Replies

Right now I am against the amendment, but this really transcends the gay issue of the moment. My concern is how does one counter increasing use of the courts to bypass the electorate? You may say using a const. amendment is mob rule, but isn't it conceivable that a small special interest could adversely trump the vast majority and their will by achieving recognition in a single state and then leveraging that via the full faith and credit clause? You don't have a problem with that? Should not there be a counter measure to reinstitute the will of the people?

Moving back to the gay issue a bit, I can understand such use of the courts to acquire denied rights, in essence a defensive use to counter oppression that would trump mob rule. But attempting to gain a social recognition and then force such recognition on all the states is an offensive move, not relief from severe oppression. Where is the justification for such an extreme overriding of a democracy based republic by judicial activism? Is that not then government by political oligarchy, instead of a representative republic, unless there is some means to counter and put the issue before the public for a decision? 3/4 is not 1/2, at what point is perhaps the mob correct? This isn't about imprisonment, lynching, or separate education, its about social ceremonies and certain financial conviences and benefits, so the mob 'threat' is not present at a significant level, so we are arguing about recognition, not protection.

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.

3/4 is not 1/2, at what point is perhaps the mob correct?

Now you've hit on my most central point. 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.

It's not a matter of who would vote on an up-down basis but who would vote based on this issue alone. By that means, 35% can leverage themselves into the equivalent of 75%. It's also worth asking: how many legislatures would approve this amendment because they think it's good law, or because they fear voter backlash. If the latter is the case much more so than the former, then I submit it's "mob rule" that leads to passage. If a Constitutional amendment cannot secure the 66% of Congress and the 75% of States on its merits, but must depend on fear of voter backlash to get anywhere close, then I submit it's "mob rule" that leads to passage.