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."

[Sabertooth]

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...

This is not a fact, and since you're repeating yourself, I'll take the same indulgence.

The qualifier "necessary," isn't necessary. Granted, advocates of same-sex marriage my attempt to force this change on society via a number of avenues, but Lawrence is certainly one of them, and is a great benefit to their cause.

From Kennedy's majority opinion in Lawrence...

In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id. , at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

" These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Ibid.

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision in Bowers would deny them this right.

< -snip- >

Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.

In Lawrence, the SCOTUS has held that Bowers denied to persons in homosexual relationships the Constitutional protection of their autonomy for the purposes of making "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education."

In Lawrence, the SCOTUS has further held that "the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life," is "at the heart of liberty," and in overruling Bowers has affirmed that this right may be excercised in the pursuit of homosexual self-definitions on an equal footing with that of hererosexuals. It's difficult to imagine that a right held to be "at the heart of liberty" could be held to be anything other than a fundamental right. The autonomy to make personal decisions regarding marriage has been explicitly encompassed in the overruling of Bowers by Lawrence.

Lawrence sets the table advantageously for the swiftest endgame possible for advocates of same-sex marriage.

It should come as no surprrise that opponents of same-sex marriage move swiftly to permanently thwart the logical and imminent result of Lawrence.

[AntiGuv]

How would you distinguish this from the old miscegenation laws? Perhaps it would be easier to establish up front that I have no problem with gays marrying (as I've stated) and so perhaps we are not on a wavelength worth discussing the matter from that dimension.

I am content to state that this amendment has an excellent likelihood of repudiation by future generations. If anyone wishes to discuss that aspect further, I would be quite ready to do so..

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

This ruling did not create any such precedent.

Of course it did, you reasoning contains their logic as evidence. If that isn't precident, what is?

If this were regarded as nothing more than the right to privacy ruling that it is, then this issue would be irrelevant.

It can't be regarded as just another "right to privacy" because "right to Privacy" does not exist in my Constitution. Not in your's either. This is a further of this "new" constitution, an evolving and cementing of this "text" that was not as clearly cited before and Justice Kennedy did here.

which was just as likely before Lawrence as it is after Lawrence as it would be if Lawrence never existed....

That is the problem, people on the other side from me keep thinking "no court will go any further and endorse...whatever" You're all right. No court has to. Think of it this way; A court is not an automobile, the court is the traffic light. The lawyer is the car. This court acted like a car, and everyone is saying they won't drive us any further. You're probably right. Unfortunately, this ruling does not abolish all lawyers, and they still want to drive any where they can. So they will be driving alot further because SCOTUS just removed another stop light for the States.

[Sabertooth]

Cool! Do it now!

One windmill at a time, hombre.

[bribriagain]

"How are you going to amend the Constitution?"

Why not ammend it. The SCOTUS just did.

[FreedomCalls]

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.

Don't believe it. There are plenty of conservative state supreme courts. The Texas court let stand Lawrence after all. And it wouldn't matter anyway, as the state supreme court would be fufilling their proper role; not putting their nose where it dosen't belong like the federal Supreme Court did. Even if a state supreme court did declare such a law unconstitutional, it is very easy to amend a state constitution. The Texas Constitution has been amended over 400 times.

[AntiGuv]

Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. - Lawrence v Texas.

Griswold established a privacy right for married couples, Eisenstadt extended this privacy right to unmarried persons, Lawrence established this applies to all unmarried persons.

Just as Eisenstadt did not mandate that the privacy rights of unmarried persons required that they also receive the institutional benefits of marriage, neither does Lawrence. As I've stated, this requires an Equal Protection ruling. Period.

Even then, an intermediate standard of review (such as that on the basis of gender) permits all sorts of disparate laws when public policy interest can be established (such as restricted roles for women in the military).

[Eternal_Bear]

should be strictly a state issue. SCOTUS blew it with their gay ruling but we really don't need a Federal government with more powers.

[Kevin Curry]

Or the sun will come up and it'll be exactly the same as the day before, with no change to your life whatsoever.

That's what the idiots said following Roe v. Wade, too. Thirty years and 20 million deaths later and American society and culture has been coarsened immeasurably.

Just because you have no sensitivity to the moral stench doesn't mean it isn't there, profoundly and adversely affecting life and damaging the family.

[FreedomCalls]

Amen!

