This is the proposed Constitutional Marriage Amendment

self ^ | 6/30/2003 | unk

[longtermmemmory]

This ammendment is like saying you are against children. Momentum is on our side on this. If you don't try you will never know. If you check some other posts here you will see the homosexuals in congress are already pushing for same sex marriage recognition.

[Antoninus]

When you try to back-door this stuff (no pun intended), it totally destroys the purpose of the Constitution, which is designed to protect the rights of the People against government intrusion.

How exactly is it "back door" for the PEOPLE to use their Constitutionally defined check on a rogue Supreme Court? Amendment is the only method we have to reign in these people.

The real "back door" trick in this sorry situation, was the SCOTUS's magically creating a "right to sodomy" and claiming it's been part of the constitution all along. It's not--anyone who can read can see that.

The six black-robed despots need to be slapped down hard and quickly for attempting to foist this immorality upon the entire country.

[only1percent]

Side note -- people often remark on the suffragists support for Prohibition as if were an inexplicable contradiction. To the contrary, it made perfect sense: they viewed alcohol abuse, more or less correctly, as the single great and undeserved scourge and ruination of women.

It was men, almost exclusively, who drank to excess, and in so doing deprived their wives of the physical and financial support upon which the wives depended for their only sustenance, and subjected the wives to physical and emotional abuse to which the law afforded them no remedy. A drunken man of the house meant absolute shame and devestation to a family -- and the patterns of alcohol consumption back then were nothing like they are now. When you hear "drunk" in a 1910 context, you need to think "crackhead" to get closer to the comparable contemporary context -- and how many crackheads have families at home who are forced to depend upon them?

Prohibition was a bad idea, but not for want of virtues and fundamentally sound objectives in the temperance movement.

[ellery]

For most of history marriage hasn't been a civil matter at all -- it's been solely a religious matter. The state's intrusion in marriage is the real departure from tradition and precedent. So if historical precedent is the argument, then civil marriage should be abolished altogether, and returned to the church or to the participants themselves.

Frankly, I consider the idea of bureaucratic license for a sacrament to be pretty obcene.

[Snuffington]

Just because you don't care if your state is constrained on this issue doesn't mean that the residents of other states don't care. If for some reason the people of Vermont or Hawaii decide that same-sex marriage is OK in their state, why should the residents of other states get to say no?

Do the states get a say in whether up is down? Of course not. Some things are simply reality, and are not within the purview of sane legislation, though I realize the power-mad legislators of our era claim god-like ability to define reality itself.

You propose letting the definition of marriage itself as something to be thrown open to variable legislation, yet you fail to indicate a single state which would not advocate the language of the marriage amendment you seem to oppose.

At some point you must recognize you oppose popular government in practice, unless you can cite an actual state which is constrained by this legislative act. The people of all 50 states call for action. It is not in any one of their interests to stand in the way in behest of a theoretical 51st.

The "gay marriage" movement thus far had avoided any legislative plebiscite. Either this is an issue upon which the polular will matters, or it is an issue of inherent rights. Neither of these is addressed by appealing to a federalist priciple - particularly in a case in which all 50 states are in popular agreement.

Our Constitution allows the nation to legislate via amendment when there is broad consensus among the states. Do you reject this in principle? Or do you have some special knowledge about this specific issue which calls you to object on that basis instead?

[dogbyte12]

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.

Good question. How about an exemption to the Full Faith and credit clause in the amendment.

Something like: In regards to the contract of marriage, a union between 2 individuals of the same gender does not have to be recognized by other states unless they so choose.

The language sucks there and needs to be cleaned up, but basically it allows the states to win, and both pro gay marriage and those against it some victory as well.

If the state of Hawaii sanctions gay marriage, they can do so, but Mississippi can choose to ignore it, or accept it.

In just the issue of marriage there is an exemption. I like to think of it like Teaching Certificates. Some states accept the certifications of other states, some say it doesn't meet our qualifications and they are free to explain to the teacher who changes states, that they do not have what it takes to teach there currently. Write the amendment to do that, it could probably be agreed to by the 70% in the middle.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I get tired of the BS potshots by supposedly intelligent people in this forum, whether I "approve" of something or not is the least of your concerns, and I could not care less what your opinion of my opinion is.

