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."

[Diddle E. Squat]

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.

But what is the alternative to stopping a special interest coup by judicial loophole activism? Is not forcing MA or VT morality on all 50 states and ignoring the ballot box an infringement and an injustice? How do you propose preventing such a clear bypassing of the intent of the Founding Fathers?

[PISANO]

I want the 10th Amendment back. If a state LEGALIZES marriage between a man and a frog it is the PEOPLES'/STATE'S choice because the US Constitution says NOTHING of marriage. If any state LEGALIZES abortion or criminalizes it, THAT IS FINE, because the USC says nothing about abortion. I may NOT agree with it but I believe in our constitution and HONOR it and sure wish there was some way to reign in these activist judges.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

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

Fine. This Amendment is soley to prevent the legal precident now invented from this ruling from overturning the State's Rights to say a marriage is between a man and a woman.

I've said it before, a far better method is to overturn this ruling, unfortunately that does not appear to be an option. Being so concerned about government encroachment I would think you would be most upset about a pattern of an unquestionable Supreme Court ruling on cases based entirely on their feelings rather than the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

[Zionist Conspirator]

The only problems with what you suggest are that it would be easy manipulable (is that a word?) and the people who would be "pro" or "con" would change with whatever ideology was being promoted by the Court. This means the side overruled by Congress would want the law changed and that in agreement would the defend the law, with each side relying not on any concrete principal for its position but merely on how best to get its program passed at any particular time. And we have too much of that philosophy as it is.

Also the "rights" ideology which is the source of all this would be left in the Constitution. That document, as I said, should never have been converted into a work of sublime political or anthropological philosophy. It should have simply remained the rules for the functioning of the government. Until its highfalutin philosophical ramifications are removed and it is in fact turned back into a government rulebook we will never be safe from such social manipulation.

Constitutional amendments, from the very beginning, should have been limited to such things as adding a fourth branch of government, eliminating a branch, changing rules for qualification for any federal office, etc.

[PISANO]

The SCOTUS can't do a thing about the constitutional amendment. They could however interpert it to mean anything they want as they have with abortion RIGHTS, QUOTAS and now the right to sodomy, and the complete destruction of the 10th and 14th amendments

[Sabertooth]

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.

Wrong, this Amendment limits the power of the SCOTUS to overturn millenia of human history through specious legal reasoning and penchants for social engineering. No freedom is being limited, because the "freedoms" in question are non-existent. There is no same-sex marriage or polygamy in America.

Further, the Amendment guarantees that the individual states have authority over civil unions, etc. , that can't be overruled by the federal government. This is primarily an Amendment limiting federal power, and acknowledging the authority of the states.

Referring to the effort to ratify an Amendment you don't like as "mob rule" is as off the mark as calling it a "Martian Invasion." It's patently false. It's like when Catherine McKinnon refers to all sex with men as "rape," and language loses all meaning.

Make your case, by all means, but stay out of the Orwellian ditch.

[AntiGuv]

But what is the alternative to stopping a special interest coup by judicial loophole activism?

In my view, the Lawrence ruling was a proper interpretation of the 14th Amendment that was so belated only because of visceral antigay sentiments (I implied as much).

Is not forcing MA or VT morality on all 50 states and ignoring the ballot box an infringement and an injustice?

What, precisely, would be forced upon the citizens of other states? State your point clearly.

How do you propose preventing such a clear bypassing of the intent of the Founding Fathers?

The Founding Fathers did not frame the 14th Amendment. That came along after the Civil War. Regardless, it's very safe to guess that the Reconstructionists did not envision this extension of the 14th Amendment. Which is to say they were less than omniscient.

In whatever case, both the Founding Fathers and the Reconstructionists endorsed all sort of things (most notably slavery & disenfranchisement of women) that have been rejected (at first by select states, later nationwide by amendment).

The question at hand is whether DOMA is constitutional or not. I think it is, others think it will be found otherwise. I guess if FMA passes we'll never know..

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I was thinking about amendments on the way home, and realized that this one would stand alone in that it restricts rather than expands individual freedom.

In that category, it stands with only one other - Prohibition.

What a success that one was.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

So, what if one of those states was one that is not experiencing social anarchy?

Define "not"

It would be impossible for any State that cannot put up the common sense backbone to publicly declare in law that sex with animals unacceptable to be anything but currently in social anarchy.

Does that mean that the state is viably ripping itself apart, not necessarily. Or better yet, not definably related to this lack of recognizable standards.

I understand your point being that I am afraid of alittle sexual freedom. Its not fear, in fact what you are encouraging is fear, fear to call a spade a spade. I mean look at you, this sophist reasoning has you rationalizing like a liberal-for the legitimacy of having an orgasm in an animal! Before this ruling I would have found your comments rather funny, because of this precident its now become all too serious.

[longtermmemmory]

how would the supremes get around ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN? Other than some bizare birth defect argument that is pretty clear.

"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."

[goldstategop]

Yup. The amendment was NOT written to ban gay unions such as civil unions. If we insist on getting everything, like we do on abortion, we will get nothing. What the amendment does is simply to prohibit the courts from forcing the federal government and the states to adopt civil unions like the Vermont Supremes did in their masterful judicial coup d'etat. It leaves the decision on whether to permit such unions up to the elected representatives of the people. That is about the most we can hope for in this country is to make sure if nothing else, that the courts cannot usurp the role of elected officials in making judgments about the validity of one of mankind's more enduring social arrangements.

[aristeides]

Then it's time for Plan B, my #141.

[goldstategop]

Actually the amendment leaves this decision up to the federal and state legislatures instead of to the courts. It gives a constitutional footing to the DOMAs of the federal government and 37 states. I expect this amendment to easily pass the House. The big question mark is the Senate. You never know how the RINOs and the Democrats there are going to vote on it.

[AntiGuv]

Fine. This Amendment is soley to prevent the legal precident now invented from this ruling from overturning the State's Rights to say a marriage is between a man and a woman.

This ruling did not create any such precedent. The fact of the matter is that same-sex marriage will come in one of two ways [assuming it comes via the SCOTUS]: (1) as an Equal Protection judgment; (2) as a Full Faith & Credit judgment (assuming at least one state legalizes, first). Most likely the latter, if anything. Lawrence did neither, nor did Lawrence provide a precedent to either, nor was Lawrence any sort of necessary prelude to same-sex marriage...

Several states - including GA, KY, MT, and TN - have had state sodomy statutes overturned by court under similar privacy grounds. A flood of 'gay rights' did not follow. If this were regarded as nothing more than the right to privacy ruling that it is, then this issue would be irrelevant. The real fear here is that some future court will endorse same-sex marriage, which was just as likely before Lawrence as it is after Lawrence as it would be if Lawrence never existed....

[Diddle E. Squat]

What I wrote, given the thread, was pretty clear, but I'll try again. If MA decides to allow gay marriage, but Texas does not, each state is likely acting in response to the interests of their voters. If someone then uses judicial activism to get gay marriage recognized in, and thus forced upon, the other 49 states without necessarily their consent, how do you suggest countering such?

[Jim Noble]

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

Cool!

Do it now!

[PISANO]

Hmmmmmmmm..........need to think about that. First blush, wouldn't you need a constitutional amendment to put this in place to begin with?

[aristeides]

Yes, it would require a constitutional amendment. If the Supreme Court tried to pull the sort of stuff you mentioned, I dare say the amendment would pass.

[bribriagain]

"Need to change that last line in the amendment to state:"

You're a daisy if you do.

[FreedomCalls]

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"

That still lets the federal district courts play ball. I want the feds off the bench and out of the stadium altogether.