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."

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

Great analysis. I think you're right on. Time in not on our side here. I think if the Senate doesn't act quickly like they did with DOMA, then this effort will get bogged down before it even hits the state legislatures.

[longtermmemmory]

Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate)[S.1252.IS]
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:32:./temp/~c108bSuczc::

Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)[H.R.2426.IH]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:33:./temp/~c108bSuczc::

These are sick and why we need a FMA: they have this language:"...7)(A) are same sex domestic partners, and not related in a way that, if the 2 were of opposite sex, would prohibit legal marriage in the State in which they reside; or...."

We need to stop the homosexuals. These are to give our TAX MONEY to homosexual practitioners.

[Antoninus]

People don't want to amend the Constitution at the drop of a hat, and they aren't going to want to do it for garbage.

I agree about being hesitant to amend the Constitution. But the "garbage" aspect is completely your opinion. Just watch and see how many people disagree with you on how important this is.

The Lawrence decision was like Pearl Harbor for the homo-promo crowd. I'll bet we get the Marriage Amendment ratified in less time than it took us to win WWII.

[only1percent]

He's married with a few children. NB: thanks to gastric reduction, he's now skinny enough to be heterosexual in practice, not just theory and history!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Section 1. Full Faith and Credit

SOURCES AND EFFECT OF THIS PROVISION

Private International Law

The historical background of this section is furnished by that branch of private law which is variously termed ''private international law,'' ''conflict of laws,'' ''comity,'' This comprises a body of rules, based largely on the writings of jurists and judicial decisions, in accordance with which the courts of one country, or ''jurisdiction,'' will ordinarily, in the absence of a local policy to the contrary, extend recognition and enforcement to rights claimed by individuals by virtue of the laws or judicial decisions of another country or ''jurisdiction.'' Most frequently applied examples of these rules include the following: the rule that a marriage which is good in the country where performed ( lex loci ) is good elsewhere; the rule that contracts are to be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the country where entered into ( lex loci contractus ) unless the parties clearly intended otherwise; the rule that immovables may be disposed of only in accordance with the law of the country where situated ( lex rei sitae );1 the converse rule that chattels adhere to the person of their owner and hence are disposable by him, even when located elsewhere, in accordance with the law of his domicile ( lex domicilii ); the rule that regardless of where the cause arose, the courts of any country where personal service of the defendant can be effected will take jurisdiction of certain types of personal actions, hence termed ''transitory,'' and accord such remedy as the lex fori affords. Still other rules, of first importance in the present connection, determine the recognition which the judg ments of the courts of one country shall receive from those of another country.

So even had the States of the Union remained in a mutual relationship of entire independence, private claims originating in one often would have been assured recognition and enforcement in the others. The Framers felt, however, that the rules of private international law should not be left among the States altogether on a basis of comity and hence subject always to the overruling local policy of the lex fori but ought to be in some measure at least placed on the higher plane of constitutional obligation. In fulfillment of this intent the section now under consideration was inserted, and Congress was empowered to enact supplementary and enforcing legislation. -- Source.

The section you claim empowers the Congress to categorically give carte blanche to the States in exempting themselves from the constitutional requirements of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, relates to the interaction between States and foreign countries.

Your argument in this case reminds me of Laurence Tribe's argument on the Second Amendment.

Tribe argues that the preamble qualifies the Amendment: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" means that the right to bear arms is relative only to the maintenance of a "well-regulated militia", that in "the right of the people to bear arms" the Framers meant "the States" when they said "the people", and as such, and since each State has in place a "well-regulated militia" in the form of the State National Guard, "the right of the people to bear arms" belongs to the States, and not the individual.

Tribe circumvents the obvious "shall not be infringed", an absolute, in order to make his argument.

Meanwhile you, while complaining about a Court decision that you argue has no Constitutional basis because of the lack of specific verbiage granting that right to the Supreme Court, are stretching the meaning of “general laws” to mean “categorical exemption”, and like Tribe, ignore the absolute: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State” in order to support your painfully convoluted reasoning.

Face it Toothy, you can’t complain about the actions of the Federal government in taking powers not specifically enumerated, while embracing a law enacted by Congress sans the enumerated power to write the law being granted to them by the Constitution.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Wasn't he always?

Glad someone picked that up by the way...of course, I should have known it would be you.

[Torie]

I guess looking at the exact language would be useful. But assuming SCOTUS did not explicitly say, that Kansas was to review its decision in light of its overturning of Bowers, but rather in light of its decision in Lawrence, I can't imagine personally just what there is in the soaring prose of Lawrence other than its interment of Bowers, that would be applicable to statutory rape.

