[longtermmemmory]

There are homosexual advocates with petition sites up already. The are soliciting signatures for petitionis in opposition. I could not find the language of the amendment other than this antimarriage petition. The media is blocking the public from seeing this ammendment. The fear the public's support of protecting marriage, children and families.

If anyone has information about who is the sponsor in the house and senate PLEASE post.

[Diddle E. Squat]

This is a dumb idea right now. The Supreme Court ruling was on sodomy, not gay marriage. So any constitutional amendment(a constitutional amendment, for goodness sakes!) is just going to be seen as petty and a backlash.

HOWEVER, let a single state authorize gay marriage, and a federal court suddenly force it everywhere else, without the public's input, and the their outrage at the methods will likely be quite pronounced. Only then would there be the kind of broad public perception of an unfair loophole exploitation that would be needed for a CA to have any chance of passage. Exactly which states do you think would be the ones to get to 2/3rds passage? I guarantee you it would require socially moderate states, so like it or not, you must accomodate them in your strategy.

[Zionist Conspirator]

"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."

While this amendment may be the only practical reaction, I myself am basically and instinctively opposed to the mentality that requires an individual constitutional amendment to undo each and every single bad Supreme Court decision. This is the same reason I am opposed to the flag protection amendment.

For one thing, such amendments imply that whatever the courts say the Constitution means is exactly what it means. I myself disagree profoundly with this. If the Constitution does not require states to recognize the legality of homosexuality, then it doesn't, no matter what any court says. While I am not a Jacksonian, I would have to repeat that President's words: "The Chief Justice has made his decision; now let him enforce it."

Ultimately this entire problem of the creation of "rights" for select activities stems from the very enumeration of rights we call the "Bill of Rights." Whatever its original intention (namely, to prevent the Federal Government from interfering with how masters treated their slaves), it has become over time not a restraint on the federal government but a positive granting of rights along with an empowerment of the Federal Government to enforce those rights. The Confederate movement may argue that the Fourteenth Amendment is entirely responsible for this, but this in fact merely hastened the process. An enumeration of rights was bound to be interpreted eventually as positive grants by the government rather than restraints on the government. Whatever his motives, Alexander Hamilton was right; the "Bill of Rights" was ultimately subversive of a Constitution that was never meant to be anything but a rulebook for the workings of the Federal Government; it transformed it into a grand document of political philosophy which may be invoked for ever loonier purposes.

Instead of amending the Constitution each and every time the Supreme Court does what we all know it's going to do, there are actually two alternative plans that would be much better:
1)Amend the Constitution restricting the Fourteenth Amendment specifically to its original purpose of ensuring that the Freedmen be recognized as US citizens by all the states, or (better but less likely)
2)Repeal all amendments to the Constitution other than those that actually deal with the rules for operating the Federal Government and the amendment that abolished slavery (which was necessary because the slavery inherited by the Founding Fathers was given iron-clad protection under the original Constitution).

I know most FReepers will disagree with me here, but please believe me that I am just as horrified at the latest victory for G-dlessness as the rest of you (if not more so). But the continual adding of amendments to a constitution that was dangerously subverted by a "Bill of Rights" is ultimately just more of the same. And, as I said, it implies that until the amendment is passed the ruling of the court stands as the official meaning of the Constitution.

[proud American in Canada]

please add me to any ping list on this issue!

[Eternal_Bear]

should be strictly a state issue. SCOTUS blew it with their gay ruling but we really don't need a Federal government with more powers.

[bboop]

This morning I saw Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colorado listed as having proposed the Marriage Amendment. And that it was going to the (Judicial?) Committee. Also Senator Bill Frist (202.228.1264 FAX)is the point man on it. I think this is correct. You are right, we have to FIGHT. You KNOW the gays will be working HARD for their Agenda as we speak.

[DoctorMichael]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........................

Can I make an addition?

"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, nor any foreign government or international agency shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

[doug from upland]

GAY MARRIAGE SONG

[rintense]

Huge loop hole... you've failed to define what makes a man a man, and a woman a woman. You just know liberals would try to make up their own definitions here.

[Ken H]

"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."

There are some potential problems that I see.

Does this mean that States are not required to marry any unmarried couple, such as a man and women who live together but want to marry?

I know it is meant for homosexual couples, but the language doesn't have to be read that way.

I take the "group" clause to mean no polygamy, but could that be interpreted as a religious or racial group?

It seems to me there is some open ended language in this portion that a scofflaws such as the SCOFLA, for example, could put to unwelcome uses.

Why is it necessary to add the second section to the first section:

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

Or add the phrase [and each State]:

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

[texson66]

I for one am completely fed up with the federal courts acting as a congress and congress not acting responsibly.

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.

At least 26 state legislatures would have to act to hold state elections to determine if the examples above would remain as legistated law or judicial legistaion.

If congress would not act on such an amendment, then the states still have the power to call a constitutional convention to do it! And even the people can call such a convention (with or without the politicans):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,...

The time is coming..

[tang-soo]

I would add the qualifier "adult or emancipated" to the phrase "man and woman".

[only1percent]

Has someone posted on this fact yet: the FMA will be a terrible blow against the Democratic Party.

The Dem's increasingly doctrinaire stand on abortion has driven out tons of people from the grass roots and has progressed to the point that Democrats of the most profoundly well-established credentials get opposed by large swaths of the party establishment if given an opportunity.

I have to think that this could be a breaking point of greater magnitude. Torn between the media people and the left-liberals, on the one hand, and the large majority of the vote outside of the urban and college town districts, there's going to be a HUGE problem. The money people are going to be split up as well. Hollywood and the silk stockings will demand support, the trial lawyers won't care ... the teachers union will have to break the tie.

Where the Democrats go right on this issue, the Greens will move in and split votes. Where they go left, the Republicans will pick up directly.

[FormerLib]

A big bump against perversion!

[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.

[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.

[Britton J Wingfield]

Leave the Constitution alone.

[foreverfree]

bump