to protect the rights of the People against government intrusion. The whole purpose is to limit the power of government. Our Supreme Court decides when government has overstepped its bounds. To effectively "overrule" the Supreme Court (or, at least, heading off the Supreme Court at the pass, as this would be doing) with a Constitutional Amendment is to subvert its original purpose--we are taking an government action, which has been declared unconstitutional, and then changing the Constitution to allow it? What does this accomplish except to tell the government that it can pass temporarily popular but unconstitutional legislation just by passing an Amendment.

We get things like income taxes and popular vote for senators because of things like this. Anytime the People cede power to the government, I consider a dangerous step--much more so, say, than the "threat" of Steve and Jim getting a marriage license.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Please explain how a state would protect its rights after its right to decide whether or not to recognize gay marriage is usurped by judicial fiat?

[TLBSHOW]

This Supreme Court's Activism Is Frightening

June 30, 2003


Folks, can you believe that we will need a constitutional amendment defining marriage, as we have always known it, in the traditional way? It's unbelievable.



Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) says we need an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that defines marriage, because of what the enlightened Supreme Court did in the Lawrence v. Texas case. David Frum writes that this amendment ought to be the very first thing Congress takes up in the next session. It is just stunning.

Does this now help you to understand what Rick Santorum was talking about? He's been validated. What he said was totally distorted and blown up by the media, but he said this line of reasoning opens the door to discovering constitutional protection for other kinds of sexual conduct between consenting adults, like prostitution, bigamy, incest. Everybody was upset because they thought he was comparing homosexuality to those things, but he wasn't. He was simply saying if consent and privacy in your own home trump everything else, then how do we stop anything else that goes on in the home? It's not about sex. It can be about drugs or any number of other crimes. If you think that this decision was about sodomy and allowing people to be free to do what they want, you are being very short sighted. This is about much, much, more than that.


Texas Decison Only the Beginning...


Try some fallout, ladies and gentlemen, in a story that cleared the wire services late Friday after this program, "In one of the first consequences of its landmark ruling on gay rights on Thursday, the Supreme Court set aside Friday the lengthy prison sentence imposed on a gay Kansas teenager for having had sex with a younger boy." This was a case in which an 18-year-old performed oral sex on a 14-year-old and received a 17-year prison sentence. My original assumption was that the Supreme Court is suggesting that there is nothing wrong with an 18-year old having sex with somebody 14-years old, but it could be that the court is saying Kansas had two different forms of punishment, a more severe punishment for a homosexual pair than a heterosexual couple, and it could be what the state is being told to change by the Supreme Court. Regardless, this court's level of activism concerns me greatly. This Texas decision is a classic example, especially when you consider that these sodomy laws were not being enforced, and that more and more states were getting rid of them.

The Supreme Court seems to be worried about the culture, but the culture is taking care of itself. These laws were going by the wayside. It was just a quirk that this Texas law was invoked by these cops, but in most states these laws are not being enforced, and in most states these laws were being taken off the books. What the Supreme Court did was usurp the power of the people in various states. That's scary to me.

We had a caller, Kevin, who said, "Whether we're white, black, green, or purple, can't we let people get on with their lives?" It's the Supreme Court that's focused on all that stuff, not conservatives. It's liberals who note differences between people first and foremost, and want to do something about it. When the Supreme Court says that racial discrimination is a compelling state interest, as they did in the Michigan affirmative action case, we're supposed to say nothing? If you had a child apply for college, graduate school, medical school or law school, you'd know this directly affects you and your family. It's not just words. It's not just babble. Talk to people who are affected by these things for a little reality.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_063003/content/rush_is_right.guest.html

[Dog Gone]

I'm SURE not going to vote for any Constitutional Amendment

Unless you're an elected state or federal legislator, you don't get a vote.

[Snuffington]

This amendment goes way beyond restoring any balance of powers. It takes the definition of marriage, which has always been in the hands of the states, and forever pulls it into the federal realm. It specifically says how marriage will be defined in all states, and it specifically says how all federal AND STATE laws will be interpreted. This is a huge encroachment on the rights of the states, and creates a tremendous imbalance in favor of the federal government over the states.

Name me a single state where a majority would disagree with the wording of this amendment?

Seriously, this isn't much of an issue for federalism because the entire idea of marriage wasn't considered something in need of a legislative definition, any more than gravity, until very recently. There is not now, and never has been, a state that considered marriage to be something different than defined above, with the possible exception of Utah, who would have included polygamy.

Funny thing about Utah. In order to enter the union they had to renounce legalized polygamy. In which case, how can one argue that this sort of thing has been enshrined as a state issue until now?

[longtermmemmory]

find absolute proof about curtis. Her publicist has no comment. For all you know it could just be a badly placed archive photo in some psychology book.

the xxy defect is sterile and does NOT look like a normal female. You may be refereing to hermaphrodites and that can be caused by all forms of reasons.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

There's a reason why Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. He was a scumbag, but no dummy. If the Dems make this an issue in 2004, they will be crushed.

100% correct. I wondered why Frist took such an out of character strong stand, there is an upside to this!

Bring it on Democrates, I want fight about Judges on this. The hand writing is on the wall, this isn't a defining moment for liberalism, this is the beginning of the end of Judicial Activism.

[My2Cents]

Email sent, for what it's worth, to Rep. Ellen Tauscher, urging her support of this amendment. (At least she knows voters are watching her on this issue.)

[aristeides]

The 11th Amendment overruled the Supreme Court (Chisholm v. Georgia). The 14th Amendment overruled the Supreme Court (Dred Scott). The 16th Amendment overruled the Supreme Court (Pollock). Constitutional amendments are how the Supreme Court gets overruled in our system.

[mvpel]

That is the question of the hour. If you understand that strong traditional families are the strength of a nation, you understand that society, hence government, has a strong interest in promoting the same. If you do not have that understanding, you don't see the point. And rightly so.

I do not contest that strong families are the strength of a nation.

Can you comment on my notion that government involvement in the family is precisely why we don't have generally strong families today, instead of arguing against something I didn't say?

Under that premise, the way to foster strong families is to get the government out of marriage and family altogether. They've been trying, under the tax-code, divorce law, welfare, etc, to alternatively promote or destroy strong families for decades. It should be obvious by now that what they've been doing has not been working to promote strong families.

There have been strong families for centuries, so somehow I think that government involvement or the lack thereof is the underlying issue.