Well, we knew he was going to make a statement regarding gay marriage. We knew it wasn’t going to be good. But I was taken aback at the vicious, hateful look he had in his eyes when he addressed the camera and said they were going to make the issue constitutional. Did anyone else notice that?
I’m not too talented in the “Pit Technique” department. Can someone please put my rage to music? Choreograph it a little? Make it sing? This pathetic fuck deserves a full-blown, balls-to-the-wall pitting. :mad:
On the contrary, the President was right to raise the issue of a constitutional amendment. There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and it is an issue that belongs to the legislature of each state, not the state or federal courts, to create. I support a civil union that confers the rights and responsibilities of marriage, but I do not support the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions. However, if the will of the people, expressed through their elected representatives, were to show otherwise, I’d certainly accept it. What is unpalatable is the spectre of the issue being forced by new interpretations of the existing constitutional language. And a constitutional amendment would certainly forestall that and place the issue squarely where it belongs.
I just wish they’d take all the money they spend so they can jabber about people’s personal lives and put it into something useful like space exploration, or road repair, or government-subsidized nose flute symphonies.
So does it belong in the legislature or does it belong in the Constitution?
Legalities aside, doesn’t it strike you as being rather, um, FOCUSED for the President to support a constitutional amendment that will exist solely to combat the spread of gay marriage? The courts interpret the Constitution in creative ways, ways that don’t precisely match the wording, all the time. Why this issue? Do you not find that to be a rather bizarre priority for Constitutional enshrinement?
WHY is it right to do this? Do you honestly believe that there is marginal value in the government(s) going to the time and expense, millions upon millions of dollars of expenses, to hammer away at this one rather silly issue?
Damn “database error” ate my first attempt to reply to this tripe, so I hope my reconstruction captures some of my original piss-offedness.
You may be more knowledgable on the subject than I, but I am unaware of any SCOTUS decision on the topic of same-sex marriage finding there is no such right. Neither am I aware of any decision extending marriage rights to same-sex couples which relied on the federal constitution. Vermont, Hawaii, Alaska and Massachusetts courts all relied on their respective state constitutions.
Now, here I thought the role of the courts was to interpret the constitution and the laws and determine whether State action was in accordance with them. And not to drag up the admittedly rather tired miscegenation argument, but I have to ask, did SCOTUS err in deciding Loving v Virginia and striking down miscegenation laws? Did SCOTUS err in deciding Zablocki v Redhail and finding that “deadbeat dads” don’t lose the right to marry? Did SCOTUS err in deciding Turner v Safley, finding that convicts did not lose the right to marry? Don’t you think that law-abiding gay people should be afforded at least the same constitutional protections afforded convicted murderers?
Why not? What harm is done by taking the simplest route to extending civil equality, opening civil marriage to same-sex couples?
That’s big of you.
No, what is unpalatable is heterosexuals demanding special rights for themselves and being unable to articulate a single reason for denying millions of people full civil marriage rights other than the ick factor.
First of all, stay scared. We haven’t won the war on terror yet, and there’s still lots of people out there who want to kill you all, and only I can save you from them. All those crazy-assed laws we passed back around nine-eleven are about to expire, and we dare not let that happen, which certainly will if you people elect a Democrat.
Only Republicans can save you from the bad people. Remember that.
Now, where was I? Oh, yeah. Republicans cut your taxes. Remember that, too. Because if you elect a Democrat, taxes will go up. They’ll have to.
The world is a better and safer place with me as your President. Admittedly, it’s nowhere near as peaceful or prosperous as it was when I took office, but you aren’t supposed to be smart enough to figure that out.
Hey, we sure kicked those ragheads’ butts, didn’t we? I may have cost America her credibility in every other department in the world’s eyes, but they sure know that when we say we’re gonna come kick their asses, we MEAN it!
I sure love old people. We must do more to help our old people. Like privatizing Medicare, and other stuff that will… um… help our old people.
I sure love little children, too. We must do more to help education. Like privatizing it, instituting voucher systems, and punishing bad schools that can’t manage No Child Left Behind standards without more funding, which I did not provide, so I could allow for that big tax cut. Children are good. Schools are bad. We should punish those bad, bad schools. For the sake of our children.
I had some other stuff to say, but I forgot it, and I’m tired and I want my scotch and soda, so … um… God bless the United States, and goodnight, everyone."
When we have an issue that even divides the conservative Republicans – and there are more than a few of them opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment because of how it vitiates “states rights” –
And when the majority of people in this country are forced to decide between mandating by Constitutional-strength law the particular viewpoint of a predominantly religious faction, and their understanding of America as a free country where you and I can do anything not forbidden by law, even if one of us is inclined to think it’s the wrong thing for the other one to do –
I have a strong opinion that the American love for freedom, and for limited government, will prevail over this. Especially if an intelligent Congressman decides to invoke the precedent of the 21st Amendment, and call for ratification by state conventions rather than legislatures.
Polycarp, I hope that you are right. I don’t think that this is something that should be put in the Constitution. I’m hoping that Bush doing this will alienate enough centrist voters that he loses the election.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the President is proposing; for my part, I support a federal constitutional amendment that says something like, “Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as to require the United States or any state to recognize same-sex marriages.”
In other words, if a state wants to, by all means let 'em – but if a state does not want to, the federal constitution will not force them to.
