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]

"...the right to bear arms..."

Being infringed constantly by Congress.

Thanks for making my case.

Good night.

[Snuffington]

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

And once the 18th amendment was ratified, a state was no longer able to exercise its Constitutional right to define whether "intoxicating liquors" would be available for sale in their jurisdiction.

And when the Constitution itself was ratified, the Second Amendment prevented a state from exercising its Constitutional right to prevent private posession of firearms.

This is argument by definition.

[The Iguana]

The only reason anyone gives a cr@p about the definition of marriage is because of all the tax and legal benefits that arise because of it. If we stripped our governments of the power to license and register marriage, we would be back to the fundamental issue involved, that is, the right of contract.

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

I'd agree with you, but there is no getting around the Full Faith and Credit clause.

If New jersey legalizes gay marriage, Utah will have to recognize it whether it likes it or not.

I don't like using the sledgehammer of a constitutional amendment. But I don't see how the Full Faith and Credit clause leaves us much alternative.

[ellery]

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.

Yup, that would work! I wonder if that could be expanded to let the states or the people control all areas not specifically allocated to the feds? Suggested text: What part of Amendment X did you not understand? As a side benefit, it would be the first amendment that ends with a question mark. Heh.

[The Iguana]

"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.

Would you, then, favor a Constitutional Amendment that suspends the Full Faith and Credit clause in regards to marriage?

So that if Massachusetts legalizes gay marriage, Utah would notbe bound to recognize it, as it would be now as the Constutition is written?

[Snuffington]

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.

Did you read the papers? The danger is not imposition of gay marriage by a state legislature locally nearly as much as the imposition of gay marriage nationally by the judiciary, pretending that an already existing law already imposed gay marriage on us. This doesn't exactly empower the states either.

The only possible response to this federal judicial activism, is to impose federal legal restraint. Trying to hold some theoretical high ground while gay marriage is imposed on all 50 states regardless of their opinion on the matter is not a good example of federalism.

[longtermmemmory]

NOT According to the Supreme Court.

[Snuffington]

"...the right to bear arms..." Being infringed constantly by Congress. Thanks for making my case.

Does this mean you're withdrawing your argument that amendments are permanent?

[mvpel]

I understand your point being that I am afraid of alittle sexual freedom. Its not fear, in fact what you are encouraging is fear, fear to call a spade a spade. I mean look at you, this sophist reasoning has you rationalizing like a liberal-for the legitimacy of having an orgasm in an animal! Before this ruling I would have found your comments rather funny, because of this precident its now become all too serious.

You offend me, and fundamental logic, by suggesting that just because something is not prohibited by law that it is morally acceptable or favored or legitimate.

Do you want the law to reach into every aspect of life, enumerating what is and is not acceptable and legitimate in every possible situation?

That is where my concern lies. That you fail to see this point, and resort to insulting me with your comments, is really irksome to me.

[Snuffington]

You know what...go on. We have been getting screwed by the Feds for decades, and you still think they are the solution.

Sleep well in your tinfoil night-hat. The federal government does actually have a role in our government, despite what your militia leader may have told you.

[The Iguana]

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

My money is that this Court would now argue that states can't do so now.

And it is only a matter of (little) time before the Court starts getting appeals the moment one state (most likely by judicial fiat) recognizes gay marriage.

Gay groups are not trying to get their way through the Democratic process. They're doing it through the ukase of the courts.

[longtermmemmory]

Before this ruling the posters here on this board were saying this is a state issue and the state should legislate the soddomy issue. The supreme court has said its an issue of homosexual dignity and invalidated not only texas soddomy law but all soddomy laws.

Now with this FEDERAL ruling there is the real certainty that homosexuals are lining up to use THIS to direct an attack on all 50 states using full faith and credit.

This ammendment provides a federal solution to this court created danger to the institution of marriage and family.

[ellery]

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?

Your point is absolutely valid -- that the Church has much less power than it once did. But if the issue of marriage rested with the church alone, what more power would it need to perform the same function that the state now performs? Churches already decide based on their own regligious doctrine who may marry in said church. They also perform counseling, guidance and ceremonies. This could easily and fully replace what the state currently does(decides who can marry, issues a license, and performs the ceremony). No brave new world required.

[mvpel]

I'd agree with you, but there is no getting around the Full Faith and Credit clause.

If New jersey legalizes gay marriage, Utah will have to recognize it whether it likes it or not.

