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."

[JSteff]

"It needs alteration "

You are right, your recommended addition is needed. If there was a federal department of marriage, it would just be another way to allow the libs to get control of an administrative department. Then this will start all over again.

I am VERY worried about all this. What has our country become? One of the three branches of the government, the one who is there to decide the LAW as based on the constitution, over steps it's written word. They create laws instead of ruling on the law. They invented rights not enumerated in the constitution. They went against the intents of the founders, who got it right all those years ago.

I hate to make a statement like this but this bill may be one of our last chances to stop the slide to the end of the republic. Let's hope there are enough out there who see this and agree.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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

[ellery]

The idea that conservatives would place a higher priority on gay marriage than government spending or the war on terror astonishes me. Is there anyone left at this site with a sense of perspective?

Bump to that.

[Snuffington]

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

Re-read your Constitution. That's not quite enough to ratify an amendment.

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?

This is my point. Find me a state - any state, including liberal-loonies like California, or Hawaii - where you could pass a popular referendum supporting gay marriage. It doesn't exist. However, 50 states have popular majorities opposing it, and this is supposed to represent some srot of totalitarian impulse.

Make up your mind. Either this is an issue left to popular opinion, or it's not. If it is, the amendment process is pretty darn good for weeding out unpopular positions. Ifit's not, make the case for why the people's opinion shouldn't matter.

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?

Yes it would. Just like every other amendment to the Constitution. Your point?

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

If it's your position that the Constitution's silence equates to the states being absolutely sovereign on every issue not constrained by the Constitution, is it your opinion the states are free to define "male" and "female" however they choose?

[ellery]

With all respect, I'm confused about how what gay people do or don't do undercuts the marriages of straight people. My marriage is not weakened a bit by what other people do now to desecrate their marriages -- it certainly wouldn't be affected by gay people calling their existing partnerships marriage. Please explain.

[Desdemona]

It takes 38 to ratify.

And I think at 40 will ratify.

[hunter112]

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

Really, I thought the same thing when I read Frist's comments about Constitutional amendments and sacraments in the same thought. The next logical step would be to dole out citizenship rights based on baptism in a particular state-sanctioned church! It's too bad that Bill Frist's first real news-making event is this story. I had hoped he would use his intelligence to help us out of the healthcare mess. Now, he's destroyed his credibility with the people on the left and a large number of those in the center.

I've read this thread with dread, I predicted a few weeks ago that this Lawrence decision would provoke a lot of anti-gay legislation. It does give Bush a chance to show his independance from the far right by merely refusing to aid, abet, or assist any anti-gay political movements, he can be seen as above it all. If you want to vote a protest, or stay at home on Election Day, maybe you'll help elect a Rat, but its more likely that Bush will get a decent majority from the middle. That pretty much sums up Richard Nixon's strategy leading up to the 1972 election, he could see that the Dems were going to impale themselves on their own anti-Vietnam sword. He went for ideas that were pretty liberal for the times, earned income tax credit and environmental laws, and such, and captured the mushy middle and a decisive electoral vote majority.

If the religious right keeps on ranting about this beyond January, they just provide a springboard for GWB to show how electing him will NOT put the Church Lady in control of the government.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"If it's your position that the Constitution's silence equates to the states being absolutely sovereign on every issue not constrained by the Constitution."

My position?

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The right to define marriage is not delegated to the United States, nor is it prohibited to the States.

The right belongs to the States.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Re-read your Constitution. That's not quite enough to ratify an amendment."

I've already corrected myself.

[Ken H]

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.

What I'm saying is that this Amendment is a long shot, IMO.

I can't imagine Snowe, Lugar, that Rhode Island guy, McCain, et al voting for it.

I'd also like someone to name the 16 Dem Senators that would vote yes, assuming you got all the R's

And if that weren't enough, Barney Frank would certainly try to queer its chances in the House.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Your point?"

My point is that we would be unable to stop it from happening because we relinquished the power to Congress.

[AntiGuv]

There is no ambiguity in my remarks, and I freely concede that the 18th may have fallen under these standards. Indeed, I initially implied as much but am not familiar enough with the history to state categorically.

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???? In my statement, the 18th Amendment stands utterly condemned. Whether or not the proposed 28th parallels the 18th in this particular respect, they are both condemned as the only amendments that would limit the Constitutional rights, liberties, and freedoms of the American people. If the 28th shares with the 18th the distinction of passage via "mob rule," then it is no more egregious than the 18th. If that is a singular distinction to be reserved for the 28th, then it's that much worse than the 18th in my estimation...

I'll retract my previous statements. I oppose the FMA for this reason if for no other, even if I anticipate it's future repeal. The prospective 28th will be an eternal disgrace alongside the 18th. In a way, that's a good thing. An object lesson for future generations not to repeat....

[Snuffington]

The right to define marriage is not delegated to the United States, nor is it prohibited to the States.

And the right to decide who's male or female? Please don't avoid the question.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"And the right to decide who's male or female?"

It's a silly question, but I'll answer it.

Is it delegated to the United States by the Constitution?

No.

It belongs to the States.

[Snuffington]

My point is that we would be unable to stop it from happening because we relinquished the power to Congress.

Just like the 18th Amendment was irrevocable once passed?

[CaptIsaacDavis]

WAIT--THERE ALSO NEEDS TO BE A LINE DECLARING THAT ALL RIGHTS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT WITH REGARD TO MORAL ISSUES NOT PROHIBITED BY THE SEPARATION CLAUSE ARE RESERVED TO THE PEOPLE AND THEIR RESPECTIVE STATE GOVERNMENTS REGARDLESS OF COURT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT. Without this the SCOTUS would effectively neuter this agenda by basing a counter-stroke/future decisions on "substantive due process" under the 14th -- the basis for the recent overturning of sodomy statutes.

[AntiGuv]

I am in full agreement with your post #347 and moreover you've elsewhere persuaded me that the outcome of Limon is hardly as assured as I'd previously assumed. I do think the reversal of Bowers is the singular reason for the remand [this much was evident all along], but I'm far less certain that the Court will ultimately overrule the Kansas ruling, whatever that might be - so long as it argues on grounds other than the defunct Bowers precedent.

[Torie]

I take it your reject my compromise language. Would that still obtain after Kennedy, or the son of Kennedy, crosses the Rubicon, and takes Kennedy's soaring prose to its logical conclusion, the Constitutional mandate for gay marriage? Do you not thing that raise process problems for the public square? The problem is that the unique problems of race, unleashed the Court, to go where it should not prudentially go, on matters not pertaining to race.

I favor gay marriage. I may be the only one of this forum, that has just said that, without equivocation. But I also try to fathom the consequences of how it is achieved. I want it achieved in due time by the ballot box. I want to persuade, and patiently await the passage of the generations, not use a bludgeon, and continue the ongoing poisoning of the public square, and the total politicization of SCOTUS. Enough is enough.

[AntiGuv]

Though, just to be sure, I'm not retracting my previous remarks because they were inaccurate when posted, but rather because I've talked myself from general indifference toward active [albeit not passionate] opposition.