This is the proposed Constitutional Marriage Amendment

self ^ | 6/30/2003 | unk

[Snuffington]

Not two thirds, three fourths of both Houses.

Incidentally, it's actually two thirds of both Houses followed by three fourths of the state legislatures. A rather higher (and less federal) bar than you have stated.

[Diddle E. Squat]

but Congress shall have the right to adopt a national standard, which shall preempt the laws of the states to the extent inconsistent therewith.

Just to be clear, are you suggesting a one-time only adoption of a standard, or a 'living, breathing standard'?

[Ken H]

If this was a theoretical issue, you'd have a point.

Did you mean to say practical rather than theoretical? (it's not relevant to my argument either way)

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.

Then why not just block the Court and say a State alone decides the matter?

Why should an amendment leave this matter open for debate?

If the goals are to have a specific standard for everyone in the US and to remove that power from the States, then it shouldn't.

[longtermmemmory]

The state has already supplanted religion. All priests who perform wedding ceremonies are notary publics. The may marry you in a religious capacity but the marriage license is signed in their notary (government) capacity. No government entititly recognizes a religion only marriage.

The way around religion only is in states with common law marriage. But those are procedures are systems which vary from state to state. Additionally it is tissue thin easy to repudiate such a marriage.

What is really being missed by the homosexuals is that they already have the means to contract. The can enter into a contract for domestic relations. The contract can be whatever they want BUT the institution of marriage. Pravatly they can contract, it is society and the public at large that has established the marriage as one man and one woman.

Final note, it is not mob rule to amend the constitution. It is a process. As a society and a democratic based Republic it is the means we set the rules of the society.

[Ken H]

Have heard any comments from President Bush or VP Cheney on this proposed Amendment?

[longtermmemmory]

Not a thing. He may do a dashel "I'm disapointed". I think chenney is going to stay out of this because of his daughter. However, given the popular support over this DOMESTIC issue. (shades of 1992?) It would be wise of bush to take this up as another DOMESTIC feather in his cap.

the place to email the President is @ http://www.whitehouse.gov

[DAnconia55]

In the end, many will wonder what the purpose of government is, why the GOP has so many red faced, middle aged, pissed off white guys dominating the agenda, and that incredible number of swing voters will swing right over to the D column

Yep. They're delusional. This isn't going to happen.

While I agree with their goals, I certainly disapprove of their methods.

And where do they think they are going to find GOPers who will stand up to the Dems to push this?

[DAnconia55]

What, gays marrying each other? Oh, the horror. I mean, it's not like a black person and a white person were getting married. THEN I could see a constitutional amendment. I mean, god, the moral fiber of society has just been ripped apart by interracial marriages; frankly, I don't see how people function in a day-to-day environment with blacks and whites married to each other. This said, once gays can get married, the universe will truly tear itself apart by its immoral threads. Anarchy will erupt, governments will crumble, and warlords will again roam the Earth

You left out their obligatory references to pedophilia and incest being allowed now too :)

[Liz]

Rep. Engel is the author of a resolution supporting the National Day of Silence, and proud cosponsor of the Employment Non-discrimination Act (Shays/Frank), the Permanent Partners Immigration Act (Nadler), the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (Frank), and the State Regulation of Marriage is Appropriate Act (Frank).

Engel's been a busy little beaver, hasn't he?

Weirdo must get off on trashing and tearing down our culture.

Add Engel to the A-list of cultural zeroes.

[NittanyLion]

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.

So your argument is:

1. The state usurped the institution of marriage from the Church, where it rightfully belongs
2. The state devalued the meaning of marriage
3. The state should continue to license this activity

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[reg45]

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

I would change that slightly to read "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.", this would eliminate the possibility of the legalization of multiple spouses as in Muslim countries.

[Dante3]

bttt

[reg45]

How about marriages where the wife is younger than eligible marriage age in any of the 50 US states?

That's simple, the marriage would not be recognized UNTIL the underage person reached the age of eligibility.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The Court has said nothing about defining marriage.

[Luis Gonzalez]

What's the matter?

Nothing of substance to respond with?

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

We're not discussing poetry here.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The federal government does actually have a role in our government."

It has whetever power it is granted by the Constitution.

"...despite what your militia leader may have told you."

The concept of the government conducting itself as required by the Constitution equates to militant thoughts to you?

[Luis Gonzalez]

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

The Court can't.

It's in the Constitution.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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

You have a serious reading impairment.

Get help.

BTW...if your argument is that Amendments are not a permanent way to "fix things", what's the use of this one?

[Luis Gonzalez]

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

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.

[Snuffington]

It has whetever power it is granted by the Constitution.

Amendments ARE powers granted to it by the Constitution.