Okay, here’s my solution:
Only those people who have voted in the most recent election are eligible to marry in the USA. This proves that the would-be marrieds are truly responsible citizens, worthy of all the priviliges our society can extend.
For furriners, they can show proof of having voted in the most recent election of their own country. If they come from countries without elections, they can get a waiver.
Oh goodie. Let’s count how many ways Dogface’s proposal is both unconstitutional and stupid. Actually, I don’t have that much time, so I’ll just focus on the one fact that this in no way solves anything w/r/t gay marriage.
Nothing is unconstitutional if the constitution is amended for it. As for “stupid”, there is nothing at all stupid about encouraging people to vote. And maybe children shouldn’t be getting married.
If you don’t feel like voting, then you don’t feel like having rights.
Maybe he’s gonna start a co-thread titled “Proposed solution to the ‘who can vote’ thing”… 
Let’s just let this thread die like it should.
Section b) of your amendment, Dog, would have to be:
b) Any married person who fails to vote in subsequent elections is instantly declared to be divorced from his or her spouse. Remarriage would not be allowed until the person votes in a future election.
That would be necessary to ensure the “responsible citizen” issue.
I believe that correct word for the OP would be “ridiculous”.
Actually, I like it. Anything that gets people to vote has my, well, vote.
My own suggestion for fixing the system:
Simple and equitable.
Now, some conservatives talk about how marriage protects children, and maybe that’s true. If it is, they’re free to suggest a marriage license designed specifically for folks who want to have children, which tests the parents to make sure they’re not idiots or abusers or something; we can evaluate their proposal when they make it.
Daniel
How about if anyone who gets caught cheating loses state recognition of their marriage and all associated benefits? Be nice for all those traditional values types to have to ante up just like the rest of us hedonists.
Then again, wouldn’t be much of an institution left then.
Gee, so felons can’t get married?
I can tell a lot of thought went into this idea.
This strikes me as a little too grandfather clause-ish.
The idea that voting once proves you’re a responsible citizen is pretty silly. How does it do that? I don’t think compelling people to vote would really improve the quality of citizenship or awareness of politics.
Given that there are some strong arguments for complete non-participation in the whole election process (the obscene degree to which money plays a part, the foolish Electoral College, the unlikely rate at which incumbents are re elected, the lobbying system, the lamentable 2 party system etc.), I would say that we can pretty much kick this idea to the curb.
I understand that you think that voting makes you socially responsible, but honestly I wonder if I took the time that I would spend voting and spent it at a soup kitchen or picking up letter if I would not be doing more good.
that would be picking up litter. I know checking my mail is not helping the world.
Why would you want to provoke more people into voting? If someone doesn’t care enough to register and to show up, I don’t want his vote cancelling my vote. I say bring back literacy tests.
Then again, maybe we should institute literacy tests for marriage licenses!
The only real solution is for the governement to stop sanctioning marriage. Why is it anybody’s business who you choose to spend your life with? I certainly don’t care, so why should the governement?
Whatever minor function marriage licensing serves in this day and age could be better handled by private contracts between individuals.
So, how do I prove that I voted in a secret ballot?
Oh, and trying to force people to vote is wrong. It’s your vote, you can do whatever you want with it.
They keep track of who votes, just not who they voted for.
What happens to people that try to vote twice in the same election?