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."

[Antoninus]

I live in Indiana--a darn conservative state--and I have my doubts that the thing would even pass here. It's just...dumb.

Just watch....

The organization linked above, The Marriage Alliance, had some polling data on their web site which suggested that 60%+ of Blacks, Latinos, and working class Whites would support a marriage amendment. These are not typical GOP voters. What happens if a significant proportion of them (say 20%) votes GOP just based on Democrat recalcitrance on this issue?

The victory strategy for the good guys just kinda writes itself, doesn't it?

[Torie]

Yes, Rosen's article did have certain echoes. It is amazing how slow the media has been to get all of this, and Sullivan hasn't gained any clue at all, yet.

The fact of the matter though, is that by the application of any consistent principle, if we have Griswald and Roe, we must have the result in Lawrence. Sexual intimacy is the most private act, and contraception is less so, but still far more "private" than the election to have an abortion. It seem quite obvious to me, but maybe I simple don't "get it."

A contra result in Lawrence while leaving Roe and Griswald on the books is close to a scandal, which is why Bowers was a scandal, and needed to fall.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[aristeides]

As far as I know, Sullivan has still had nothing to say about Limon. Very strange, since he was originally so outraged by Limon's treatment.

[Antoninus]

Actually, no. The Defense of Marriage act already took care of that.

You mean the DOMA that's currently under assault from homosexual lawsuits? All it will take is one SCOTUS decision to overturn DOMA. And we know what a bunch of heavy-handed no-good rogues those 6 have revealed themselves to be. I have no faith in them to uphold what the Federal Constitution actually says.

Time to exercise the only check the people have on this sort of extra-constitutional judicial fiat. Constitutional Marriage Amendment -- NOW!

[Antoninus]

Do not further amend the Constitution.

Why not? If we don't, you can bet the Supreme Court will. They've been doing it for over 30 years now. Time to smack 'em down.

[bribriagain]

"Still, try to constrain yourself"

Check out Nadlers voting record regradings homo's.

[Torie]

Rush Limbaugh took your original and very wrong view on Limon (that statutory rape was now legalized), and then recanted on the air, after a commercial break, without still really getting the idea that it was the reliance on Bowers that was the problem, and Kansas still has a chance to show a rational basis. Rush ended up suggesting that Lawrence simply overruled the differential sentencing in Limon.

Rush should not talk about the law, ever.

[AntiGuv]

I'll repeat myself:

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????

I don't see anything there about a support threshold. In fact, the statement could in theory apply to an issue with even 95% strong support.....

[aristeides]

I thought Bowers was a scandal when it happened myself, but I became reconciled to the Supreme Court's inconsistency over time: at least they were keeping the Roe rationale cabined in the abortion context. Lawrence has opened the floodgates, and, if the Supreme Court is not administered a stern lesson, there's no telling what it may lead to.

[Torie]

Yes, I agree, it needs to be slapped. I hope something can be fashioned which I can support.

[longtermmemmory]

This is the actual amendment introduced:

The actual link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:14:./temp/~c108bSuczc::

---

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           New Bills Search
Prev Hit        Back              HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Help
                Contents Display   

---

Bill 14 of 50

	GPO's PDF version of this bill	References to this bill in the Congressional Record	Link to the Bill Summary & Status file.	Printer Friendly Display - 1,559 bytes.[Help]

---

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. (Introduced in House)

HJ 56 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 56

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 21, 2003

Mrs. MUSGRAVE (for herself, Mr. HALL, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`SECTION 1. 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]

My post #259 is quite clear, since you have trouble comprehending lengthier passages. Here's a repost: 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????

[unorganizedthoughts]

Gays claim to be born gay, therefore, being gay is a genetic malfuction or disease or abnormality. Should the constitution of the United States be amended because of a gentic malfunction? Maybe.

[Aarchaeus]

How do we handle, say, the marriage of two men in Belgium or Denmark?

Simple and easy. If an arrangement does not meet our definition of marriage, it cannot be legally recognized as marriage, no matter what has taken place anywhere else.

[aristeides]

Do we know for a fact that it was the reliance on Bowers that was the problem in Limon? I know it has been suggested, I know it is one possible explanation of the Supreme Court's ruling in Limon, but I have still not been convinced that it is the only possible explanation.

[aristeides]

Do you attribute the 18th Amendment to "mob rule"? Rather benign mob, if so. (And no, I'm no fan of the 18th Amendment.)

[tang-soo]

I would add the qualifier "adult or emancipated" to the phrase "man and woman".

[Antoninus]

This crap is radioactive in the 'burbs on the coasts and in the Heartland. It probably doesn't play that well down South.

I'm a suburban voter and I disagree wholeheartedly. Maybe some suburbanites are decadent, amoral slobs, but I wouldn't bet that it's a majority. Even here in liberal NJ I'll bet a Constitutional Marriage Amendment would fly through.

As for the heartland, you're obviously smoking the wacky tobacky tonight. 37 states have already passed marriage amendments to their state constitutions.

Most of them have gay family members, work with gays or have gay acquaintances, and will not sell real well on it as a whole.

I had some "gay" acquaintances on the job.... It did not make me into a partisan of their causes.... quite the opposite when I witnessed the havoc and devastation that was their lives. The gay "deathstyle" is poison to a family. Many parents are too weak to do anything but coddle their spoiled children when they "come out." But not a majority by any means. There is still plenty of tough love out there.

[AntiGuv]

I'm uncertain whether the 18th Amendment was passed under such circumstances; I'd have to review the history. However, I've condemned the 18th for a different though relevant reason: that it limited the Constitutional rights, liberties, and freedoms of the American people (the only amendment to have done so to date).

If the 18th did not also suffer from implementation by "mob rule" then that just condemns the proposed 28th all the more profoundly, IMHO...