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."

[Luis Gonzalez]

Do you have a reading impairment?

My exact argument is that a Constitutional Amendment does not set marriage in stone because it would be reversible, just like the 18th was reversed, by a liberal Congress wishing to elevate the ability of same-sex couples to marry to the level of a constitutional right.

[Snuffington]

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

Of course it's a silly question.

Ask one of the framers of the Constitution whether marriage meant a man and a woman, or maybe two men. Would he think that was a sensible question? Yet for some reason people retreat to the documents of those very framers for shelter from their own silliness.

Thankfully, those venerable gentlemen realized they would not be able to legislate sufficiently for all time. So, in the Constitution itself, they left an Amendment process to revise it.

Unfortunately, we now seem to have people who think we're being disloyal to our very government when we follow the exact process of amendment laid down in our Constitution.

Is the power to define marriage left to the states by our Consitution? Technically yes. Is this same power left to our amendment process? Also yes. Since the objection being raised regards the invoking of the amendment process to define marriage, why is the same objection not raised to object to the states doing the same?

[Snuffington]

My exact argument is that a Constitutional Amendment does not set marriage in stone because it would be reversible, just like the 18th was reversed, by a liberal Congress wishing to elevate the ability of same-sex couples to marry to the level of a constitutional right.

That is hardly your exact argument. Your argument previously was that marriage should be left for each state to define for itself, as if 50 different versions of something called "marriage" would have no special impact of American society.

As a caveat you challenged that an amendment, (as proposed by those who do not share your opinion) might be reversed.

Um... yes. It might. Not really much of a point in your favor when it comes to the issue in debate though.

[longtermmemmory]

perhaps BUT it will be an act of ELECTED senate/house and 3/4 of the legislatures. It will not be six people in black dresses.

[Luis Gonzalez]

A Constitutional Amendment would permanently transfer the right to define marriage to the Congress A.K.A. The Federal Government, and take it from each individual State.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Have you misssed the hundreds of thousands of posts in FR complaining about Congress not representing the States any longer?

Congress is the Federal Government.

The power belongs to each individual State.

[ellery]

Maybe its time for an amendment to add a fourth power to the equation: the right of the people to throw out 1) any ruling that the federal courts (privacy & diversity) pass by a simple majority national vote or any law passed by congress and signed by the president. (Congressional pay raises)This returns the power back to the individual.

I'm sick of judicial activism too, but what you suggest does not return power to the individual -- it gives absolute power to the majority (as in "tyranny of").

[Snuffington]

A Constitutional Amendment would permanently transfer the right to define marriage to the Congress A.K.A. The Federal Government, and take it from each individual State.

You're arguing both sides of this issue.

Are you saying an amendment is permanent? Or that it could be overturned later? The two are not logically compatible.

There is nothing "permanent" about a Constitutional amendment that a future Constitutional amendment can't reverse. It simply has a higher bar for approval.

[AntiGuv]

Could you direct me to your compromise language - for an amendment, I would assume? It appears I've missed that [I've had a flood of replies in the past several hours from various threads & I've been in & out].

[Luis Gonzalez]

My debate is simple.

What does the Constitution say?

The Constitution says that each individual State defines marriage.

There will not be 50 differing opinions because there are not 50 available combinations. There will simply be a combination of any number of States either recognizing same-sex marriages or not.

The rest then is left to Congress, as they define the general rules under which States can exempt themselves from the Full Faith and Credit Clause, when a conflict arises between a State which does not recognize same-sex marriages, and citizens married in a State that does.

A Republic, if we can keep it.

[Torie]

It starts here in response the one of John's typically thoughtful posts, albeit using words that I would not choose, and continues thereafter, in a back and forth with Sabertooth and John.

[Snuffington]

permanently transfer the right to define marriage

And what is this about "the right to define marriage"?! We're living in the only society that ever found this a problem.

Why are we not clamoring for "the right to define ancestry"? I'd love to be descended from Alexander, Caesar, Napolean, and Patton. Heck, I'd put it on my resume! The right to define ancestry is more useful!

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'll type slowly so that you can understand.

I am saying that by asking Congress to ratify an Amendment defining marriage, we are in fact transfering the power to define marriage henceforth to the Federal government, insofar as they would be the only ones able to change or overturn the Amendment.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Here's a better take.

Once this Amendment is ratified, would a State be able to exercise its Constitutional right to define marriage?

No.

[Snuffington]

What does the Constitution say?

Glad you asked....

Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate

The Constitution says that each individual State defines marriage.

Um.. no. It is silent on the issue. That is not the same thing.

You seem to believe that state laws are more inviolate than a properly ratified amendment to the Constitution. Why is that?

[Snuffington]

I am saying that by asking Congress to ratify an Amendment defining marriage, we are in fact transfering the power to define marriage henceforth to the Federal government, insofar as they would be the only ones able to change or overturn the Amendment.

Umm.. yes. Just like we did with slavery and the right to bear arms. Can we now get to your real objection?

[Luis Gonzalez]

We want to ratify a Constitutional Amendment because we are afraid that a State will exercise their Constitutional rigt to define marriage, and it will not be the definition we want.

[AntiGuv]

Nothing in the Constitution shall be construed to preclude the power of the states to pass their own laws regarding who is eligible for marriage, but Congress shall have the authority to establish a national standard, which shall preempt the laws of the states to the extent inconsistent therewith.

I would absolutely support your compromise language [as revised by Sabertooth] or an equivalent variation as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is well-considered & well-crafted and avoids demagoguery as its impetus while not limiting the Constitutional rights, liberties, and freedoms of any American. Moreover, I believe that 66% of the Congress and 75% of the legislatures could support this language as a matter of principle, rather than electoral calculation...

[Luis Gonzalez]

You know what...go on.

We have been getting screwed by the Feds for decades, and you still think they are the solution.