Bush backs Gay Marraige Ban Amendment

[MrFun]

Originally posted by ixnay


The gay menace makes normal heterosexual people love each other less.

Duh.

You forgot to mention that all of us ******s are pedophiles.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by MrFun


You forgot to mention that all of us ******s are pedophiles.

Nope... you're confusing ******s with catholic priests.

all (sic)

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


I'd question the validity of the poll...

Look at the demographic:

Region
Northeast 20%
Midwest 23%
South 35%
West 22%

Edit... plus its over a month old, prior to the SF and Chi gay marriage ceremonies.

It does appear weighted slightly since 88% identify as protestant or catholic when the norm is usually 82% (or so). That difference doesnt invalidate the poll, it simply needs to be taken into account that this may not be a good sample of the US population as a whole.

It was done before the weddings so it'll be interesting to see whether opinion has changed. Boris's comment in another thread was interesting in that regard.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


I seem to recall that around the time "X-Files" was huge, polls suggested that nearly 40% of Americans believed they had been abducted by aliens at some point.

You'd think the anal probes might have loosened up their stance on this issue, wouldn't you?

Sorry, but I doubt that PBS (or any other semi-reputable group) did a poll on the issue.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
It was done before the weddings so it'll be interesting to see whether opinion has changed. Boris's comment in another thread was interesting in that regard.

ABCNews last night found that only 55% polled opposed gay marriage. Can't say much more than that. I think people's gut reaction is against it, but as they think about it, thy're slowly coming over to think its wrong to deny gays the right to marry.

I think Borris was right. Seeing the happy married couples is having an effect.

[Ned]

Originally posted by optimus2861

Sexual orientation doesn't even have to enter into this one to nullify it. It would be unconstitutionally discriminatory against adoptive married parents to make the tax credit only accessable to biological married parents. So you can't exclude gay families that way, since I figure they'll eventually get full rights to both marriage and adoption, within this generation if not a lot sooner.

Optimus, good try. Discrimination against alternative forms of child rearing is a critical feature of my proposal. If the tax credit is only available to the natural parents of the child while the child's parents stay married, the legislation also has a strong anti-divorce effect. That is the intent of this legislation. It does in fact discriminate against alternative forms of raising kids and it is strongly anti-divorce. There is no question that it is discriminatory because it is intentionally discriminatory.

But whether it is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause critically depends on whether society has a significant governmental interest in being discriminatory in this fashion and whether the legislation is narrowly focused on addressing this governmental need. Discriminatory legislation is not per se unconstitutional if it is justified and narrowly focused.

[Ned]

Imran, just a point about Brown versus Board of Education. That decision was based upon the 14th amendment which was passed after the Civil War to address the discrimination against former slaves going on in the South where the former slaves were indeed denied equal protection. We all know that reconstruction led to a virtual renewal of civil war that went on for a long time until the compromise that led to the election of Rutherford B. Hayes, where, in exchange for allowing Hayes to take office, the union pulled its troops out of the South. What this compromise also did was place the 14th amendment on hold until after World War II, when there is a growing consensus in America that we could no longer exist "separate but equal." The movement to desegregate was begun, not by the Supreme Court, but by Harry S. Truman when he ordered the armed forces to be desegregated in 1946. The bottom line is that the Supreme Court was not engaging then in judicial legislation, but giving the 14th amendment its original meaning.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Hagbart
+ 1 for Kerry

In what way? I understand that Kerry had to extend his remarks for several minutes to explain his position on gay marriage. His explanation was so long that the last half of its explanation made no sense because no one to remember the first half.

The clarity and decisiveness of his position on this issue is something to behold.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


ABCNews last night found that only 55% polled opposed gay marriage. Can't say much more than that. I think people's gut reaction is against it, but as they think about it, thy're slowly coming over to think its wrong to deny gays the right to marry.

I think Borris was right. Seeing the happy married couples is having an effect.

I saw a piece this morning from one of the news channels about gay marriage and Europe. The particular story was focused on France, but I understand the French experience is typical of those countries of Europe that also have "gay marriage."

What they had on France is so-called "civil unions" which give gays many of the same rights as married couples but not the use of the word "marriage." There is still a significant amount of controversy in France over the civil unions with the gays trying to expand civil unions to be able to use the word "marriage" and the religions, particular the Catholic Church, trying to end civil unions. But what was very interesting is that traditional marriages in France are in serious decline, and the out-of-wedlock percentage of births has risen to 46%, a percentage which is common throughout all countries that have legalized civil unions. The point of this is that the existence of the civil unions does appear to weaken the whole concept of marriage and seemingly give society's approval to the raising of children outside of traditional marriages.

[chequita guevara]

Traditional marriage is in decline in much of Europe, Ned. More and more couples are content to co-habitate for their whole lives.

[Agathon]

"The Gay Menace?"

Is this MrFun's new nick?

[chequita guevara]

He sure menaces me.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That assumes that Congress does not pass an amendment to strictly cross off the part saying "Provided that..." and THEN passes another Amendment dealing with state representation (like moving to Proportional Representation).

After all, the original amendment says nothing about unequal representation, it simply crosses that one off.

Pushing it back won't help either. Any amendment whatsoever derives from Art. 5. So no amendment can exceed the power granted by Art. 5. Thus even if you amend the constitution with a new Art. 5, that amendment can only go to the limits of Art. 5. And so on and so forth for any length of series of amendments. The original grant of power in art. 5 limits all subsequent redesigns of art. 5 since the power of art. 5 limits what you could do in the first place.

It's like the power of art.5 is water in a glass. You can pour the water into any shaped vessel you like, but you can never pour more water than you start with.

Though it probably could be done in one amendment. First striking that provision and then setting forth new provisions.

But striking the provision would open the door to unequal sufferage - which exceeds the amendment power. Unless some other part of the constitution other than art.5 or an art.5 amendment gives unlimited power to amend. By first striking the provision, you have exceeded the power granted to do any striking.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The original grant of power in art. 5 limits all subsequent redesigns of art. 5 since the power of art. 5 limits what you could do in the first place.

That's ludicrous. Replacing the original Art 5 renders the original Art 5 obsolete.

It's like the power of art.5 is water in a glass. You can pour the water into any shaped vessel you like, but you can never pour more water than you start with.

And striking it is like opening up a faucet.

By first striking the provision, you have exceeded the power granted to do any striking.

Of course you haven't. It doesn't say you cannot strike parts of Article 5. It would have said so if that was the case.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


That's ludicrous. Replacing the original Art 5 renders the original Art 5 obsolete.

And striking it is like opening up a faucet.

Cute, but there is no faucet here. Ask yourself the following questions.

(1) What gives the power to amend the constitution?
(2) Is that grant of power limited?

The only thing giving power to amend is Art. 5? How else do you amend the Constitution? Nothing else in the document allows for Amendment. Since the grant of power is limited to what it is, there is no way to exceed the power granted.

Art. 5 provides a procedure to amend, but also limits on those amendments. So where is this power to amend beyond Art. 5 limitations come from? It cannot come from Art. 5 ...

It doesn't say you cannot strike parts of Article 5. It would have said so if that was the case.

Actually, Art. 5 does say you can't strike parts of Art. 5. The bit that says that no amendment may deprive a state of equal sufferage in the senate can't be amended out since that would require amending it out.