# Our New Constitutional Amendment

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [February 24, 2004, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916 "2004-02-24T16:23:10Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2004, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/61 "2004-02-24T22:12:35Z")

</div>

> [@Parthol](#):
>
> Well…er…yeah. Thus the caveats, and my use of the phrase “a piece of evidence.” No single poll proves anything, and I wasn’t trying to provide proof, or claim that I was.
> 
> Like all polls, this one provides a data point that can be collected along with various other data to help draw conclusions. I wasn’t aware that every post here was worthless unless it constituted proof of a position’s rightness, but your brushoff seems to suggest that’s the case.
> 
> You’ll have to excuse me; I’m pretty new to Great Debates. If there’s a general moratorium on citing [CNN.com](http://CNN.com) polls as evidence (as opposed to various other polls or cites of popular opinion), I won’t do it again.
> 
> -P

You were right, he was wrong. End of story.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2004, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/62 "2004-02-24T22:14:33Z")

</div>

> [@Parthol](#):
>
> Like all polls, this one provides a data point that can be collected along with various other data to help draw conclusions. I wasn’t aware that every post here was worthless unless it constituted proof of a position’s rightness, but your brushoff seems to suggest that’s the case.

Actually, it doesn’t provide a data point. Using an electrical analogy, it provides “noise”, not “signal” and is better ignored. Sorry for the brush-off. I didn’t mean to be rude, and I didn’t notice:

> [@](#):
>
> You’ll have to excuse me; I’m pretty new to Great Debates. If there’s a general moratorium on citing [CNN.com](http://CNN.com) polls as evidence (as opposed to various other polls or cites of popular opinion), I won’t do it again.

Welcome. Internet polls are generally not considered valid. But, you actually did get it right-- they “don’t prove anything.” 🙂

I assume you know why these types of polls (and I hesititate to even use that word to describe them) are worthless-- they self select their respondents, and are thus not a representative sample of the population.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2004, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/63 "2004-02-24T22:19:09Z")

</div>

> [@Walloon](#):
>
> Part of the 12th Amendment was repealed by the 20th Amendment.

Nuh uh. There’s a difference between repealing an amendment and amending an amendment. For example, when you repeal an amendment, you might say, “Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby **repealed**.”

At any rate, this is a pretty big hijack; if it’s really worth pursuing, why don’t we open another thread to do it?

Daniel

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2004, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/64 "2004-02-24T22:32:17Z")

</div>

> [@Homebrew](#):
>
> Actually the 14th Amendment doesn’t mention race. It’s a case of **Bricker** ’s amazing ability to read the minds of the writers of the Amendment to know they would _never_ have meant to protect anyone but black men.

Well, more that it’s pretty obvious that the 14th Amendment was written with race pretty clearly in mind…there’s no question that it was written to protect black men.

It’s a lot harder to argue, though, that the writers of the 14th Amendment wanted to protect gay people. Of course, it’s debatable how much this matters. The first amendment protects a lot of speech and religious freedom that its writers probably would have been shocked by. But it’s still easier to make the argument that its constitutional to discriminate against gay people than the argument that its constitutional to discriminate against black people.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2004, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/65 "2004-02-24T22:34:13Z")

</div>

> [@Walloon](#):
>
> Per capital consumption of ethanol in the United States:
> 
> 1901-1905: 2.39 gallons
> 
> _(Prohibition Amendment passed in 1919; repealed in 1933)_  
> 1934: 0.97 gallons  
> 1940: 1.56  
> 1945: 2.25  
> .

So there wasn’t a significant difference after about '45, only about 5% less than '05. I would guess that the slow start in '34 to '40 was due to the demise of so many breweries throughout the nation during prohibition. There were more than 1500 breweries in the U.S. prior to Prohibition. At the start of WWII, there were about 750. Only the biggest survived so it took some time for production to get going again.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2004, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/66 "2004-02-24T22:44:12Z")

</div>

> [@Homebrew](#):
>
> Actually the 14th Amendment doesn’t mention race. It’s a case of **Bricker** ’s amazing ability to read the minds of the writers of the Amendment to know they would _never_ have meant to protect anyone but black men.

“No State shall…deny to **any** person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Bricker’s conclusion that the 14th amendment was meant only meant to protect black people is unsupported by either the very text of the amendment itself, or by any evidence whatsoever.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2004, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/67 "2004-02-24T23:03:05Z")

</div>

Going after “intent” is chasing chimera. The law is worded as it is worded, we have little choice. The law, as written, is inclusive. As a born-again strict constructionist (I done seen the light, **Dewey**! Praise Scalia, I done seen the light!). The states may not deny any citizen equal protection of the law. Gays are citizens.

The state siezes thier hard earned money through taxes (Hey! I’m really getting the hang of this…) yet does not wish to afford them the protection of thier sacred property rights that is offered to persons who are permitted to marry, i.e., inheritance and shared partnership benefits.

Never mind the piddling “sanctity” of marriage, why aren’t our Tighty Righty brethren up in arms at this state imposed usurpation of property rights. I mean, we’re talking _money_ now!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2004, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/68 "2004-02-24T23:25:42Z")

</div>

> [@rjung](#):
>
> Of course, **John.** because we know that, in today’s America, if a majority feels a certain way about a topic, the repressed minority have no recourse  
> but to suck it up and accept it. :rolleyes:

I think he was merely demonstrating that no political affiliation has a hammer-lock on any view about a gay-marriage amendment.

> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Because the Fourteenth Amendment is fairly read to apply to racial equality. That was the legislative intent of the amendment, and it is the job of the courts to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent. The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to give effect to same-sex marriages, nor does its plain meaning support such an interpretation.

Hmm. IANAL, but it’s plain meaning appears to be

> [@](#):
>
> [Nor shall any state] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

any person, not persons of any race. IANAL and I might be missing something important, but I don’t see how, if the case is made that withholding marriage from a couple is denying them protection under the law, the amendment could not be used to strike down gay-marriage bans.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2004, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/69 "2004-02-24T23:29:17Z")

</div>

You know what? I love this. Really, I do.

This is a defining moment, both for gay rights and for those of us who actively oppose religious-inspired social engineering.

This amendment isn’t so terribly analogous to the Prohibition Amendment as it is to another piece of legislation, one which defined an entire generation and which still scars the Republican party. I’m talking about civil rights, and the massive years-long bipartisan effort to oppose it.

In the past few years we have waved goodbye to the last of the hypocritical racists who vocally opposed the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Only Senator Robert Byrd remains, and he recanted his opposition and apologized decades ago (Byrd is also a Democrat).

Today history views the racists who opposed the Civil Rights Act in a highly unfavorable light. Today, nobody is going to walk into Great Debates and start saying it was a bad idea. Acceptance of the equality of people of all racial backgrounds is _mandatory_ in most walks of life in America, even if we are far from enjoying racial harmony.

And the Republican Party is still well remembered for catering to racists like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond. Nine out of ten black people voted for Al Gore instead of George Bush–_ninety percent_ of black voters! And year after year, election after election, the number of minority voters increases.

History _will_ judge George Bush and the Republican party in the same way for this. In the gay-friendly future–and that day _will_ come–the knuckle-draggers who supported this Amendment will be tarred with the same sticky brush of hatred and bigotry. Today’s young Republicans will have to excuse and explain themselves to a disapproving public decades from now. Their mere presence in Congress will cast a pallor of mistrust over their party, just as Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms did for so long. And worse still for all of you conservatives out there, it will once again give your positions the reek of bigotry, however reasonable they may be. Bigotry _and_ racism, in a country which is hurtling toward a heterogeous future.

The Amendment won’t pass. It’s not going to harm gay people. Even if it does pass, it will soon be repealed, because legislation of hatred never lasts long. Liberals will never allow anyone to forget that it happened, though.

But you conservatives? You’re f@\<ked, whether you support this or not. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But some day you’re going to wake up and find that your Party tied you to the bed while you were passed out, and then an enormous hulking weight lifter wearing a Spider Man suit is going to come out of the hotel bathroom and give it to you without Vaseline.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2004, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/70 "2004-02-24T23:57:05Z")

</div>

> [@Sofa King](#):
>
> But you conservatives? You’re f@\<ked, whether you support this or not. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But some day you’re going to wake up and find that your Party tied you to the bed while you were passed out, and then an enormous hulking weight lifter wearing a Spider Man suit is going to come out of the hotel bathroom and give it to you without Vaseline.

Nice. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I’m curious: I’ve feared for a while that Bush would put his full support behind the proposed amendment, and I suspect it will be a lynchpin issue for the upcoming presidential campaign. I honestly don’t know if it could pass. Doesn’t matter for the present.

I just remember that Bush doesn’t need a majority to win the election.

Anyway, back to interesting debate about constitutional law: If ever a portion of the Constitution could find itself in contradiction of other portions of the constitution, this proposed amendment might be it. Is it possible for an amendment to wind up in the dustbin even if it’s cleared all the necessary hurdles of congressional and state referendum? Could the Supreme Court stop the whole thing at some point in the process if the proposed amendment cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2004, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/71 "2004-02-24T23:57:47Z")

</div>

> [@Sofa King](#):
>
> But you conservatives? You’re f@\<ked, whether you support this or not. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But some day you’re going to wake up and find that your Party tied you to the bed while you were passed out, and then an enormous hulking weight lifter wearing a Spider Man suit is going to come out of the hotel bathroom and give it to you without Vaseline.

Nice. :rolleyes:

I’ve feared for a while that Bush would put his full support behind the proposed amendment, and I suspect it will be a lynchpin issue for the upcoming presidential campaign. I honestly don’t know if it could pass. Doesn’t matter for the present.

I just remember that Bush doesn’t need a majority to win the election.

Anyway, back to interesting debate about constitutional law: If ever a portion of the Constitution could find itself in contradiction of other portions of the constitution, this proposed amendment might be it. Is it possible for an amendment to wind up in the dustbin even if it’s cleared all the necessary hurdles of congressional and state referendum? Could the Supreme Court stop the whole thing at some point in the process if the proposed amendment cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\
**Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/72 "2004-02-25T00:01:15Z")

</div>

I hit preview, goddamnit. Christ, either I can’t post, or this happens.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Unregistered\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3da27b/32.png) [@Unregistered\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unregistered_Bull)\
**Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/73 "2004-02-25T00:38:46Z")

</div>

> [@kwildcat](#):
>
> **dalej42** ,
> 
> But if you suggest their possession of firearms be federally regulated (the same way that, oh, say, owning a pickup truck is regulated?), they will turn Hard Right so fast you’ll get whiplash. Same goes for any attempt by them sicko queers to take over “uh-Merica”.

Firearms are already heavily federally regulated. In many ways, more so automobiles. Sorry for the thread hijack.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Unregistered\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3da27b/32.png) [@Unregistered\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unregistered_Bull)\
**Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/74 "2004-02-25T00:55:50Z")

</div>

> [@Machetero](#):
>
> Firearms are already heavily federally regulated. In many ways, more so automobiles. Sorry for the thread hijack.

Can’t edit 😕

Anyway, the post should have read: Firearms are already heavily federally regulated. In many ways, more so than automobiles. Sorry for the thread hijack.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\
**Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/75 "2004-02-25T01:09:01Z")

</div>

> [@Sofa King](#):
>
> But you conservatives? You’re f@\<ked, whether you support this or not. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But some day you’re going to wake up and find that your Party tied you to the bed while you were passed out, and then an enormous hulking weight lifter wearing a Spider Man suit is going to come out of the hotel bathroom and give it to you without Vaseline.

Why are conservatives screwed if they support it? Guys like Krauthammer have come out publically against it. The more libertarian-leaning conservatives will oppose the amendment, but you are right in that it should get support pretty much across the board by the Republicans.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\
**Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/76 "2004-02-25T01:28:16Z")

</div>

> [@Loopydude](#):
>
> If ever a portion of the Constitution could find itself in contradiction of other portions of the constitution, this proposed amendment might be it. Is it possible for an amendment to wind up in the dustbin even if it’s cleared all the necessary hurdles of congressional and state referendum? Could the Supreme Court stop the whole thing at some point in the process if the proposed amendment cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution?

No, because amendments change the Constitution. The Constitution said, for example, that Senators are to be appointed by the legislature. The 17th amendment contradicted that, and so now it’s the 17th amendment that’s valid and not the original text. If an amendment can’t be reconciled with the existing text, it’s the amendment that takes precedence.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/47e85d/32.png) [@Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Lance_Murdoch)\
**Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/77 "2004-02-25T01:29:37Z")

</div>

It’s only February 24th and Bush has already shot his entire wad.

I really doubt this will pass by the way. It needs overwhelming support and most people don’t want to amend the constitution. 34 Senators can kill it. 13 states can kill it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\
**Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/78 "2004-02-25T01:54:20Z")

</div>

OK, then he’s only guilty of _intent_ to commit a Dastardly Act.

But I think you’re right, not necessarily for that reason. I think the true Republican, the political and moral heirs of Barry Goldwater, will rise _en masse_ to repudiate this divisive and bigoted outrage, instantly rebuking their leadership for such behavior, and repudiating without hesitation any attempt to provoke division in our citizenry.

They will look upon the political advantages to be gained from this, and sternly turn thier faces against, in a pious display of virtue unaffected by the temptations of cynical politics.

I further intend to sink my entire fortune in umbrella futures, as they will be very valuable under these circumstances, with pig flop falling from the skies.

_“The Constitution says that all men are created equal, and it doesn’t say that all men are created equal except for gays. Just like everyone else who is born in this country, gays are endowed by their creator, God, with inalienable rights, and among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”_

Sen. Barry Goldwater

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\
**Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/79 "2004-02-25T02:15:18Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> I agree, and I have said elsewhere on this board that I would also support a move to remove marriage entirely from the purview of government. Let a state decide that every union that’s given recognition be a civil union, no matter what genitals that participants have, and leave it at that.

Exactly, **Bricker**. It’s as simple as that. That there _is_ a union should be the _only_ concern of the state.  
And what do polls have to do with this issue? What the majority wants and doesn’t want is only relevant where the thing has a direct impact on that majority.  
A couple of queers affirming their relationship is in no way going to lessen the civil union of any “traditional” couple. In fact, I think these unions would actually _strengthen_ all unions. Partly by increasing their numbers.  
Peace,  
mangeorge

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\
**Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916/80 "2004-02-25T02:19:48Z")

</div>

> [@Sofa King](#):
>
> But you conservatives? You’re f@\<ked, whether you support this or not.

Nobody is more outspoken on this than Log Cabin Republican Executive Director Patrick Guerriero:

> [@](#):
>
> Log Cabin Republicans are more determined than ever to fight the anti-family Constitutional amendment with all our resources. Writing discrimination into our Constitution violates conservative and Republican principles. This amendment would not strengthen marriage — it would weaken our nation. As conservative Republicans, we are outraged that any Republican — particularly the leader of our party and this nation — would support any effort to use our sacred United States Constitution as a way of scoring political points in an election year.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916.md?page=3)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-new-constitutional-amendment/230916.md?page=5)