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."

[AuH2ORepublican]

"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."

---

Someone to whom God gave an X and a Y chromosome to is a male, regardless of what he snips off or adds on. Thus, he should be allowed to marry a woman even if he undergoes so-called "sex change surgery" (surgery that modifies sexual organs, but obviously does not change the person's genetic code). Just as the amendment wouldn't prohibit cross-dressers from marrying members of the opposite sex, it wouldn't prohibit transexuals from marrying a member of the opposite sex.

God gives each person a sex, not just sexual organs. It is immutable. Human beings need to respect that.

[Jim Noble]

How about,

"The Judiciary Act is hereby amended as follows: The Supreme Court may not hear appeals regarding the law of marriage, nor appeals regarding matters of sex"

[Viva Le Dissention]

I think I didn't make myself clear. I simply don't care whether gays get married.

And frankly, I don't think the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds at all. In fact, I was rather pleased with the decision; I didn't much like the idea of the police entering into people's homes and arresting them for private, consenting conduct.

But even if you don't like the Court's decision, this is the risk you run of allowing the Supreme Court to review laws for constitutionality. You take your lumps when it comes to a few things. My personal "white whale" is the administrative state, but it is what it is.

Remember, the Court isn't final because it is infallible, it is infallible because it's final.

[aristeides]

See my #119. The Supreme Court is not final when it's overruled by constitutional amendment.

[Sabertooth]

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,

The above more appropriately describes Lawrence than it does an Amendment that prevents Supremes' anti-marriage precedents from bearing fruit.

Kennedy and the SCOTUS and the advocates of homosexuality have asked for this, and they're going to get it. A small group has used the courts to try and subvert the Constitution and force their values on the vast majority of society. The vast majority is going to fight back, and squash them. There will be collateral damage, but that die is now cast.

[Viva Le Dissention]

I understand that, and like I said--I think it's a bad idea.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Because 85% of the morons who will promote this amendment won't be able to keep their big traps shut about the sodomy decision when talking about this. They will drone on about it, over and over and over - the soundbites will take over every other agenda.

Bingo, and then the left will once again be able to portray us as the party of hate to enough gullible/ignorant/emotion-based constituents to win elections they have no business winning. All those false media superimposed images of Fred Phelps as your typical Republican will be given credence by such counterproductive vitriole.

[aristeides]

You think it was a bad idea to overrule Dred Scott?

[ChicagoGuy]

"Name me a single state where a majority would disagree with the wording of this amendment? " There probably aren't as of this moment. But this amendment isn't just for today - its FOREVER. It forever precludes states from making up their own minds on this issue. If you really want to impose all the views of a majority of states onto each of the other states, there's no reason to keep calling us the United STATES of America.

[AntiGuv]

This proposed Ammendment is as much about a check and balance with an out of control SCOTUS mob rule as much as it is about definition of marriage Constitutional rights, liberties, and freedoms.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"The Judiciary Act is hereby amended as follows: The Supreme Court may not hear appeals regarding the law of marriage, nor appeals regarding matters of sex"

---

That would make it even worse. The federal Circuit Courts would be able to rule on such issues without the Supreme Court being able to play traffic cop. And even if you denied federal jurisdiction to all federal courts, you'd have state supreme courts usurping the state legislatures and allowing gay marriage. We need to amend the Constitution to make sure the liberal judicial elites don't overrule the will of the American people, Judeo-Christian ethics and thousands of years of Western Civilization.

[Zionist Conspirator]

"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."

While this amendment may be the only practical reaction, I myself am basically and instinctively opposed to the mentality that requires an individual constitutional amendment to undo each and every single bad Supreme Court decision. This is the same reason I am opposed to the flag protection amendment.

For one thing, such amendments imply that whatever the courts say the Constitution means is exactly what it means. I myself disagree profoundly with this. If the Constitution does not require states to recognize the legality of homosexuality, then it doesn't, no matter what any court says. While I am not a Jacksonian, I would have to repeat that President's words: "The Chief Justice has made his decision; now let him enforce it."

