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]

What was your source for the house information? The homosexuals are going to target these people for anti family petition drives.

Won't matter. The House is a done deal unless the GOP leadership refuses to bring the resolution to a floor vote. The Senate's probably a done deal as well with Frist's endorsement, but any real fight will take place there. In any case, here's the link: H.J. Res 56.

[ChicagoGuy]

"An amendment is the only way to restore Constitutional balance of powers. " This amendment goes way beyond restoring any balance of powers. It takes the definition of marriage, which has always been in the hands of the states, and forever pulls it into the federal realm. It specifically says how marriage will be defined in all states, and it specifically says how all federal AND STATE laws will be interpreted. This is a huge encroachment on the rights of the states, and creates a tremendous imbalance in favor of the federal government over the states.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Good find Saber. Thanks for the ping!

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Sink. thinks I'm starting a political PARTY with my views! LOL.

[Sam Cree]

Yeah, it sounds like what is supposed to be states stuff to me.

Which probably means the Supreme Court's decision wasn't constitutional either.

[StolarStorm]

What a waste of time. Just a silly distraction from the real issues that face our nation.

[Kevin Curry]

This is a mistake as written, and we'll end up with a Federal Marriage Department.

We already have one. It has legislated nationally and finally on abortion, contraception, and now on sodomy. It will within a very few years legislate nationally and finally on marriage as well.

It consists of nine unelected legislators-for-life, six of which are drunk with legislative power and desire to impose their own personal sense of morality, of a strongly liberal cant, on the other 260 million Americans.

We cannot effectively impeach them; we cannot appeal the legislation they impose. They are all-powerful.

[eastsider]

Let's roll!!!

[ChicagoGuy]

"Which probably means the Supreme Court's decision wasn't constitutional either." I would fully support an amendment to the constitution saying that the states may decide whether or not sodomy may be prohibited for all its citizens. But the amendment that is proposed above is a gross usurpation of the states' traditional bailiwick.

[aristeides]

Done deals? You need 2/3 votes for constitutional amendments. Encouraging to see those 3 Democrat co-sponsors. But will more than 1/3 of the Democrats follow them?

[Imagine]

I like where you're going. How do we handle, say, the marriage of two men in Belguim or Denmark?

[AntiGuv]

Almost surely they will. I posted this on another FMA thread & I'll repost it here:

Of course I really think this is a real issue. The Federal Marriage Amendment has already been introduced in the House and the Senate Majority Leader has endorsed its introduction in the Senate. Do you think either 145 representatives or 34 senators will vote against the motions? [DOMA passed 85-15 and 342-67]

Once it clears the Senate, it will require only one member of each State legislative chamber to present for ratification. At that point, every legislator will have to go on record in some fashion or another either in support or opposition to gay marriage. I've counted at least 23-26 States that are likely to ratify in the very next session, with a minimal amount of political pressure.

The FMA advocates will need focus their funds & energy on but a dozen or so States to bring about ratification within the next seven years. If the fail to do so under the current composition of those legislatures, they will no doubt make it the central issue in the following election. Based on the Vermont precedent, the likelihood that this issue could turn over any recalcitrant legislatures is quite strong.

Meanwhile, there's an excellent chance either Massachusetts or New Jersey will legalize same-sex marriage and spark a nationwide 50-state court battle as well as throw FMA supporters into hyperdrive. That's aside from the liberal media furor & gay family sob stories & whatever. There will be a race between FMA and an eventual SCOTUS ruling (which would be irrelevant, anyhow).

The likelihood that the FMA will not come into force is exceedingly slim in my view unless the Dems decide they will stand or fall on this issue & halt its passage in the Senate. I'm not holding my breath. The only other possibility is if GWB [meaning Rove] intervenes with the House leadership to kill this proposal.

BTW, I think Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, and Minnesota will prove pivotal to the success or failure of the movement.

[FreedomCalls]

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Define "man." Define "woman." Can a gay man get a writ from a judge declaring him to be a her? If he can simply redefine himself legally as a "woman" then he can meet the letter of the Amendment and get married anyway.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Of course it is a mistake. Have these people ever distinguished themselves by being smart?

They are super eager to elect Howard Dean.

[onyx]

Good find! Interesting.......

[lelio]

Government's role should be in the enforcement of contracts, not in the definition of what contracts are and are not legitimate.

Well put!

If this goes through, I would like to know what they intend to do with pre- and post- op transexuals, and I think it should be written into the amendment.

[MosesKnows]

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Isn't that reduntant, or did you not know the definition of the word marriage?

The Constitution was not established for the purpose of denying the people anything. The Constitution is solely about government and not about the people.

Leave our Constitution alone.

[AntiGuv]

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

The same way we handle polygamous marriages from Islamic nations: public policy exception. Anyhow, Denmark doesn't [yet] have marriage but rather civil union; you have to be a citizen of Belgium to marry there. The one to worry about in that sense is Canada.

[TheDon]

You're way ahead of me! I was only going to suggest the following changes:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of one male human and one female human."

[aristeides]

Pretty much the only power this amendment would take away from the states is the power to declare that a same-sex couple is married. In the absence of Lawrence, that is a power that I would have been willing to leave with the states. But after Lawrence, any state that exercised that power would probably force all other states to recognize such marriages too. So state power is threatened in any case, and this is a politically possible way to eliminate that threat, and to rebuke the Supreme Court at the same time.

An amendment that simply reversed Lawrence would almost certainly not get the votes of 2/3 of the members of the Houses of Congress and of 3/4 of the states needed to be ratified.