[bribriagain]

"I am content to state that this amendment has an excellent likelihood of repudiation by future generations."

Yes, let's discuss. Since homosexuality has been repudiated by all most all cultures for centuries past, what makes you the sage that future generations will think differently? what are your qualifications? Are you Miss Cleo?

[bboop]

This morning I saw Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colorado listed as having proposed the Marriage Amendment. And that it was going to the (Judicial?) Committee. Also Senator Bill Frist (202.228.1264 FAX)is the point man on it. I think this is correct. You are right, we have to FIGHT. You KNOW the gays will be working HARD for their Agenda as we speak.

[AntiGuv]

Of course it did, you reasoning contains their logic as evidence.

You'll have to clarify what you mean, because it's not self-evident.

It can't be regarded as just another "right to privacy" because "right to Privacy" does not exist in my Constitution.

It can still be regarded as just another "right to privacy" regardless of whether it exists in your Constitution. An Right to Privacy ruling - even pretending it's not based upon the Constitution - is still not an Equal Protection ruling. As I've stated, this would require an Equal Protection ruling, which Lawrence was not.

That is the problem, people on the other side from me keep thinking "no court will go any further and endorse...whatever"

I have no doubt whatsoever that a court will go further, I just don't think it will happen soon. Even with this FMA, it will still happen, but much slower (whenever it's repealed - in a generation or two).

[Diddle E. Squat]

Right now I am against the amendment, but this really transcends the gay issue of the moment. My concern is how does one counter increasing use of the courts to bypass the electorate? You may say using a const. amendment is mob rule, but isn't it conceivable that a small special interest could adversely trump the vast majority and their will by achieving recognition in a single state and then leveraging that via the full faith and credit clause? You don't have a problem with that? Should not there be a counter measure to reinstitute the will of the people?

Moving back to the gay issue a bit, I can understand such use of the courts to acquire denied rights, in essence a defensive use to counter oppression that would trump mob rule. But attempting to gain a social recognition and then force such recognition on all the states is an offensive move, not relief from severe oppression. Where is the justification for such an extreme overriding of a democracy based republic by judicial activism? Is that not then government by political oligarchy, instead of a representative republic, unless there is some means to counter and put the issue before the public for a decision? 3/4 is not 1/2, at what point is perhaps the mob correct? This isn't about imprisonment, lynching, or separate education, its about social ceremonies and certain financial conviences and benefits, so the mob 'threat' is not present at a significant level, so we are arguing about recognition, not protection.

[FreedomCalls]

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

As I said in 33 and 43: by judicial fiat. A judge can simply declare a man to have the mental sex of a woman. It works for adults as children. A judge can declare an adult to have the mental age of a child and thereafter the legal system will treat him as a juvenile. The same goes for a man wanting to be legally treated as a woman. Get a judicial writ.

[AntiGuv]

Yes, let's discuss. Since homosexuality has been repudiated by all most all cultures for centuries past...

Homosexuality has been tolerated and/or approved within virtually all recorded cultures during the greater part of their history.

...what makes you the sage that future generations will think differently?

The most recent poll of graduating high school seniors has 66% supporting same-sex marriage. That figure has been on a steady upward trajectory for many years. With the younger generation, this is well past the majority threshold and swiftly approaching consensus. For them, the issue is a near non-issue.

Aside from that, the course of modern Western civilization is patently self-evident - both in this nation and every other. It's toward greater tolerance of homosexuals. Can you name me a single Western state or nation in the past half century which has repealed a sodomy law and then reinstated it???

[Sabertooth]

You didn't address any of what Kennedy's opinion said about the alleged "right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" with regard to homosexuality and marriage. In the context of his ruling, it's the Trojan Horse for same-sex marriage.

Kennedy wrote with both ends of his pen. Whom should we believe, him or our lying eyes?

[Ken H]

Why not ammend it. The SCOTUS just did.

My post was in response to:

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

However, this proposed Amendment does nothing to change the Texas sodomy ruling.

You're going to need another Amendment or a different USSC to reverse it.

[NittanyLion]

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

Never thought I'd see the day those words were posted on a conservative website.

Is that a serious question?

[Desdemona]

Do not further amend the Constitution.

The Founders recognized that from time to time, the document would need to change to better serve the republic. That is why we have amendments in the first place.

Besides, if this does prove to be such a disaster, we can do what was done with prohibition and reverse it.