Ultimately this entire problem of the creation of "rights" for select activities stems from the very enumeration of rights we call the "Bill of Rights." Whatever its original intention (namely, to prevent the Federal Government from interfering with how masters treated their slaves), it has become over time not a restraint on the federal government but a positive granting of rights along with an empowerment of the Federal Government to enforce those rights. The Confederate movement may argue that the Fourteenth Amendment is entirely responsible for this, but this in fact merely hastened the process. An enumeration of rights was bound to be interpreted eventually as positive grants by the government rather than restraints on the government. Whatever his motives, Alexander Hamilton was right; the "Bill of Rights" was ultimately subversive of a Constitution that was never meant to be anything but a rulebook for the workings of the Federal Government; it transformed it into a grand document of political philosophy which may be invoked for ever loonier purposes.

Instead of amending the Constitution each and every time the Supreme Court does what we all know it's going to do, there are actually two alternative plans that would be much better:
1)Amend the Constitution restricting the Fourteenth Amendment specifically to its original purpose of ensuring that the Freedmen be recognized as US citizens by all the states, or (better but less likely)
2)Repeal all amendments to the Constitution other than those that actually deal with the rules for operating the Federal Government and the amendment that abolished slavery (which was necessary because the slavery inherited by the Founding Fathers was given iron-clad protection under the original Constitution).

I know most FReepers will disagree with me here, but please believe me that I am just as horrified at the latest victory for G-dlessness as the rest of you (if not more so). But the continual adding of amendments to a constitution that was dangerously subverted by a "Bill of Rights" is ultimately just more of the same. And, as I said, it implies that until the amendment is passed the ruling of the court stands as the official meaning of the Constitution.

[Sabertooth]

"The Judiciary Act is hereby amended as follows: The Supreme Court may not hear appeals regarding the law of marriage, nor appeals regarding matters of sex"

I know where you're going with this, and the idea of putting a limit on the power of the SCOTUS and returning the power that it has usurped back to the people and the states, rather than defining marriage, is certainly appealing.

The problem with limits on appeals on the matter of sex is that the argument will be made that it will prevent review of discrimination lawsuits, etc. That may be a great idea, it's debatale, but that fear would defeat the Amendment as you've worded it.

[AntiGuv]

Aside from Prohibition, this would be the first Amendment that does not expand the Constitutional rights, liberties, and freedoms enjoyed by Americans as a whole. Over the long course of history, it will suffer the same fate and those who advocated it will be regarded as backwards ignorants. But, more power to y'all!

[longtermmemmory]

which is why you use the language of the ammendment.

The exact languguage of the ammendment speaks volumes. It also does not actually touch the ability of homosexuals to have sex inside their bedroom. (or adult incest, polygamy, or beastiality) It ONLY codifies what is already the law of the land and at common law. The institution is one man and one woman. The left can not stop that. This ammend ment does not overturn lawrence, it stops lawrence from going further.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

I think I didn't make myself clear. I simply don't care whether gays get married.

No, you did, hence the first they came for the Jews comment.

And frankly, I don't think the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds at all. In fact, I was rather pleased with the decision; I didn't much like the idea of the police entering into people's homes and arresting them for private, consenting conduct.

Again with the bedroom cops canard. Look I've debated paranoid libertarians about this before, so my patience is a bit low...sorry. There aren't going to be a new division to bust down any doors if States are allowed to rule on this, there wasn't even in the case of this Texas one that was allowed that right.

The issue, which the feel good Judicial Activism you are agreeing with irresponsibly is blind to, is that we can and do outlaw things behind closed doors-for good reason.

Sex being consenting adult brothers-sisters.

Polygamy.

Beastiality.

You need to think this new legislating-from-the-bench through more, certainly more than Kennedy and the other 5 did and stop getting so caught up in how good it makes you feel. We have community standards, we have had community standards, and we always should. Abolitioning the right of the States to have community standards because some groups have their feelings hurt sets the precident of abolishing a whole lot of other standards. That's what you have to think about, Santorum, to his credit, predicting the long term effects of vague rulings as this.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Speaking from a purely political perspective, yes.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

mob rule

You zany Libertarians crack me up.

You live in a country with mob rule now. If you didn't, it would be the totalitarian elitism you fear most. Chew on that.

[Sabertooth]

then the left will once again be able to portray us as the party of hate to enough gullible/ignorant/emotion-based constituents to win elections they have no business winning. All those false media superimposed images of Fred Phelps as your typical Republican will be given credence by such counterproductive vitriole.

The Democrats are going to say mean things no matter what. There's no point in trembling on the sidelines, there's going to be an Amendment to the Constitution in response to Lawrence.

[AntiGuv]

Explain to me how this Amendment will expand the Constitutional rights, liberties, or freedoms enjoyed by Americans?