Constitutional Amendment
 

Ignore for a moment whether you favor gay marriage or not. Ignore whether you think there are a band of runaway judges just trying to ram gay marriage down your throat (I love that imagery, by the way.)

Is this really something that should be a constitutional amendment?

Should the Constitution be Amended to create Super-legislation, or should a Constitutional Amendment be more than that?

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

If its for the "general welfare" then it seems as though legislators can and "should" do anything they feel, right?

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

Still waiting for the "everyone gets a pony" amendment.

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

No. I know almost nothing about the law but what "trendy" issue would be next? I assume this is just placating the base.

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

You know what would be better? If, instead of worrying about amending the constitution, legislators followed it. I say this as a Brit looking in at your whole political process, thinking WTF happened to half the stuff in the original document.

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

I don't think there should be any rules as to what should or should not be a valid topic for a Constitutional Amendment. The process is designed to make it hard for politcal whim to prevail, and we have history that shows a bad amendment can be undone.

Let the process do the talking.

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

[ QUOTE ]
You know what would be better? If, instead of worrying about amending the constitution, legislators followed it. I say this as a Brit looking in at your whole political process, thinking WTF happened to half the stuff in the original document.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the stuff that, you know, wasn't addressed in the document when it was originally written?

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

[ QUOTE ]
What about the stuff that, you know, wasn't addressed in the document when it was originally written?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like whether gays should be married or flags burned or alcohol consumed.

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

The definition of marriage should be consistent accross all the states, and is something that should not change at a political whim. I think an admendment is necessary.

Stu

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

[ QUOTE ]
You know what would be better? If, instead of worrying about amending the constitution, legislators followed it. ... WTF happened to half the stuff in the original document.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could not agree more.

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

[ QUOTE ]
The definition of marriage should be consistent accross all the states

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? States have various age requirements, various residency/waiting periods, different laws about dissolving the marriage (divorce) and there hasn't been a huge problem.

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

First off. I oppose gay marriage.

Now, no, there should not be an amendment in the constitution outlawing it. The constitution is there to frame the government, not the people. The constitution tells the government what it can and can't do, it doesn't tell the people what they can and can't do.

Now, that said. There needs to be a Federal Law that regulates gay marriage. Here is why. Marriage liscense's are granted by each state individually. However, Federal law requires that one state must respect the marriage liscense of the other states. Understanding that, you can see where the problem will occur. State X has no gay marriage. State Y has gay marriage. State X MUST respect gay marriage of people marrier in State Y, even though it is not legal in the state.

So, no, there should not be a Constitutional Amendment outlawing gay marriage.

However, there should be a Federal Law outlawing gay marriage. Afterall, its not like you cant get married if you are gay, you just cant marry someone of the same sex.

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

[ QUOTE ]
You know what would be better? If, instead of worrying about amending the constitution, legislators followed it. I say this as a Brit looking in at your whole political process, thinking WTF happened to half the stuff in the original document.

[/ QUOTE ]

This *is* about what's in the original document. The Full Faith and Credit clause guarantees that if you get married in one state, the rest *must* recognize the marriage.

The only way for the rest of the States to not be forced into something they don't want by the law in Massachusetts is to amend the constitution.

This is clearly a situation unanticipated by the framers.

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

I agree with the Brit.

The constitution was not designed to ram religious dogma down the country's collective throat.

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

Nor was the Full Faith and Credit clause put in to allow one State to ram social engineering down the country's collective throat.

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

lol, weak.

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

Opposite side of the same argument. I'm also guessing you have no clue where I stand on the issue.

BTW - if a vote were taken in MA on whether or not same sex marriage should be legal, it would likely fail as it would in the other States, so I doubt that this is "ramming <anything> down the country's collective throat."

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

What it really amounts to is a giant open public BJ to the base.

This amendment, domestic spying, etc, etc. I keep hearing "I'm a uniter, not a divider". My ass.

The only positive thing about this, is while they are holding their circle jerk sessions about banning gay marriage -- they aren't chipping away at my personal freedoms or my bank accounts.

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved

This sounds to me like congress could easily, and constitutionally, restrict single sex marriages to be only binding in states which legislate for them.

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

The only positive thing about this, is while they are holding their circle jerk sessions about banning gay marriage -- they aren't chipping away at my personal freedoms or my bank accounts.

You are 100% correct. Besides, this has zero chance of getting 67 votes in the Senate, so take a deep breath and calm down.

For you edification, I couldn't care less who marries whom. I think this is in many ways, a stupid argument.

However, if you're not troubled by the fact that the SJC of a single State can effectively make law for the enitre country, all your yapping about "personal freedom" is ignorant.

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

[ QUOTE ]
The definition of marriage should be consistent accross all the states, and is something that should not change at a political whim. I think an admendment is necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]


I strongly and wholeheartedly disagree. The country is too diverse. If Billy Bob wants to marry is second cousin in Alabama because he loves the way her flab falls when she bends over the butter churner, fine. If Jesse wants to marry Axel in San Francisco because he has more fun on the log ride, then fine. I don't like the Federal Government sticking its nose in the SOCIAL side of this argument. If they want to regulate joint federal income taxes for homosexual and/or heterosexual couples, so be it. But stay the hell out of each individual states' business. Family economics/law like that has always been up to the states for this reason, I don't understand why the gov't is wigging out and trying to change this.

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nor was the Full Faith and Credit clause put in to allow one State to ram social engineering down the country's collective throat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you frame it that way, but it was put in to place so that people wouldn't have to get married (or divorced) thirty different times

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

[ QUOTE ]
The only positive thing about this, is while they are holding their circle jerk sessions about banning gay marriage -- they aren't chipping away at my personal freedoms or my bank accounts.

You are 100% correct. Besides, this has zero chance of getting 67 votes in the Senate, so take a deep breath and calm down.

For you edification, I couldn't care less who marries whom. I think this is in many ways, a stupid argument.

However, if you're not troubled by the fact that the SJC of a single State can effectively make law for the enitre country, all your yapping about "personal freedom" is ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Politicians are high priced whores, and they are doing what whores do.

I know this has a ~0% chance of passing. It's just a glaring example that there are a great number of numskulls around this country.

I'm not sure I agree that a single state can effectively make federal law. More like some laws follow the people whom they affect, rather than the law itself spreading around the country.

Re: Constitutional Amendment
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ignore for a moment whether you favor gay marriage or not. Ignore whether you think there are a band of runaway judges just trying to ram gay marriage down your throat (I love that imagery, by the way.)

Is this really something that should be a constitutional amendment?

Should the Constitution be Amended to create Super-legislation, or should a Constitutional Amendment be more than that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you know the answer to this, because it is so obvious.

natedogg