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?

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.

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.

You're almost to the point of dissembling now. That an Amendment requires 2/3 of both Houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures for ratification is more than ample insurance against mob rule.
Even if an Amendment is unwise, the proceess of ratification precludes anyone from honestly calling it "mob rule."

"This FMA is likely to secure ratification because that 35% which feels so vehemently on this subject can leverage themselves into a disproportionate impact. "

This is hogwash. You would have us (incorrectly) believe that the majority of Americans are dolts. Shame on you for your contempt of the American people.

I notice you don't say what percentage feels strongly against the FMA.

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?