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."

[aristeides]

Robert Bork suggested in one of his books an idea that was being kicked around during the New Deal, when the Supreme Court was blocking New Deal legislation: allow congressional supermajorities to overrule Supreme Court decisions.

It's hard to see how this would work if the system did not give somebody's judicial opinion the force of law. Courts wouldn't know what to do with it. But any unanimous Supreme Court decisions are not likely to be that controversial. In a controversial case, there's bound to be a dissent. So the system of overruling would just have to give that opinion the force of law.

So, I would suggest something like the following. Where the Supreme Court decision is 5-4, 2/3 votes of both Houses of Congress give the minority opinion the force of law. Where it's 6-3, you need 3/4. Where it's 7-2, you need 90%. Something like that.

If you're unhappy about giving Congress that much power, you can also require presidential assent.

In this way, you could overrule Supreme Court decisions without cluttering the Constitution with too many amendments.

[TheDon]

I think the our government can assist in promoting strong families by ensuring only the traditional family is legally recognized, with the legal benefits that go with it.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Sex being consenting adult brothers-sisters. Polygamy. Beastiality. I think the government has no interest in legislating these activities. And I still don't think you understand me.

And by the way, how do you define "legislating from the bench?"

[Sabertooth]

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.

That's just demagoguery. Going through the Amendment process is anything but "mob rule."

[aristeides]

Didn't the 11th Amendment deny to state citizens the right to sue their states in court?

I'm not sure I would say that the 16th Amendment increased people's rights.

[mvpel]

You may not realize it, but there are already a goodly number of states that do not criminalize bestiality.

[longtermmemmory]

that may be good for the future but right now an ammendment is the way we have to prevent any errosion of the family insititution.

[proud American in Canada]

please add me to any ping list on this issue!

[Snuffington]

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.

Look, I appreciate the federalist point you're making. I agree, more local government is better 90 percent of the time. But this issue isn't really one that belongs in the legislative sphere. That's a critical distinction.

Governments at any level are not empowered to do absolutely anything they want. There are boundaries. The Constitution established some. If the entire nation agrees on another and wants an amendment, that is utterly Constitutional, and totally within the federalist ideal.

I'm not upset that my state might be constrained from deciding to call "cats" "dogs" either. Sure it's more limiting in a purely theoretical way. But its not imposing a limit that means anything of significance to self-government, or states-rights.

[aristeides]

I agree.

[mvpel]

I think the our government can assist in promoting strong families by ensuring only the traditional family is legally recognized, with the legal benefits that go with it.

Care to elaborate? Specifics, examples?

[AntiGuv]

An amendment such as this - which limits rather than expands freedoms and is nearly assured of repeal at some future date - is the very epitome of mob rule. It is driven by nothing more than visceral fear & hatred transparently guised as some high-minded ideal. Period.

If you don't believe me, check back in 40 years... Better yet, go poll a group of your average 15-30 year olds on this issue. They are the future and they will likely tell you what they think about this..

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

I think the government has no interest in legislating these activities. And I still don't think you understand me.

Great, now you are at the crux of the matter, and why this goes beyond Gays. That's the problem, and I believe it is you who is not understanding me; The blessed Government does not need to have an interest, some incestual participant, Koresh type, or NAMBLA member will quite certainly have an interest. Because of this ruling, there aren't any legal resources TO STOP THEM from considering this private act because a "decent" (no pun intended) lawyer can prove that this is a RIGHT. That is the slippery slope, that is dangerous precident, and that, my friend, is how you create a law, or legislate from the bench.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

You may not realize it, but there are already a goodly number of states that do not criminalize bestiality.

No, I did not realize that. Lucky for the subhumans in the other states that thanks to this ruling, the other states can join them in social anarchy soon.

[Ken H]

what function do the states serve? Seriously, there is dubious benefit to the individual states.

How are you going to amend the Constitution? Do you want to entrust that to Congress alone?

While we're at it, should we abolish the Electoral College, as Hillary has advocated?

[aristeides]

Ever hear anybody complaining about the framers and ratifiers of the 11th Amendment? That amendment merely codified most people's understanding of the law of sovereign immunity, which the Supreme Court for some reason got wrong. Is this any different?

[AntiGuv]

The 11th Amendment and the 16th Amendment are essentially neutral in regard to the rights, liberties, and freedoms of Americans. The former did not limit one's right to sue, but rather designated the proper, responsible, accountable legal forum. The latter simply elevated a power reserved to the states up to the federal level.

[mvpel]

So, what if one of those states was one that is not experiencing social anarchy? Would that change your views at all on the role of law in the conduct of society?

[ChicagoGuy]

My point here is that there are so many 'fair weather federalists'. They say they want a smaller, weaker federal government, but then when a small, weak federal government doesn't give them the exact result they want on every issue, they suddenly want a big, strong federal government to impose their desired result upon everyone else.

"I'm not upset that my state might be constrained from deciding to call "cats" "dogs" either. Sure it's more limiting in a purely theoretical way." Just because you don't care if your state is constrained on this issue doesn't mean that the residents of other states don't care. If for some reason the people of Vermont or Hawaii decide that same-sex marriage is OK in their state, why should the residents of other states get to say no? The glory of having 50 different states is that if you prefer the laws of another state, you can move there. But if the federal government gets involved in imposing the will of the other states onto each individual state, we've eliminated one of the benefits of our system.

[TheDon]

There is a Constitutional Ammendment floating around.