I don't like using the sledgehammer of a constitutional amendment. But I don't see how the Full Faith and Credit clause leaves us much alternative.

They don't seem to have much trouble ignoring concealed-carry permits when it comes to the Full Faith and Credit clause...

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

You offend me

awww. You sure aren't argueing stylisticly like a liberal. Man where did I get that from.

Now after taking the debate past your hurt feelings; suggesting that just because something is not prohibited by law that it is morally acceptable or favored or legitimate

Precisely my point. Precisely wrong. This isn't saying we haven't enumerated this situation-we have. This is saying said law is UnConstitution based on this new Right unearthed. If you are saying that SCOTUS ruling, which I demonstrated leads down this slippery slope of overturning beastiality "bedroom laws"(and your only objection was that having beastiality legal doesn't lead to social anarchy) and it PREVENTS States from passing laws against this Private behavior, denying governments the right to express community standards, and even decry these acts as morally unacceptable in a public court of law- it is you who are offending fundamental logic by drawing any kind of arbitrary distinction.

[Sabertooth]

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

Does it? Interesting. Word association can go in so many unlikely directions.

For example, if I say "ghost," one person might reply "Casper," but another might say "writer."

[Snuffington]

Your point is absolutely valid -- that the Church has much less power than it once did. But if the issue of marriage rested with the church alone, what more power would it need to perform the same function that the state now performs? Churches already decide based on their own regligious doctrine who may marry in said church. They also perform counseling, guidance and ceremonies. This could easily and fully replace what the state currently does(decides who can marry, issues a license, and performs the ceremony). No brave new world required.

It's not that simple. THE CHURCH of old is hardly the same as today's strip-mall, roll-your-own church structure. Leave the ceremonies aside, in prior days the Church imposing excommunication for divorce was a serious penalty. A priest refusing to marry, didn't mean that you needed to go to Vegas instead, it meant you couldn't be married period.

You seem to view the Church (and modern state's) role as largely functionary and administrative. But the missing role (in both cases) is moral.

Not that the modern state is a bastion of morality of course. It just happened to internalize, formalize, and beauracritize an ancient moral institution. I'd love to see the state out of the picture. I just don't want this urge used as an excuse to devalue marriage itself. And since the state was the reason the Church became a mere formality in this issue, it's hardly proper for the state to abandon what it usurped and then blame the Church when it doesn't turn out so well.

[Ken H]

The danger is not imposition of gay marriage by a state legislature locally nearly as much as the imposition of gay marriage nationally by the judiciary, pretending that an already existing law already imposed gay marriage on us.

This Amendment goes beyond blocking the Supreme Court from finding a right to gay marriage.

If the goal is only to block the Judiciary, why not just say:

"A State shall have the sole power to decide the legal status of marriages between two adult persons of the same sex."

[Snuffington]

If the goal is only to block the Judiciary, why not just say: "A State shall have the sole power to decide the legal status of marriages between two adult persons of the same sex."

If this was a theoretical issue, you'd have a point. But, again, there isn't any disagreement on this issue in the populace of any state. 50 states agree marriage means a man and a woman. Heck, all the history of Western civilization says the same. Why should an amendment leave this matter open for debate, any more than it should leave open the definition of "dog"?

Additionally, there is the complication of the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, which suggests (with considerable precident) that a legal marriage in any state must be recognized in ALL states.

[Diddle E. Squat]

The countermeasure is the amendment process, of course. Every amendment should be contemplated to ensure - as best possible - that it is not "mob rule" but rather a wisely implemented modification of our nation's fundamental principles. The amendment in question here is the Federal Marriage Amendment, and so my remarks are directed specifically at this proposal. In theory, one could say that our entire system of government is based upon "mob rule" so perhaps my choice of expression was not ideal.. My contention is that the FMA represents a stark departure from the structure & principles which undergird the United States, in much the same manner as did the Prohibition amendment in its own era.

OK, I can see exactly your point now. Thanks for explaining it.

This FMA would not get approved because 75% of the population supports it. That is false. In fact, much of the 63% high end estimate of nationwide support is in truth quite indifferent, or at best lukewarm. This FMA is likely to secure ratification because that 35% which feels so vehemently on this subject can leverage themselves into a disproportionate impact.

But I have to ask: as opposed to the 2-8% of the population who feel so vehemently on the subject as to leverage their influence in a single state into a backdoor legal forcing of their will onto the other 49 states?