Bush backs Gay Marraige Ban Amendment

[Imran Siddiqui]

There are two questions though, is this a trivial matter, and do you want the courts to write the laws?

Yes, this matter is too trivial for a Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution should be silent on marriage. Let the process work it out.

And I really don't mind the courts writing the laws a little. After all, it was the courts which desegregated schools. While I normally like legislatures to create all laws, I think once in a while the court can and SHOULD legislate.

The activism of the SF govt and Mass courts has brought the issue to a head.

The question is IS IT activism? After all, any competant reading of an equal protection clause makes recognizing homosexual marriage almost a given.

it seems to me that the way to decide this issue already lies in the framework to amend the constitution.

Bah! The way to decide this issue is how every other issue is decided. It should be how the issue with segregation of blacks was decided in the 50s.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, this matter is too trivial for a Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution should be silent on marriage. Let the process work it out.

What 'process' would that be? Judging by your comments below I assume you mean that SCOTUS should decide and we end up with another Roe v Wade example of judicial legislation.

And I really don't mind the courts writing the laws a little. After all, it was the courts which desegregated schools. While I normally like legislatures to create all laws, I think once in a while the court can and SHOULD legislate.

I'm stunned by the comment. The last thing the country needs are judicial 'lords' making laws. England was left behind a few hundred years ago, if memory serves.

The question is IS IT activism? After all, any competant reading of an equal protection clause makes recognizing homosexual marriage almost a given.

Yes it is. Heres a definition for you:

'a policy of taking direct and militant action to achieve a political or social goal'

Bah! The way to decide this issue is how every other issue is decided. It should be how the issue with segregation of blacks was decided in the 50s.

So you support the 'defense of marriage act' ?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
While I normally like legislatures to create all laws, I think once in a while the court can and SHOULD legislate.

How is that within the scope of thier alloted powers?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yeah, that was such a wonderful line from Giancarlo... much more worthy of sig, don't you think .

But it was still removed.

Actually, it is STILL the 18th Amendment. The 21st Amendment repealed it. So, no, technically it isn't "removed".

Yes, as everyone is aware, it is still present in our Constitution, but the legal force behind it has been "removed" so to speak by the 21st amendment.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Isn't this just another gay pout? Did anyone bother to tell gay people that the world might have more important things to think about than them?

Isn't this just another fundamentalist pout? Did anyone bother to tell fundamentalists that the world might have more important things to think about than them?

If ever there was an issue that does not need to occupy the public energy this is it. If ever there was a time when the public will needed to be focused on substantive issues rather that social melodrama, now is that time.

On the other hand, if we can get an amendment on this issue, maybe we can get one to ban abortion. That is worth fighting for.

I would say just let the gay people do what they want if they would shut up. It's always whine, whine, whine. If they get this, they will just want something else later. Still, looking at it from the fundy POV, they are all going to hell when they die anyway, so why not let them have a little party now.

I do not understand why fundamentalist's can't let people do what they want if it doesn't hurt anyone. It's always preach, preach, preach. If they get this amendment, they will just want to deny someone something else later. Also, looking at it from their POV, the fundamentalist's are all going to heaven when they die anyway, so why not let them wait until then to start running things.

On the other hand, if they want to get an amendment on this issue, maybe we can trade to get one to ban guns.

This is the similar rant that many segregationists used in opposing integration -- they saw it as whining, and wanted to believe that the majority of blacks were actually happy with the way things were, and that it was a rabid minority of whiners who were agitating and getting other blacks all uppity.

"Geez! Blacks want integration!? What will be the NEXT thing they will want!? Interracial marriage!?!?"

[chequita guevara]

On ABC Evening News last night they said an ABC poll showed 46% of Americans support gay marriage. That's up from 32% just a few weeks ago. I think this San Francisco thing is working. It's changing opinions of people who didn't have deeply held opposition to it before. Give it a bit more time, and gay marriage will be a reality.

They also states that 55% of Americans oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Not that it matters. A minority of American can still force an amendment on us, even if Congress doesn't agree. There are two ways to amend the Constitution. Imran mentioned the prereqs for the first. The second is for two thirds of the states to call for a convention. While I should hope that the states aren't stupid enough to do this, we are talking about Fundies here. They are stupid and evil and might just do something like that.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You are kidding right? Amendments can never be unconstitutional, since they are part of the Constitution. All they have to say is that they are repudiating earlier provisions of the Constitution (as was done with the 12th Amendment). Basically say we are striking those provisions and now are doing X. Since the amendment is later, it has precedence over earlier Constitutional provisions. Basically Article 5 has no real power to bind future governments.

Article 5 reads:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Presumably, without Art. 5 the constitution could not be amended, given that Art. 5 empowers the people to amend the constitution. If Art.5 creates the power, and put limits on the power, then the power is limited, right?

So even if you wanted to amend Art. 5 (say to make it easier to amend the constitution) no such amendment could dispose of the limitations (i.e. slave importation and unequal sufferage of states). Since changing Art. 5 by amendment would invoke the very power confered by Art. 5 amending Art. 5 could not exceed the limits set on Art. 5. That is, no amendment to Art. 5 could create greater power to amend than Art. 5 allows.

Hence there are two categories of constitutional amendments that are unconstitutional (even though one is now obsolete). So I would think if every other state decided to limit Texas to 1 senator and Texas disagreed, then the Supreme Court would (oddly, I'll admit) have to rule that amendment unconstitutional on the grounds that the people exceeded their power to amend.

[The Templar]

Here's why the FMA is dumb even from a religious fundie wacko perspective:

(1) The FMA defines marriage between one man and one woman.

(2) The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under law.

(3) A liberal court could hold that equal protection is all or nothing - that no laws can be "more equal" than others. Thus one cannot exempt certain laws from equal protection.

(4) Therefore, the 14th Amendment + FMA = marriage is now illegal! Since gays cannot marry, and laws must protect equally, then no one can marry.

[Thorn]

Originally posted by yavoon


no there aren't. and u have absolutely no business deciding what consenting adults wish to do or whom they wish to love.

head out ass.

You have no business being a snob ass!

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Thorn


You have no business being a snob ass!

what is with the dodging in this thread. one question doesn't get answered and then I say this and u retort w/ "dont be a snob."

it seems like the left is seriously picking and choosing its fights here.

[Thorn]

You insulted me you ignorant ******* you don't deserve an answer.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Thorn
You insulted me you ignorant ******* you don't deserve an answer.

what a contrite way to walk tail between legs out of an argument.

dont tell ur mom on me tho cuz she's really mean=[

[Thorn]

You didn't even ask a ****ing question, you insulted me.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Thorn
You didn't even ask a ****ing question, you insulted me.

u r correct(tho unfortunately nowhere did I claim I asked u a question)

I presented u w/ a retort to ur obscenely misinformed and prejudiced statement.

[Thorn]

You know I think you are the type of thing I scrape off my shoe.