[aristeides]

Politicians were very much afraid of voter retaliation when they passed the 18th Amendment. Women were getting the vote all across the country (most states gave it to them before the 19th Amendment,) and the suffragettes were arch-supporters of Prohibition. But I'd be very surprised if more than 35% of the population supported the amendment strongly. I should think there are almost no issues on which over 35% of the population feels strongly in one direction. Politics in general gets done by committed minorities. If 35% of the American people feels strongly about the FMA, that is really quite a high number. Especially if you're right about only 20% feeling strongly against.

And it mystifies me that you should call the working of normal democratic politics "mob rule."

[Ken H]

No, that is the same as putting it in the Constitution, which preempts the issue. I want my fair shake in the public square on this puppy, as do those who are on the other side.

Fair enough.

I said last night that this Amendment has some obstacles to overcome.

It only takes one of the following to stop it; 34 Senators, a third of the House, or 13 State Legislatures.

You'd have to get every R in the Senate plus about a third of the D's.

Although he's not involved with ratification, it's going to be hard for President Bush to avoid this issue.

Has anyone heard statements from the President or Vice President about this Amendment?

[longtermmemmory]

Here is another shocker, there is a democrat house member who is giving homsexul MERE partners a free imigration entry to the USA.

H.R.832
Permanent Partners Immigration Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

---

SEC. 10. INADMISSIBLE ALIENS.

(a) CLASSES OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE FOR VISAS OR ADMISSION- Section 212(a) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (3)(D)(iv), by inserting `permanent partner,' after `spouse,';

(2) in paragraph (4)(C)(i)(I), by inserting `, permanent partner,' after `spouse';

(3) in paragraph (6)(E)(ii), by inserting `permanent partner,' after `spouse,'; and

(4) in paragraph (9)(B)(v), by inserting `, permanent partner,' after `spouse'.

(b) WAIVERS- Section 212(d) (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (11), by inserting `permanent partner,' after `spouse,'; and

(2) in paragraph (12), by inserting `, permanent partner,' after `spouse'.

(c) WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILITY ON HEALTH-RELATED GROUNDS- Section 212(g)(1)(A) (8 U.S.C. 1182(g)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting `or permanent partner' after `spouse'.

(d) WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILITY ON CRIMINAL AND RELATED GROUNDS- Section 212(h)(1)(B) (8 U.S.C. 1182(h)(1)(B)) is amended by inserting `permanent partner,' after `spouse,'.

(e) WAIVER OF INADMISSIBILITY FOR MISREPRESENTATION- Section 212(i)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1182(i)(1)) is amended by inserting `permanent partner,' after `spouse,'.

SEC. 11. NONIMMIGRANT STATUS FOR PERMANENT PARTNERS AWAITING THE AVAILABILITY OF AN IMMIGRANT VISA.

Section 214 (8 U.S.C. 1184) is amended--

(1) by redesignating the subsections (o) and (p) added by sections 1102(b) and 1103(b), respectively, of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, as enacted into law by section 1(a)(2) of P.L. 106-553, as subsections (p) and (q), resepectively; and

(2) in subsection (q) (as so redesignated)--

(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting `or permanent partner' after `spouse'; and

(B) by inserting `or permanent partnership' after `marriage' each place such term appears.

SEC. 12. CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CERTAIN ALIEN SPOUSES, PERMANENT PARTNERS, AND SONS AND DAUGHTERS.

(a) SECTION HEADING-

(1) IN GENERAL- The section heading for section 216 (8 U.S.C. 1186a) is amended by inserting `AND PERMANENT PARTNERS' after `SPOUSES'.

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of contents is amended by amending the item relating to section 216 to read as follows:

`Sec. 216. Conditional permanent resident status for certain alien spouses and permanent partners and sons and daughters.'.

(b) IN GENERAL- Section 216(a) (8 U.S.C. 1186a(a)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting `or permanent partner' after `spouse';

(2) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting `or permanent partner' after `spouse';

(3) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting `permanent partner,' after `spouse,'; and

(4) in paragraph (2)(C), by inserting `permanent partner,' after `spouse,'.

(c) TERMINATION OF STATUS IF FINDING THAT QUALIFYING MARRIAGE IMPROPER- Section 216(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1186a(b)) is amended--

(1) in the heading, by inserting `OR PERMANENT PARTNERSHIP' after `MARRIAGE' ;

(2) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting `or permanent partnership' after `marriage' ; and

(3) in paragraph (1)(A)(ii)--

(A) by inserting `or has ceased to satisfy the criteria for being considered a permanent partnership under this Act,' after `terminated,'; and

(B) by inserting `or permanent partner' after `spouse'.

(d) REQUIREMENTS OF TIMELY PETITION AND INTERVIEW FOR REMOVAL OF CONDITION- Section 216(c) (8 U.S.C. 1186a(c)) is amended--

(1) in paragraphs (1), (2)(A)(ii), (3)(A)(ii), (3)(C), (4)(B), and (4)(C), by inserting `or permanent partner' after `spouse' each place such term appears; and

(2) in paragraph (3)(A), in the matter following clause (ii), and in paragraph (3)(D), (4)(B), and (4)(C), by inserting `or permanent partnership' after `marriage' each place such term appears.

(e) CONTENTS OF PETITION- Section 216(d)(1) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1186a(d)(1)) is amended--

(1) in the subparagraph heading for subparagraph (A), by inserting `OR PERMANENT PARTNERSHIP' after `MARRIAGE' ;

(2) in subparagraph (A)(i), by inserting `or permanent partnership' after `marriage' ;

(3) in subparagraph (A)(i)(I), by inserting before the comma at the end `, or is a permanent partnership recognized under this Act';

(4) in subparagraph (A)(i)(II)--

(A) by inserting `or has not ceased to satisfy the criteria for being considered a permanent partnership under this Act,' after `terminated,'; and

(B) by inserting `or permanent partner' after `spouse';

(5) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by inserting `or permanent partner' after `spouse'; and

(6) in subparagraph (B)(i)--

(A) by inserting `or permanent partnership' after `marriage' ; and

(B) by inserting `or permanent partner' after `spouse'.

(e) DEFINITIONS- Section 216(g) (8 U.S.C. 1186a(g)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)--

(A) by inserting `or permanent partner' after `spouse' each place such term appears; and

(B) by inserting `or permanent partnership' after `marriage' each place such term appears;

(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting `or permanent partnership' after `marriage' ;

(3) in paragraph (3), by inserting `or permanent partnership' after `marriage' ; and

(4) in paragraph (4)--

(A) by inserting `or permanent partner' after `spouse' each place such term appears; and

(B) by inserting `or permanent partnership' after `marriage' .

[Antoninus]

Look at the DOMA vote, it was huge. The moderates may not be as left as you think they are.

They probably are as left as we think they are. They are also pragmatic and know that a lot of their useful idiots will wake up and get angry if they side publicly with the homos on this.

I guess the homo-promo pressure groups haven't figured out that the Dems will sell them and their 2% of the vote out in a second if that's what it takes to keep the Black vote monolithic.

[only1percent]

Has someone posted on this fact yet: the FMA will be a terrible blow against the Democratic Party.

The Dem's increasingly doctrinaire stand on abortion has driven out tons of people from the grass roots and has progressed to the point that Democrats of the most profoundly well-established credentials get opposed by large swaths of the party establishment if given an opportunity.

I have to think that this could be a breaking point of greater magnitude. Torn between the media people and the left-liberals, on the one hand, and the large majority of the vote outside of the urban and college town districts, there's going to be a HUGE problem. The money people are going to be split up as well. Hollywood and the silk stockings will demand support, the trial lawyers won't care ... the teachers union will have to break the tie.

Where the Democrats go right on this issue, the Greens will move in and split votes. Where they go left, the Republicans will pick up directly.

[Torie]

Yes, what you say is indubitably true. You have the power with a large enough of a majority to preempt the issue and remove it from the normal pushing and shoving in the public square. Is that wise?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"From time to time, Congress needs to make Solomonic decisions between various states, and Article IV empowers them to do so."

Solomic decisions are made when Solomic conflicts arise, they are not made to prevent such conflicts from happening.

[Antoninus]

In the end, many will wonder what the purpose of government is, why the GOP has so many red faced, middle aged, pissed off white guys dominating the agenda, and that incredible number of swing voters will swing right over to the D column.

You're drunk, obviously. Go have a few cups of coffee and get back to us.

[aristeides]

Makes sense. Does raise the question in my no doubt overly conspiratorial mind of whether Kennedy's and O'Conner's votes are to be explained by a Machiavellian political calculation.

[Antoninus]

Look, you're probably right about the vast majority of people being opposed to gay marriage, but that's an entirely different thing than people voting for a Constitutional Amendment.

Fine. It's going to get put to a vote so I guess we'll just have to see, won't we?

[Ciexyz]

I doubt if you could get 2/3 of the states to pass this baby.

[ellery]

So why doesn't this amendment simply reaffirm the rights of the states to decide this issue? This smacks of federal power grab to me.

[longtermmemmory]

would chenney's daughter slow this down?