Our New Constitutional Amendment

Great Debates
21

Bricker, echoing others here, I’m not sure what you meant by this either.

OK, so let’s agree that it’s a state’s rights issue. What if a state, let’s call it … umm … M., should happen to come down unequivocably for the right of two gay folks to marry. They move to a state called A., which has happened to come down unequivocably on the other side of the issue. Why wouldn’t the “full faith and credit clause” of the U.S. constitution apply here? Shouldn’t A. have no choice but to accept the act of M.? And wouldn’t this be an appropriate use of federal power?

22

Interesting juxtaposition of statements with respect to bigotry and hatred there, spectrum.

and

You don’t have a lot of tolerance for people holding views that clash with yours, do you? Lemme guess, you’re a liberal.

23

I pretty much with agree with *BobLibDem on this.

Imagine if the poll I cited had been taken 50 yrs ago. Surely the “oppose” numbers would have been much higher in all categories, and I doubt that you’d have seen much of difference between Pubs and Dems. This tells me that the proposed constitutional amendment would be very much like the prohibition amendment-- a stupid idea that would eventually be repealed.

But as long as the gov’t offers legal advantages to certain people (couples), there are going to be legal challenges. Gays today, tomorrow polygamists. The only way out of this legal mess is to get the gov’t out of the marriage business altogether. Since the odds of that happening is, for all practical purpopses, ZERO, I think we have a long, painful process ahead where we try to strike some balance among the populace. And lots of wasted energy on an issue that has nothing to do with the critical problems facing this country today.

24

Let me clarify – I laid out my position in another thread, and it was presumptous of me to assume that everyone reading this thread had also read the previous one.

I oppose the “Musgrave amendment” as written, for precisely the reasons suggested by This Year’s Model, Left Hand of Dorkness, Revtim, Trion, and others. It would foreclose the states from ever considering the issue, which I believe is utterly wrong, and contrary to our dual soveriegn system.

However, I support a constitutional amendment of some kind, because I am equally strongly opposed to the spectre of a future Supreme Court ruling that finds in the federal constitution a requirement that both the states and the federal government recognize same-sex marriage.

My proposed amendment would simply say that nothing in the federal constitution shall be construed as requiring the United States or any state to recognize any marriage other than that between a man and a woman. This would have several salubrious effects: it would foreclose any Supreme Court decision to the contrary; it would send a message to the judiciary that social engineering wia judicial fiat is unwanted; and it would preserve the rights of individual states to legislate according to the will of their citizens. I would also repeal the federal DOMA, and replace it with legislation that granted federal marriage recognition to any residents of a state that recognized their marriage. In other words, if Ohio permits same-sex marriage, then residents may file federal joint returns. If Kentucky does not recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions, Kentuckians may not receive federal recognition for their same-sex union.

This was light-heartedly called the “Bricker Amendment” in the previous thread.

I apologize for not making my stance clearer here in this thread.

  • Rick
25

it would also discriminate against gay couples by being silent on the subject of heterosexual couples.

if your amendment said “shall not be construed as requiring the us or any state to recognize any marriage” it would seem a lot less offensive, i think. i see no reason why marriage has to be between a man and a woman, and an equal lack of reason why that mentality should be enacted into law.

26

Would such an amendment be a de facto repeal of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, or would Congress have to repeal it separately? I don’t see how both could co-exist at the same time. What happens if one state approves same-sex marriage, and another refuses to recognize it? Can the first state refuse to recognize the second’s driver’s licenses in retaliation?

27

Bricker, I think it’s worth noting that spectrum’s initial statement was " Only if you’re religious fanatic with a passionate hatred of gay people and a burning desire to see gays forever cast into the darkness of second-class citizenship. These folks are often called ‘Republicans.’" This in no way implies that all Republicans are religious fanatics, etc. What it is asserting is that all religious fanatics, etc., are Republicans. This is admittedly a slight exaggeration. I imagine that there are some homophobic fundies who are Democrats, presumably based on economic policy matters. It’s not really much of a stretch, though. Those fundies aren’t called the Religious Right for nothing. They vote overwhelmingly Republican.

Question for you: You seem quite inclined towards supporting Republicans. How will it affect your voting in November if the Republican congressional candidates available to you are strident supporters of the Musgrove Amendment? I’m not trying to suggest you should become a one-issue voter on this matter, but if you support the Republican party generally, just how meaningful is your opposition to this amendment?

28

Personally I am sick to my stomach that people are actually considering legislating hate. I am keeping my fingers crossed that a federal judge will* shove it down all states’ throats, if it comes to that. Thats’ what they had to do to desegregate the U.S. It took 100 years for black people to have their civil rights adequately protected by the law, after Abraham Lincoln first freed the slaves in the rebel states. Stonewall only happened about 25 years ago, IIRC. There’s still a long way to go.
I don’t think we need any kind of amendment at all regarding this issue, for or against. I think it will just take a while before society is ready to accept gay marriage. Unfortunately, these high-profile cases are forcing the issue and causing some serious backlash.

As an aside, I think there’s an unfortunate and potentially unconstitutional overlap of church and state involved in marriage. These things are supposed to be separate by law, and yet no one challenges the validity of a marriage made in a church to the state. They would be ridiculed. And yet these religious marriages are somehow valued differntly by the law. To me, this makes the discriminatory attitude even more transparent.

29

I think his desire to put his religious beliefs on the general populace by entering a constitutional amendment is stupid not to mention CONSTITUTIONALLY WRONG. Isn’t it part of the constitution that says “separation of church and state” or something to that effect?? Um if marriage isn’t a bastardized religious institution then what is it? :confused:

30

Thanks, Bricker, your view is clear now. Not agreed with, but clear. Until I find and read that other thread, I shan’t make any arguments.

31

I really think this is nothing more than Mr. Bush tossing a little “red meat” to his Conservative base. He alluded to it during the State of the Union. This will also help scare off any challenger on his right.

Rove and Co. probably want to steer the news away from the decline in the stock market, declining consumer confidence, and the Democratic primary race.

I’d place this with the flag burning amendment of the late 80s.

Will this work? I doubt it. Iraq and the economy will dominate this election. It does seem that many Republican strategists really want to rerun the election of 1988 over and over again.

32

I think it was in an earlier thread here that I read such prominent liberals (:D) as Ann Coulter and Jonah Goldberg were also opposed to this amendment idea. I’m not really surprised it’s come to this; the only thing I’m concerned about is defeating it.

When would the Senate vote come? There are 48 Democrats and one Independent (Jeffords) right now… could enough of them defect? Would any Republicans cross over?

33

[QUOTE]
If we’re to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment

A constitutional amendment to protect the definition of a word?

34

A constitutional amendment to protect the definition of a word? Where was thig guy when “irregardless” made its way into the dictionary?

35

Would people who say that states can decide which marriages to recognize apply this principle across the board? Would married first cousins from California become single fornicators if they crossed the border into Oregon? Can Nebraska, where the age of majority is 19, refuse to recognize the marriage of two 18-year-olds from any other state? What about travel between states with different blood-testing requirements?

36

It’s balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!

GeeDubya’s handlers know perfectly well there isn’t a chance in Hell of this amendment making its way through all the gaps and hurdles to ratification before November. Hence, it is a perfectly safe political gesture of mean-spirited bigotry.

GeeDubya needs a way to mobilize the Troglodyte Right. They have been safely thiers for years and years, trudging out faithfully to vote and mobilize, while getting back nothing in return but petty bits of legislative hooey, like the “partial birth” abortion ban. And for years, the Pubbies have been able to keep them in line by swearing mightily that they are on thier side, but the Damnable Libbruls keep thwarting God’s Will.

When the Trogs saw that almost all possible power was in Pubbie hands, they expected thier payday, and they haven’t gotten it. They have grown restless and disgruntled, and have begun muttering dire threats of inactivity.

So GeeDubya is throwing them a meaty bone: thier fellow citizens. The Homosexual Agenda and Jane Fonda is just about all they’ve got and they are determined to pump this up, like inflating a Japanese condom into a dirigible.

Seeking to gain political advantage by turning on and rending an unpopular minority is just about as loathesome and repugnant a partisan manuever as can be imagined. GeeDubya and Co. have sacrificed any scrap of dignity they might have retained, they have no other principle but to grasp and maintain power, at any cost.

Ask yourself this: if the polls suddenly showed a dramatic shift in favor of homosexual rights and acceptance, how many hours would pass before GeeDubya announced himself to be a “metrosexual”? The Pubbies gather in herds and flow the tears crockodilian over “the family” and thier prissy horror over its decline. And then come these people who are excluded by no choice, and certainly no fault, of thier own and say “Yes! We too want to be families, we share your concern!” only to find the door slammed in their faces because they are not the “right sort” of people, not the “people” but the “other people”.

Fearless Misleader has all the compassion of a spider and the warmth of a rattlesnake, all he lacks is thier charm.

37

UncleBeer, uyou should be ashamed of yourself. While Spectrum’s mote of shrill hysteria is to be deplored, his basic sense of outrage is apropos. This proposed constitutional amendment is an act of bigotry, a direct attack on me and mine. I thought you believed in a libertarian flavor of Republicanism that rejected legal restriction of indiviual freedoms. I guess I I’m wrong, and consequently, deeply disappointed.

Bricker, please enlighten me. While I agree with the dual sovereignty principle up to a point, I fail to understand why you beleive that civil equality should be left to the states. Should we throw out Loving vs Virginia and allow the several states to pass miscegenation laws again? What is the essential difference between the legalization of interracial marriage and gay marriage that one may be allowed by judical fiat and the other not? And how do you reconcile your proposal with the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV, Section 1?

And why do you and the rest of the GOP think that depriving me of legal protections in case of illness or emergency is so desirable?

38

Well, gobear, you should have thought of that before you allowed yourself to be recruited.

Shit like this makes the Baby Jesus puke his little guts out.

39

Well, first off the US constitution says (per the Constitution link above):

and to which, Georgie Porgie says:

So he’s saying it’s MORE than a religious thang.

My question is, if he’s so worried about the erosion of marriage, why not make an amendment barring divorce? That seems to be what ends most marriages. Unless he’s a homo hater. I’m opting for that.

40

Yeah, but those toaster overs sure are shiny!

Perhaps, but it’s a sensible tactic on Bush’s part. He has embroiled us in a war that shows every sign of becoming an unmanageable morass; he has transformed a budget surplus into a near-record deficit; he showers the rich with federal largesse while continuing to shaft the middle and working classes; he has given America’s enemies greater cedibility while alienting our friends and sabotaging his chief ally, Tony Blair. Do you really think he should campaign on significant issues? Or is it more sensible to pull a “Hey, look at the gays!” to distract the voters with an issue that harms them not one bit?

Besides every authoritarian leader needs an enemy to focus his citizenry’s discontent on instead of his own incompetence. Mao had the Kuomintang; Stalin had the kulaks; Hitler had the Jews; Arab dictators have Israel and the US; and Bush has the gay people. It’s an effective tactic.

And in response to all you good Christians who view with horror the idea that gay people should have rights equal to their own, may I offer the words of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, a crusader for the rights of the Untouchables of India, whose struggles for respect and equality have been fought by religion and tradition as well: