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."

[AntiGuv]

I too believe Mars will rule the Universe. Remember this exchange when that time comes, Miss Cleo.

It's a deal. I believe otherwise. The chances of my being proven doubly correct have now greatly increased. Thanks!

[dogbyte12]

You know, I have never watched a Gay Rights Parade. Haven't been interested. It seems that all the Talibornagain crowd watch with a religious fervor. Fascinating that. People post pictures of drag queens, guys in leather, and recount their horror after watching the gay rights parade for an hour or two in shock. It kinda reminds me of the decency commissions that check out any material for sexually explicit material to "warn people". I live in California. Ya know the whacky left coast, Soddom and Gomorrah and all that. I have not seen gay men or lesbians kissing except maybe a couple times in my life. I actually know people who are gay or lesbian too. I went to work all this year, and did not see one pair of gay men tonguing one another. I traveled on vacation throughout the state and didn't view any lesbians grabbing each others boobs. Today on my way home, I didn't see it either. Maybe I need to look harder. Yet the people who are so against civil liberties for homosexuals place it upon themselves to go watch gay rights parades that I have never seen, go on the internet and look up pictures of trashy homosexuals, while somehow I refrain and then "share" their discoveries with us.

I think the only gay kiss I have observed this year, was on a rerun of Will & Grace. Maybe I should just get out more, or start googling up pictures of gays and lesbians too, so I can share in the outrage! Because, from where I am sitting, I wouldn't really know that a problem existed. But, that's just me. Funny that.

[NittanyLion]

Just being sarcastic

Whew! Sorry for the strong reaction...

[Sabertooth]

There is a certain sacredness to Constitutional amendments. The document wasn't meant to be amended at whim, and people generally recognize that.

If you took a poll on what was more sacred, marriage or the Constitution, marriage would win. That's why an Amendment of some sort will eventually be ratified.

[Luis Gonzalez]

To be sure, the clause does empower Congress to enact "general laws" to "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." But that is a far cry from power to decree that official state acts offensive to a majority in Congress need not even be recognized by states that happen to share Congress's view.

What this Act seeks to do is to authority to treat a sister state's binding acts as though they are the acts of a foreign nation, authority that Congress has no constitutional power to confer.

[bribriagain]

"This FMA is likely to secure ratification because that 35% which feels so vehemently on this subject can leverage themselves into a disproportionate impact. "

This is hogwash. You would have us (incorrectly) believe that the majority of Americans are dolts. Shame on you for your contempt of the American people.

[aristeides]

How can an Amendment to the US Constitution which can only be altered, enacted, or overturned by the Federal government, be something that GIVES power to the States?

Because Lawrence -- of which you apparently approve -- already took all of the power in question away, and the amendment gives most of it back. Do you think the 11th Amendment didn't give power to the states?

[NittanyLion]

If you took a poll on what was more sacred, marriage or the Constitution, marriage would win.

I respectfully disagree. People would say the Constitution is more sacred; the tragedy is that few could actually explain what the document means. This kind of issue is tailor made for massive media manipulation.

[bribriagain]

"It's a deal. I believe otherwise. The chances of my being proven doubly correct have now greatly increased. Thanks!"

Well, if you're a betting person, which normally I'm not, let's put a wager on it. Let's say 2025. Or is that to far out? I have a Corvette I'll put up. You?

[AntiGuv]

This is hogwash. You would have us (incorrectly) believe that the majority of Americans are dolts. Shame on you for your contempt of the American people.

The question has been asked in polls (whether one feels strongly or not on the issue). That's the best evidence available. I base my conclusions on the best evidence available, not on my preferences.

Otherwise, if you omit that fragment from its greater context (which you ignore) then the remainder of the remark should still stand quite well enough as my opinion of the matter, which is what it was.

[NittanyLion]

You would have us (incorrectly) believe that the majority of Americans are dolts.

The majority of Americans supported Bill Clinton post-Lewinsky.

The majority of Americans probably couldn't find Iraq on a map.

As if those two haven't proven my point, the majority of Americans believe the Dallas Cowboys run a clean operation. Come'on! ;-)

[AntiGuv]

Well, if you're a betting person, which normally I'm not, let's put a wager on it. Let's say 2025. Or is that to far out? I have a Corvette I'll put up. You?

I specifically stated within 40 years of passage - that's no sooner than 2044.

[DoctorMichael]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........................

Can I make an addition?

"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, nor any foreign government or international agency shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

[Jeff Gordon]

a remedy is needed to reassert the separation of functions if the SC oversteps by making laws or usurps State decisions.

In that case, introduce an ammendment that will solve the problem of the usurption of States' Rights. You can not remedy a problem by compounding it.

I guess it is a question of priority. Which is more important to you? Controlling how other people use their genitals or the restoration of States' Rights? (The question is rhetorical. Your choice is obvious.)

[aristeides]

I notice you don't say what percentage feels strongly against the FMA.

[Sabertooth]

But that is a far cry from power to decree that official state acts offensive to a majority in Congress need not even be recognized by states that happen to share Congress's view.

It's exactly that power. From time to time, Congress needs to make Solomonic decisions between various states, and Article IV empowers them to do so. That's a crucial part of its function.

[bribriagain]

"I specifically stated within 40 years of passage - that's no sooner than 2044"

Why not 39? Why not 41? Or 42 for that matter. What's the basis for your prediction?

[bribriagain]

"The majority of Americans supported Bill Clinton post-Lewinsky."

The majority of Americans have voted the three branches of Government Republican.

"The majority of Americans probably couldn't find Iraq on a map.

A majority of Americans now control Iraq.

"As if those two haven't proven my point, the majority of Americans believe the Dallas Cowboys run a clean operation. Come'on! ;-)"

Which goes to show there's no accounting for taste.

[AntiGuv]

I notice you don't say what percentage feels strongly against the FMA.

The question wasn't specific to the FMA, but the answer is probably about 20%. That still doesn't refute the subjective parameters by which I make a distinction between "mob rule" amendment and any other type of amendment. IF an amendment secures 66% of the Congress and 75% of the legislatures for no reason other than fear of voter backlash, I assert that is tantamount to "mob rule." Can you think of any other amendment that even remotely qualifies????

[NittanyLion]

Hehehe. Good comebacks. On a serious note, I think that like most issues there's a contingent of folks at each end of the spectrum, but the middle is not at all concerned about this. Push the amendment and you will alienate moderate voters, who do not respond favorable to socially conservative policy. Think this option falls in line with "compassionate conservatism"?