No, marriage is quite properly the province of the states, with the caveat that the Due Process Clause forbids the states from invidiously discriminating on the basis of religion or race when it comes to marriage, just as it forbids such invidious distinctions when it comes to any of their laws.
In the absence of any decision affirmatively establishing such a right, I am perfectly entitled to conclude that the right, if it exists at all, is not a federally-protected right. For you to say that it IS a federally-protected right, it falls to you to show, by statute or common law, where it is protected - not I to show that it doesn’t exist.
Of course, the Supreme Court may possibly discover such a right in the federal constitution. It is against that possibility that the federal constitutional amendment is contemplated.
You’re mixing apples and oranges. SCOTUS correctly decided Loving, because the miscegenation laws conflicted with the 14th Amendment, as I suggested above. In all the cases you cite, marriage (for deadbeat parents and convicts alike) was limited to a union between a man and a woman. That is the historical common-law and statutory definition of the word, and nothing in the federal constitution suggests otherwise. Law-abiding gay people deserve the same protections as convicted murders – but neither one is afforded the right to marry another person of the same sex.
To contend that the federal constitution requires otherwise is a stretch of Herculean proportions, and yet one that is not outside the bounds of possibility for the federal courts to make – thus the need for an amendment, to clarify beyond all doubt the meaning of the Constitution and remove all possibility that it could be interpreted otherwise.
For the purposes of this thread, the harm is extending the federal constitution beyond the areas it was meant to cover, by applying an “interpretation” that is out of bounds.
I’m not raising an “ick” factor. I’m saying that the federal constitution does not confer the right to same-sex marriage. I would object to a SCOTUS decision giving sixteen-year-olds the right to marry, and I have no “ick” factor there; I just believe that issue is not one of federal constitutional significance. It’s a matter for each state’s legislature. Please don’t characterize my argument in this thread as an “Ick,” when it’s not. My argument in this thread relates to the inappropriateness of discovering a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage when none exists.
Although, in fairness, every time a markedly new federal constitutional right is discovered, I do wince a bit, so perhaps there’s a little “ick” - but not the kind you meant.
Now, I don’t know that much about constitutional law, by why on earth would Bush et al be pushing to pass an amendment that basically states, “You know how you just read the whole constitution and it doesn’t mention marriage? Well, good. Just wanted to make sure that the word and practice of marriage was never mentioned.” The only amendment that Bush and pals would want to pass (IMO) would be one that states, very clearly, what Bush has been saying all along: “Marriage is between a man and a woman.” And that would be wrong.
To hijack a bit, since when is our government care about a religious institution?* I always understood that the term “marriage” was strictly a religious thing. If this amendment were to be proposed and passed, wouldn’t it violate the whole separation of church and state thing?
The legislature (starting with federal, and ending with 3/4s of the states) gets to amend the Constitution. They get to write the words that the Judiciary interprets. That’s how it works.
You’d think so, wouldn’t you? But in the absence of a clear statement, all sorts of things have been inferred as being under Constitutional protection. There is a federal right to sodomy, for example, despite it not being mentioned in the Constitution. The presence of the Amendment I contemplate would solve that problem with respect to marriage.
For the record, I would oppose an amendment that outright forbid the states from permitting same-sex marriages. I believe, as I have said before, that the issue is for the states to decide; an amendment which forbid it completely as as odious as a SCOTUS decision mandating it.
I am far from a lawyer, but if this is indeed the case, why the need for an amendment stating the same thing? Either the constitution does not confer marriage rights, in which case an amendment is not necessary, or it does, in which case the amendment you propose is not the slight matter you make it out to be. Which is it?
Alternatively, is it merely that you disagree with a potential interpretation of the constitution and wish to nip it in the bud by amending the constitution with your own?
Who says it’s out of bounds? Why would *anybody[/] want to amend the constitution to exclude a portion of the citizens from a basic activity that the rest of the citizens are free to enjoy? How do you figure that’s “out of bounds?” Years ago, it was “out of bounds” to marry outside your race. There was an age when it was “out of bounds” for women to vote. To exclude gays from marriage is deliberate marginalization and is driven solely by the “ick” factor and Bush’s tireless attempts to bring religion into government. And I’m sick to death of it.
Incidently, the only four-letter word that’s been used in this lame attempt at a brutal pitting is “Bush”. Maybe the mods want to move it to Great Debates??
An amendment cannot violate the Constitution, since it is part of the Constitution. Two provisions that appear to conflict would have to be read together, as much as possible giving full force and effect to each, with the specific overriding the general.
So if the Constituion generally says that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, and then specifically says that same-sex marriage are not a federal constitutional right, then the interpretation would be that to the extent the latter is an establishment of religion, it’s permitted.
Let’s say an amendment passes that specifically says that the Constitution cannot be interpreted so as to imply a right to same-sex marriages. That then puts the ball into the states’ courts, right?
If my state then decides to recognize my marriage to my boyfriend, will we be able to file joint federal tax returns? If a gay friend of mine falls in love with and marries a Brazilian guy, will the immigration laws allow him citizenship?
Just a couple of examples of how federal laws pertaining to marriage impact gay people. Now, it’s nice to say that George is leaving the issue up to the states. But ultimately, it’s also a federal issue.
So, if the amendment is passed, and gay marriage cannot be established through Constitutional challenge, when can it be established on a federal level?
Or is this amendment simply a way of making sure that gay people are permanently disenfranchised?