What I care about is that people understand fully WHY things happen, and whether you like it or not (which I don't care either way) to constantly complain about activist courts and never enter a fight prepared to deal with an activist Court is plain stupid.

Which is what we constantly do, and why we constantly lose.

We handed this victory to the “other side” with our idiotic “all or nothing” attitude. Texas enacted a bad law, and we backed it in spite of the fact that WE KNEW it would eventually be decided on by an activist Court. We backed it, willing to gamble all…and we lost all.

We fed an obviously bad law to an activist Court (even in the dissenting opinions the silliness of the law was acknowledged) and are now surprised at the outcome!

How stupid can we possibly get?!?!?!?!

We can actually get stupider than that, we think that the solution to the problem of a Federal government wielding powers not granted to them by the Constitution, is to actually go to them for the solution, and along the way, surrender even more powers Constitutionally granted to the States!

[longtermmemmory]

OOOOOOPS IF your are AGAINST this ammendment its like you are against children. TYPO EXTREME!!!!

[ellery]

If the Supreme Court couldn't hear appeals about matters related to sex, Paula Jones would never have gotten that settlement from the Klintoon.

[Snuffington]

For most of history marriage hasn't been a civil matter at all -- it's been solely a religious matter. The state's intrusion in marriage is the real departure from tradition and precedent. So if historical precedent is the argument, then civil marriage should be abolished altogether, and returned to the church or to the participants themselves.

Ok. Provided you agree to return the Church to the secular power it previously posessed.

The real departure from tradtion has been the banishment of religion away from the public sphere. The state stepped in where it thought religion provided essential things it couldn't survive without - like marriage.

Do you mean to get the state out of marriage and return to the prior condition? Or get the state out of marriage and see what our brave new world brings?

[jejones]

Then there's Klinefelter's Syndrome et al. (See this page for more info.) Do we really want government to get involved with this?

[FormerLib]

A big bump against perversion!

[ellery]

Interesting thought -- but would more new deal programs have gone through if Congressional supermajorities had been able to overrule SCOTUS?

[longtermmemmory]

exceptions that prove the rule. You are talking about genetic defects.

Judging from the site. 1) the xxy or xxyy is a birth defect but the exhibit male. 2) testosterone treatment is like diabetic treatment for insuline dependency. Something which requires monitoring.

This is a redherring argument.

This would have ZERO issue with protecting marriage. These people exhibit male, produce sperm male (though at infertility amounts). And yes they marry women.

next

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks -- my brain went blank and I couldn't find where I had read it!

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for posting those committee members!

[Snuffington]

We can actually get stupider than that, we think that the solution to the problem of a Federal government wielding powers not granted to them by the Constitution, is to actually go to them for the solution, and along the way, surrender even more powers Constitutionally granted to the States!

Help me out here. Are you saying Constitutional amendments usurp "powers Constitutionally granted to the States"?

Does this mean you reject the amendment process, as defined by the Constitution, from establishing the will of the states? If so, are all amendments invalid? Only some? The Constitution itself (after all, it didn't require a unanimous vote among the states to be ratifed)?

[Luis Gonzalez]

The will of the States?

It only has to define the will of two-thirds of the Senators voting to ratify.

The Constitution leaves the issue of defining marriage to the States, by looking to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage, we are in actuality relinquishing the ability to have the will of each State known in this manner.

What if in fact, the people of one or more States vote to recognize same-sex marriages? What happens to the will of their States?

And further down the line, under a Liberal Congress, the Amendment can be overturned and replaced with a Right to Marry Amendment.

After all, that would then qualify again as the will of the people...would it not?

According to the Constitution, the States decide the definition of marriage.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Not two thirds, three fourths of both Houses.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"People post pictures of drag queens, guys in leather, and recount their horror..."

I see that every Sunday on the NFL ticket at the Raider's home games.