is it just my imagination, or is this new amendment thier proposing...

[LastKnight]

...unconstitutional on multiple fronts?

(incase you havent figured it out, im talking about the anti-gay marrige amendment)

anyway, i usuially dont get involved in the gay rights stuff, im straight, and it usuially dosent concern me, but i recently a friend of mine came out and since she has i have looked into it a bit more.

so... heres how i think its unconstitutional:

not only does it make a segment of the population second class citizens, which in of itself would make the constitution contradict itself, everyone focuses on this, so im sure its all been said before, so ill just move on.

but the primary argument of BushCo is that gay marrige will 'corrupt the sacred and holy istitution of marrige' anyone else see a problem here? 'sacred and holy' dont we have seperation of church and state, i know plenty of athiests that are married and none of them corrupted 'the sacred and holy' institution.

i havent read the proposed amendment at all, ive listened to TV summaries, but not only is it violating that little 'all men created equal' thing, but also the seperation of church and state. im actuially a religious person but i think this further intertwining of church and state has to stop... its gonna lead to alot of this 'our actions are ordained by god' crap, i dont want any government officials perverting religion like this.

that and its not a very conservative sentament is it? limiting state's right to make thier own laws?

excuse my disorgainzed thoughts, just a rant, like i said i dont really follow it much, but didnt know if anyone else had brought up the church-state thing before.

-LK

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. it would also require amendment of the 1st and repeal of the 14th

It will be interesting to see how many of your elected representatives, your servants, will vote on the issue.

Making equal protection under the law an opt-in choice for states could have some very profitable business applications.

[pagerbear]

2. Has it even been written yet?

I mean, it's not like a plan for invading Iraq or crippling American social programs or anything.

[LastKnight]

3. i heard on CNN that bush was backing...

an already written amendment... i think it was thrown together hastily in the last few weeks, lemme dig and see if i can find the name

-LK

[LastKnight]

7. yea...

i dont have a link to the amendment itself, but Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colorado submitted one according to CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.marriage.reacts/index.html

-LK

[MurikanDemocrat]

4. But, it would be part of the Constitution, therefore not unconstitutional

That's why they want to do this on a Federal level, so the States cannot make banning gay marriage unconstitutional. Get it?

[LastKnight]

9. but can it even be added if it contradicts the constitution?

thats what im getting at

-LK

[MurikanDemocrat]

17. That's a circular argument

If they add an Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, that is part and parcel of the Constitution, even though the other parts about equal rights might have other or ambiguous meaning.

That's my take on it anyway. Maybe need some lawyers to chime in on this. But they wouldn't be pushing this if there were other parts of the Constitution that definitively contradicted it. I'm just saying.

[LastKnight]

18. i see the point now that ive already made a fool of myself

im guilty of posting before completly thinking things out first... as usuial.

-LK

[MurikanDemocrat]

19. I hope I didn't say anything to make you feel foolish. I wasn't thinking

so if I did. I thought it was a reasonable question. ;)

[Dookus]

20. Nah

not foolish at all. Don't hit yourself.

A lot of people believe that because LAWS are often overturned as being unconstitutional. We rarely even discuss constitutional amendments.

[frankly_fedup2]

5. Not since Bush/Cheney2004, Inc., came into power . . .

As far as they are concerned, there is no separation of Church and State. You would think that the Republicants could figure it out. After all, Afghanistan was a theocracy, and look what happened there.

We have to keep the Church and State separate. But, of course, the right does not believe the Constitution says that at all anyway.

[Dookus]

6. an amendment to the constitution

is constitutional by definition.

[LastKnight]

8. but if a proposed amendment is unconstitutial...

it technically cant be added to the constitution, can it?

-LK

[Dookus]

11. you don't understand....

ANYTHING can be added to the constitution. It thereby becomes constitutional.

Almost every amendment "amends" something in the constitution that came before it. Hence the word "amendment".

[LastKnight]

14. yea ok... makes sense now...

should have thought it out a bit before posting. sorry. ive gotta stop posting half-developed thoughts.

-LK

[starroute]

29. Your post was no more half-baked than this silly amendment

Atrios's blog even suggests that, as written, it would make *all* marriages illegal:

"Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_02_22_atrios_archive.html#107768249637278555

[TreasonousBastard]

15. It sure can...

and that's the point. You are changing the Constitution by amending it, and thus changing what is or is not "constitutional."

The income tax was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, so they amended the Constitution to include an income tax. The tax is now constitutional because the Constitution was changed.

Slavery was once also constitutional, as was denying women the vote. Amendments were passed to change these.

[RoeBear]

12. Interesting...

...could slavery be brought back through an amendment?

[Dookus]

13. yes

it could

[Xithras]

21. Yes

Amendments, by their very nature, can override and replace earlier law. The original constituion defined slaves as "3/5ths" of a citizen, and the 13th amendment overrode that. Even keeping it within the amendments, you can look to the 18th Amendment which ushered in prohibition. The 21st Amendment, passed later, essentially declared the 18th null and void.

Constitutional amendments are the highest laws in the US and cannot be overridden or removed by any judge or court, any popular vote, any President or any act of Congress. In fact, an amendment cannot be "removed" at all...it can only be declared void by another amendment.

Of course, I have to point this out: In 230 years we have only managed to add 17 amendments to the U.S. Constitution even though it has been tried MANY times. Because amendments are so powerful, the founders of this country made it EXTREMELY difficult to add new ones to the Constitution. Not only do proposed amendments have to pass both the house and the senate with 2/3rds of the vote, but they ALSO have to be approved and ratified by the legislatures of at least 38 states!

Remember, the Equal Rights Amendment, which simply states "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.", was passed by Congress in 1972 and STILL doesn't have the 38 state approvals it needs to become a binding amendment. If we can't get that many states to agree on a simple "the government can't discriminate against women" amendment, what are the odds that something as controversial as an anti-gay marriage amendment will go anywhere?

[TreasonousBastard]

10. An amendment is by definition "unconstitutional."

It's amending the thing, so it's changing what is or is not "constitutional."

Anyway, thousands of amendments have been proposed over the years, and only 27 made it through the process. It's not easy to amend the Constitution, and well it shouldn't be. A marriage amendment is stupid, and doubtless won't get too far either-- it's all campaign bullshit, and really shouldn't be taken all that seriously. What should be taken seriously are the other ways they are trying to reduce gay rights.

Of all of the amendments, btw, only one has ever taken rights AWAY from the people. That was Prohibition, which proved to be a disaster and was repealed.

The main body of the Constitution and the other amendments GIVE rights to the people, or affirm rights that should have been understood in the first place.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

16. No, you pretty much got it covered. What strikes me as odd

is that some of the same people who supported the ERA and black civil rights in the south are for this crap.

Why can't people see that rights are rights, no matter how YOU feel about them.

And since when is something right just because "a majority of americans are for it?"

As a reminder, some of the things "a majority of americans" supported or believed in the past are...
Slavery
Segregation
Capital Punishment
No voting rights for women, blacks, and indians.
Invasion of Iraq
Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq
Peace With Honor in VietNam

Not a very good track record, huh?

[AngryYoungMan]

22. You've all got this wrong!

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and, in so doing, decide what laws are just or unjust.

Prohibition was an amendment that was repealed because it was determined unconstitutional.

In other words, the United States CHANGED ITS MIND about whether the law violated the Constitution.

This is how slavery gets abolished etc.

Only crazy right wingers like Robert Bork believe that the meaning of the document is fixed. That's how they hold progressive ideas at bay; by talking about "original intent."

[Dookus]

23. You are mistaken

Prohibition was not overturned because it was unconstitutional. It was overturned because a later amendment repealed it.

Nothing in the constitution can be ruled unconstitutional.

[AngryYoungMan]

24. "It was overturned because a later amendment repealed it"?

In other words, "they got rid of it because they got rid of it."

That's not what "because" means.

[Dookus]

25. You claimed

that the 18th amendment was ruled unconstitutional.

That is false, as well as impossible. No part of the constitution can be ruled unconstitutional.

The 21st Amendment was passed because the nation realized the 18th amendment was a mistake. It was repealed using the normal amendment process. No court ever ruled, nor could they, that the 18th Amendment was unconstitutional.

This is not just my opinion. This is High School Civics class stuff.

[Deja Q]

26. "Sacred and holy"? Try "Sacred and holy cow"!

What a crock of cattle cack.

What's so sacred about Britt-Brat marrying and reaching for an annulment form 3 hours later?

What's so sacred about rabid morning show 'multiple matrimonies' on Feb 14?

What's so sacred about 50% of married couples divorcing?

Let them focus on their own damn families. Homosexuals aren't harming anyone, nor does giving us civil unions or even 'marriage' make it unsacred or unholy.

Bush* is full of holy shit.

Besides, the USA has been a hypocracy from day 1. From the cheating and massacre of the Native Americans to slavry to the abuse of Asians during the building of the railroads to segregation to today's corporate crimes against humanity... not forgetting the gay marriage thing... And for all but this gay thing, it took a bunch of judges to force the issue. Now all of a sudden, repukes are cackling "It's got to be up to the people!" BULL SHIT.

[noiretextatique]

27. right on! if they gave a damn about what the majority of people think

bush would have never taken office...given the stench of impropriety in the florida election, the state *coincidentally* governed by his brother :eyes:
i was taught not to hate anything or anyone...but not hating these folks is truly a challenge :puke:

[LastKnight]

28. that was exactly my point nt