Marriage Amendment?
POSTED BY: Connorflynn
UPDATED: Thursday, August 12, 2004 20:33
VIEWED: 10254
PAGE 2 of 5
Quote:
Our laws are governed by our constitution, thus I agree there is a need for an amendment to prevent discrimination in this regard.
More laws are rarely the best path to more freedom.
If state laws governing marraige are the issue, wouldn't the solution be to have the state legislatures strike those laws?
That failing, we could always propose a constitutional ammendemnt forbidding Congress and the States from admitting impediments to the marraige of true minds...
It's hard to imagine things swinging this way - but to me it seems like a perfect opportunity to re-evaluate the way we've been doing things all along.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
If this amendment is passed, it will be the first time the US Constitution is amended to take away a citizen's rights. Wouldn't that be a crying shame.
Wow. Thats a loaded statement. Lets just gloss over the 18th Amend since it was quashed by the 22st.
Lets go in order and I'm sure I'll miss some but this is a good sample.
4th- takes away a person's right to be free from search and seizure, so long as its reasonable.
5th- takes away a person's right to property, so long as just compensation is given (eminent domain).
13- takes away a person's right to keep and own slaves...can't say I disagree, there are some rights we had that we really don't need.
14- takes away a person's right to seek and hold office if they held such office, then chose to support a rebellion. It also eliminates collection remedies for loans given in aid of such rebellion.
15- limits the existing power of the electorate by expanding the right to vote, again a good thing.
16- for the love of God...INCOME TAX!!!!!!!
19- see 15, allowing women to vote reduces the power of the men.
22- limits the number of times a person can be elected President. I bet Clinton fans don't like this one.
26- see 15, and 19 and ask yourself 'what were they thinking'? Just because a person is old enough to get drafted and die for their country does not mean they have the judgement to exercise the vote. If we can't trust them with beer how can we trust them to choose our leaders?
Thats a start and does not include all the court decisions that have defined the amendments to both add to and limit the rights enumerated.
Quote:
State issue? Why is it a government issue at all? Wasn't it the church that started this whole thing of "joined by God, yadda yadda"? Why is it now something goverment puts their nose into?
Marriage is personal. Marriage is private. Marriage is NOT the business of government or church busybodies.
No. As far as govt is concerned marriage is a legal act. It has legal consequences and benefits. Thus it is a govt function. Normally its a state issue, but when it treads beyond its normal boundaries into Constitutional ground, then the Federal govt gets to have a say. Think Mormons, interracial couples (Loving v. Virginia comes to mind), and Full Faith and Credit.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If state laws governing marraige are the issue, wouldn't the solution be to have the state legislatures strike those laws?
yipes..if you thought the original amendment issue was opening a can of worms LOL..I cringe to think of what would come from that hehehe. You might as well write off any resolution to the Gay rights issue for this century. Now instead of it being a federal issue..it would be 50 individual states rights issues with a Federal mandate **runs away screaming**
Quote:
That failing, we could always propose a constitutional ammendemnt forbidding Congress and the States from admitting impediments to the marraige of true minds...
see above LOL
Quote:
It's hard to imagine things swinging this way - but to me it seems like a perfect opportunity to re-evaluate the way we've been doing things all along.
Not sure I follow you here..the way we've been doing what things?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
no true conservative would want to rewrite the constitution....
and putting homophobia into the constitution...
yes, that is a way to make future generations proud.
Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. As President, he built the Republican Party into a strong national organization. Further, he rallied most of the northern Democrats to the Union cause. On January 1, 1863, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation that declared forever free those slaves within the Confederacy.
Article XIII.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Proposal and Ratification
The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Thirty-eighth Congress, on the 31st day of January, 1865, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 18th of December, 1865, to have been ratified by the legislatures of twenty-seven of the thirty-six States.
Sometimes, there are good reasons to Amend the Constitution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Quote:
If state laws governing marriage are the issue, wouldn't the solution be to have the state legislatures strike those laws?
yipes..if you thought the original amendment issue was opening a can of worms LOL..I cringe to think of what would come from that hehehe. You might as well write off any resolution to the Gay rights issue for this century.
I'm not saying it would be easy. I am saying this goes beyond Gay rights. I don't see why the government should have any authority over marriage. Any chance to deprive the government of powers that should properly belong to the individuals involved seems like a good thing to me.
Quote:
it would be 50 individual states rights issues with a Federal mandate **runs away screaming**
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I'm not suggesting a federal mandate. I'm suggesting that the federal government stay the hell out of it while citizens and their state legislators take the responsibility of correcting this malappropriation of power.
Quote:We've been working under the assumption that "marriage" is, by some necessity, a government regulated legal action. I question that assumption. I say we do things in such a way that the government has no involvement in marriage.
the way we've been doing what things?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Very interesting thread.
In an historical context, marriage was always a civil affair, since it involved the exchange of property, cash, etc. - it was seen as a contract. It wasn't until the 15th century, I believe, where the church stepped-in, developing it's marriage ceremony, etc. Being the heathen that I am, my thoughts are: oh yeah, cash in on a lucrative business! I went looking for some info on this, but for some reason, the catholic dictionary wouldn't give me any creation dates for their marriage ceremony. Huh, go figure. But then, considering my own biases, maybe I didn't look all that hard.
I am completely in favor of legal homosexual unions. Why not? They're consenting adults, and to my mind, that's all that matters.
Remember - not too long ago, it was illegal to have bi-racial marriages. Hmmmmmmmm.......
****
Noah's Ark is a problem.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Are you sure about that? Certainly wealthy folk of some cultures drafted contracts, but wouldn't normal people just have to worry about the spouse's family coming after them if they violated any agreement?
In an historical context, marriage was always a civil affair, since it involved the exchange of property, cash, etc.
Quote:
It wasn't until the 15th century, I believe, where the church stepped-in, developing it's marriage ceremony, etc. . .the catholic dictionary wouldn't give me any creation dates for their marriage ceremony.
1563 the Council of Trent required that Catholic weddings be officiated by a priest with 2 witnesses present. I don't know about the actual wedding ceremony as it's celebrated today. The Church was often involved in the ceremonies before then, but it wasn't an official or required involvement. At some point (including the colonization of the US) the Church of England didn't allow secular marriage.
AFAIK the Justinian Code (~550 AD?) was the first western legal document regulating marriage. I don't know how widespread it became, or when, outside Rome.
Quote:I'm certainly not in favor of homosexual unions being illegal, I just don't see why it should be a legal question at all.
I am completely in favor of legal homosexual unions. Why not?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you, Beowulf! I appreciate the dates!
****
Noah's Ark is a problem.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Beowulf:Quote:Quote:
If state laws governing marriage are the issue, wouldn't the solution be to have the state legislatures strike those laws?
yipes..if you thought the original amendment issue was opening a can of worms LOL..I cringe to think of what would come from that hehehe. You might as well write off any resolution to the Gay rights issue for this century.
I'm not saying it would be easy. I am saying this goes beyond Gay rights. I don't see why the government should have any authority over marriage. Any chance to deprive the government of powers that should properly belong to the individuals involved seems like a good thing to me.Quote:
it would be 50 individual states rights issues with a Federal mandate **runs away screaming**
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I'm not suggesting a federal mandate. I'm suggesting that the federal government stay the hell out of it while citizens and their state legislators take the responsibility of correcting this malappropriation of power.Quote:We've been working under the assumption that "marriage" is, by some necessity, a government regulated legal action. I question that assumption. I say we do things in such a way that the government has no involvement in marriage.
the way we've been doing what things?
I agree with everything you said. It's basically what I was suggesting with my version of the amendment hehe. It just makes it a federal law versus leaving it to individual states to hash out and leave open th possibility for each state's law to be declared unconstitutional ina litigious situation. I'd rather see it handled in an amendment fashion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Beowulf:
I'm certainly not in favor of homosexual unions being illegal, I just don't see why it should be a legal question at all.
Unfortunately, because currently Gay Unions are illegal.
A good example , IIRC there are a couple of states where medical marijuana has been legalized, however the federal law still outlaws the use of it. So an individual, though free to use it by state law, can be arrested and prosecuted federally. Thus again, the need for a Federal amendment IMHO.
I'll see if I can find some time relevant articles to support my claims.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME