Question Details	Asked By	Asked On
Queer Marriage	excon	06/02/06
Hello wingers: (1) Do you think an amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage is a good thing? No need to say why. If you say yes, I know why. Just as I’ll know why you don’t support it. (2) Do you think it will actually become part of the Constitution? (3) Is this an attempt to better our country or to pander to the religious right? (4) If it has no chance to become law, why do you think it is being proposed? (5) Do you know how an amendment becomes part of the Constitution? excon
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 06/02/06 5:51 pm: a more recent example of the court interference is the May 16 decision against Georgia . A state judge ruled Georgia’s marriage amendment, which was approved by 76 percent of voters in 2004, violates the state constitution. Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 06/02/06 5:56 pm: Hello again tom: Sometimes voters approve laws that contravenes that state’s or the federal Constitution. Voters, even a vast majority of them, cannot take away the rights of the minority. When laws like that are struck down, I don't call that interference. I call it the judiciary doing its job. excon Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 06/02/06 5:59 pm: Every State law or state constitutional amendment that was passed barring same sex marriage was passed by an overwhelming majority of the States residents . That has not stopped judges from imposing their view of what is acceptable on the states. If they persist in this then unfortunately amendment is the only recourse . Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 06/02/06 6:02 pm: how could an amendment to a State constitution be unconstitutional ? Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 06/02/06 6:05 pm: Hello again, tom: As an example, if a state passed an amendment to their constitution that said the police didn't need to warrants to search anyone in that state (because nobody there has anything to hide [they're all righty's]), that would be un-constitutional, at least at the federal level and probably the state too. A state can not amend their Constitution in such a way that results in the loss of someone’s rights granted them under the Bill of Rights. I suggest that an amendment to the federal Constitution, as proposed by Bush and the religious right, IS and WILL BE FOUND TO BE, un-constitutional - if for no other reason than it contradicts the equal protection clause. Scalito wouldn't read it that way. THIS court would probably be ACTIVIST in the matter, and rule other than what the framers intended. Betcha you wouldn't call THAT activist. excon Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 06/02/06 7:27 pm: I never used the term activist ;imperial yes but not activist . When did marriage become a constitutional right ? Why can't the definition be limited ? Do our laws ban first cousins from marrying ;a brother from marrying his sister,prohibit polygamy ,prohibiting minors from marrying ? If so then yes it can be restrictive in spite of your definition of equal rights. Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 06/05/06 4:04 pm: Hello again, Elliot: >>>It is really a states' right, not a federal issue.<<< I read your entire answer. We disagree. Much of our apples and orange argument is based on how marriage is defined. Mine is based on one definition. Yours on another. If my definition is accurate, then it’s a matter for the court. If your is, then it’s a matter for the voter. I don’t disagree that homosexuals are highly unpopular. Should this issue ever be put to a vote, I’m certain it would lose by a large majority. Would it lose by a 2/3rds majority in the states? I would hope not, but that is something we could argue about. Whether or not the Supreme Court would grant homosexuals the right to marry is a question that may never be asked of them. Firstly, and properly so, they’ll be asked to be the “decider” in our argument. So, what’s OUR argument? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but may I surmise that your argument may be summed up thusly: a homosexual has the same rights I do in choosing a mate? Therefore, an argument about equal rights is moot. I submit, however, that he or she does not have the same rights as you, and the question IS about equal rights. If we can’t agree on that (and I doubt we can), then you’ll go on talking about apples and I’ll talk about oranges. Ok, I’ll give it a shot. You might say that, like yourself, a homosexual is free to choose a mate from the same pool of available talent I choose my mate from (the opposite sex). End of argument. I, however, would argue that your pool doesn’t strike his fancy, therefore he’s not free to choose. Beginning of argument. excon
Answered By		Answered On
tomder55		06/02/06
I'll answer the last first . yes I know how an amendment becomes law . It is not intended to be an easy process . I do not favor a marriage amendment and yes it is as political as the 'equal rights amendment ' which btw would've mandated same sex marriage recognition. That amendment still lingers in the system even though it supposedly had a deadline for ratification. It's status is that it needs only 3 more State Legislaures to ratify it before it becomes the law of the land . That is the problem with amendments proposals . They can linger in the process for years . The 27th amendment was ratified 200 years after it was proposed . I think amending the Constitution should be reserved for issues that cannot be resolved through the federal system.The President did bring up the 'full faith and credit clause ' when he argued in favor of the amendment and that I agree could be an un-resolvable constitutional issue . The one argument against that proposition is that States can refuse to recognize a marriage if the marriage violates a strong public policy of the state (the "public policy exception" ). It has historically been used against under-aged marriages ;poligamy ;and incestuous marriages .The precedent is there for a State to not recognize a same-sex marriage regardless of the 'full faith and credit' clause. The same -sex marriage proponents have brought this situation to where it currently is . The reason opponents are going the amendment route is because there is a lack of trust in the courts . In the example mention above ,Federal courts have interpreted the U.S. Constitution to place some limits on states' ability to restrict access to marriage. Recently a federal judge struck down an amendment to Nebraska’s constitution that prohibited the state from granting legal protections to any ‘same-sex’ relationship ‘similar to’ marriage (http://www.nebar.com/pdfs/DCOpinPDFs/4-03cv3155.pdf ) . Again the imperial court overstepped it's authority by denying the state it's constitutional right to regulate marriage .That is why many feel that an amendment is the only real protection that traditional marriage has .

Additional Options and ratings are only visible when you login!