gobear, what a fantastic quote. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!
Bricker, I am baffled as to the legal or moral purpose served by an amendment that explicitly differentiates between heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage. Why, if you want to allow each state to set their own rules for marriage, prevent them from setting their own rules for opposite-sex marriage?
It comes across less as a states-rights-vs.-federalism issue, and more of a double standard. “You states are fine deciding about whether gay people can marry,” it says, “but don’t get uppity and think you can set rules for real marriages, like those between straight people.”
Either let the states decide, or don’t. We don’t need a halfway amendment like that.
dalej42, as much as I hate to admit it, you might be surprised how many single-issue voters this ploy by the hard right may sway. Imagine if you will the NASCAR nation with whom their good 'ol buddy Dubya bonded at Daytona. Economically they’ve been gutted by supply-side economic policies, and when their pension’s haven’t been going in the shitter because of corporate malfeasance, their state and local tax burden has been tripled because unfunded Federal mandates has placed the onus for education, healthcare, and infrastructure squarely on the shoulders of the states (whose economies, incidentally, have been gutted by supply-side economic policies). Meanwhile their drinking water is being contaminated by deregulated industry, their wetlands overrun by condos and strip malls, and their air polluted by 60-year-old coal-fired power plants.
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”.
P.S. I am not attempting to paint all Southerners with this brush (after all, I am one). However, the difference-maker demographic for the last several elections (going all the way back to “Reagan Democrats”) has been the politically energized rural white male Southerner.
If the intention of the Prohibition Amendment was to reduce the amount of alcohol consumption in the U.S., then it worked very well. By 1934, per capita alcohol consumption in the U.S. had been reduced to half of its pre-Prohibition level. And it did not return to pre-Prohibition levels until the 1970s.
How do you pronounce “America”? You seem to be implying that “uh-merica” is some kind of hick regional pronunciation of “America”, when it’s how virtually all native-born Americans pronounce it.
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.
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.
Now, if the Twenty-Eighth Amendment said that marriage shall be recognized as between any two persons, regardless of gender, then we’d have a fine example of legislative intent (indeed, of plain meaning!)
My proposal is not affected by the Full Faith and Credit Clause - as a constitutional amendment, the Bricker Amendment is read in pari materia with the rest of the constitution. And there is a set of existing case law that limits the effect of the FFC clause to acts which are not contrary to the public policy of a given state. The FFC does not mandate universal acceptance of any official act from another state.
Surely the intent was to improve public health and safety; whether it did this is, to say the least, debatable.
However, it’s also the only amendment ever to get appealed (although there was an efort in the mid-nineties to repeal parts of the first amendment, they never went through) and as such bears a unique mark of failure. That’s what I was referring to.
As a side note, are you serious about alcohol consumption not going up to pre-Prohibition levels until the seventies? I watch old movies from the forties and fifties, and characters are rarely without booze in their hands; the levels prior to 1930 must have been tremendous if they exceeded that.
Or else, just maybe, the movies didn’t accurately reflect reality. But I think we can safely dismiss that proposition :).
I’m not him, but I’d imagine it would be that discrimination based on race is really clearly unconstitutional, while there’s nothing unconstitutional about discriminating against gay people.
Obviously this doesn’t prove anything, but I find it interesting that, in contrast to various claims that a clear majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, there is this current poll on the CNN website:
**Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to ban same-sex marriages? **
Current tally, with over 163,000 votes cast, is:
YES: 44%
NO: 56%
At worst* it lends credence to the “it’s all in how you phrase the question” theory.
At best it’s a piece of evidence that perhaps Americans are more supportive of gay marriage than many Republicans believe, or want us to believe.
*Or, one could argue, CNN.com is visited by a disproportionate number of democrats. But I have no data on that either way.
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:
Anyway, just count me as another vote for “transparent election-year right-wing appeasing stunt.” This issue won’t get settled until well past November, but George will definitely be out to paint the Democratic nominee as pro-gay-marriage.
And as a sidebar, am I the only person tired of hearing “activist judges” as a euphemism for “judges who hand a decision I disagree with”?
Pardon me for interrupting a partisan rant with some facts. :rolleyes: If you dispute the validity of those figures, please offer some data that counters them.
Your sarcastic comment has no bearing on anything I have posted in this thread, and I’m at a loss as to why you would infer that it did. I clearly stated that I oppose this amendment.
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.
Interesting – thanks, Walloon! I maintain that it was a singular failure, inasmuch as it was the only amendment repealed; at the same time, it apparently did cut down on drinking.
count me as one of those tired people. it’s especially grating when the person using the term has no knowledge about the laws involved. as i’ve stated in this thread.
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 polls as evidence (as opposed to various other polls or cites of popular opinion), I won’t do it again.
This amendment has almost no chance of passing, and the Bush admin knows it. They are clearly thinking about heading off spoiler campaigns from Judge Moore and evangelicals who are pretty pissed that Bush hasn’t taken a stronger stance until now.
This President cannot even bring himself to name the group he wants to deny civil marriage to. There’s something really messed up about that. The word “homosexual” has never even passed his lips in public. At least opponents of interacial marriage acknowledged the existence of blacks.
[q]And as a sidebar, am I the only person tired of hearing “activist judges” as a euphemism for “judges who hand a decision I disagree with”?[/q]
I don’t have any problem with the concept, but when the speaker uses it, as Bush does, without even a ghost of an argument about why the judges’ reasoning is unsupported, then it becomes yet another instance of sub-rational emotional jargon dumbing down our discource.
The only startling thing about Prohibition was that it worked as well as it did considering how little money and manpower was put into enforcing it, and how many loopholes there were (like booze bought before it was passed, and so on). It doubtless saved many more lives than any increase in crime could compensate for.
I don’t consider it a failure, but a raging success in a way the War on Drugs has not been.
Course, I still would have opposed it at the time, even knowing that.
