You were right, he was wrong. End of story.
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:
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.
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 The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.”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
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.
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.
“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.
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!
I think he was merely demonstrating that no political affiliation has a hammer-lock on any view about a gay-marriage amendment.
Hmm. IANAL, but it’s plain meaning appears to be
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.
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.
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?
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?
I hit preview, goddamnit. Christ, either I can’t post, or this happens.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Nobody is more outspoken on this than Log Cabin Republican Executive Director Patrick Guerriero: