Constitutional Amendment to Federal Marriage Powers

[Peter]

I don't know whats happened to Gabu recently, but he's left an open slot for a few days, so I'm picking up the slack for now.

As introduced by Senator Gabu,

§ 1. The text "Marriage and Divorce, and Adoption" is hereby stricken from section 5, clause 5 of the Constitution.

I hereby open debate on this.

[Peter]

I suppose I'll start by saying that I oppose this Amendment and will vote against anything vaguely like it when it comes down to it in the public referendum phase.

However, I recognise that I may not get my way and have this defeated, so I'm going to encourage that it make actual sense and deal with the very real comity (full faith and credit) issues that this raises.

First off, I don't like the idea of the federal government not being able to recognise the marriage of a couple in one Region where they are allowed to marry, but doesn't recognise when they move to a Region where they aren't. For this reason, I feel the Federal Government should take a residency-neutral view of all marriages consecrated in the Republic and I call on a Senator to introduce the following addition to this Amendment:

All marriages consecrated within the Republic of Atlasia shall be recognised by the federal government regardless of the residency of those concerned.

Second, adoption will be something of a nightmare if we have a situation where a parent is only a parent in one Region and not in the other four. This creates very real issues, such as giving consent for emergency surgery whilst travelling though another Region. Whilst I would enjoy running ads along the lines of "Cosmo Kramer and the homophobes in Congress killed this little boy ....", I don't think I should really be placing that political gain above that boy's life. I call on a Senator to introduce this:

Once adopted by a parent or parents in one Region, a child shall be considered the legal child of this parent or parents by all Regions of Atlasia and the federal government.

I'd like some idea of what happens to marriage in the interim between the amendment passing the Regions and them actually bothering to legislate. Once again, if one of you could do this it would be appreciated:

Until such time as a Region shall make rules concerning marriage, then the provisions of the Marriage Equity Act, as they stood at the time of submission of this Amendment by the Senate to the Regions, shall be in effect in the Region concerned.

I think it would be good practice if we also started to slap time expiries on our amendments, as it wouldn't be ideal if we suffered an Amendment coming into effect 200 years after original proposal as happened with the RL 27th amendment. So surprisingly, once again, if somebody wouldn't mind:

This Amendment shall only become operative if ratified within one year from the date of its submission to the Regions by the Senate.

[Alcon]

The thing I worry most about here is that the regions are so small that an initiative vote could easily result in it flipping back and forth. I don't like the idea of having gay marriage one month, nothing the next, and so on.

[Colin]

I am opposed to this amendment on several grounds the first being that this was more a peace making tactic than anything else. This amendment is stained with the illegal acts of former Governor StatesRights and as such has made me very much against this on a personal level.

Secondly, I am opposed to this amendment as it currently stands because it would cause to much confusion between the regions. The reason why we kept marriage a federal power at the Second Constitutional Convention was because myself and others at the convention thought that devolving this power to the regions would lead to more disputes about what liscenses are applicable in which regions and whether adoptions and marriages could be legal in other regions. As this amendment stands now it does not answer any of these problems and this vague wording could lead to more dispute and more conflict between the regions on this issue. To make this amendment more acceptable additions along the lines of what Mr. Bell has proposed would be necessary.

Thirdly, I have the same fears as Alcon about marriage laws being set and revised every month or so by the regions. Regions, especially heavily devided regions, could flip back and forth between a certain set of marriage laws and another set of marriage laws. This could easily happen in places like the Northeast, my region, where a good majority of the people either do not vote in the Regional Assembly or are not active. This could lead to new sets of rules being inacted depending on who votes. We could also see something like this happening in the Midwest or the Southeast which have smaller populations with a good number of people who would either not vote a second time, forget to vote, are swing voters on the gay marriage issue, or are just inactive.

It is for these reasons that I currently oppose this amendment. I may write up some amendments to this constitutional amendment tomarrow that may help rectify the problems I have laid before this Senate today. 

[Jake]

We kept this at the Convention by a one vote margin if I recall. We only passed this law by a 6-4 vote in the most left wing Senate, the one that also gave us the pro-abortion bill and Akno's education waste.  This definitely needs to be revisited, not just by a far-left Senate or a Convention.

[jokerman]

I give full support to this Constitutional Amendment.

[MasterJedi]

I'm not really sure about this amendment yet, I'll need to see some more debate before I make up my mind.

[Joe Republic]

We kept this at the Convention by a one vote margin if I recall. We only passed this law by a 6-4 vote in the most left wing Senate, the one that also gave us the pro-abortion bill and Akno's education waste.  This definitely needs to be revisited, not just by a far-left Senate or a Convention.

Well now is definitely the time to do that, considering there isn't a single liberal in the current Senate (unless you count Gabu, who introduced this bill in the first place).

[Jake]

I mean have the Senate pass it and let the people decide whether they want this changed.

[Gabu]

I'll post my viewpoint later tonight when I get home from work and have more time to make a large enough post.

[PBrunsel]

I give full support to this Constitutional Amendment.

As do I.

[A18]

Do we need a constitutional amendment for everything? Just repeal the law, and let the regions define it by statute.

[Gabu]

Do we need a constitutional amendment for everything? Just repeal the law, and let the regions define it by statute.

The power of the federal government to regulate the things in the amendment is specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

[A18]

Do we need a constitutional amendment for everything? Just repeal the law, and let the regions define it by statute.

The power of the federal government to regulate the things in the amendment is specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

That doesn't mean it has to regulate them.

[Gabu]

Do we need a constitutional amendment for everything? Just repeal the law, and let the regions define it by statute.

The power of the federal government to regulate the things in the amendment is specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

That doesn't mean it has to regulate them.

No, but simply repealing the legislation in question is kind of a band-aid solution to the question of regional rights, in my mind.  It's generally a good idea not to simply trust a governmental body not to do something when it fully has the power to.

[Sam Spade]

Well, I support this amendment, but if it doesn't pass, chances are I will return to this issue in terms of my compromise solution on the matter (and the Union Party's platform).

Jake's point about how this one passed rings very true to me, something which I did not take into account a while ago, but have so now.

[Akno21]

Jake's point about how this one passed rings very true to me, something which I did not take into account a while ago, but have so now.

By that logic, if the left ever retains control of the Senate, we should go back and repeal everything done in this session, since it needs to be revisted, and not just by a right-wing Senate.

[Sam Spade]

Jake's point about how this one passed rings very true to me, something which I did not take into account a while ago, but have so now.

By that logic, if the left ever retains control of the Senate, we should go back and repeal everything done in this session, since it needs to be revisted, and not just by a right-wing Senate.

If you view everything this Senate or the previous one has done as being rightist, I welcome you to repeal it.  I guess that doesn't matter whether it's good law or not, but that's entirely up to you.

The Constitutional Convention vote is another matter compared to this one.

[Gabu]

I was going to post about this amendment, but I actually already said to someone else pretty much everything I would say here, so I'll just copy and paste that and then expand on anything that anyone is curious about:

---

Let me say that - don't get me wrong - I'm very strongly in support of gay marriage.  I think that allowing two people in love to marry can only be a beneficial thing, as it promotes monogamy and faithfulness, among other things.  I think, further, that homosexuals cannot choose in any way to be homosexual, and, as a result, to disallow them from marrying is akin to disallowing a white person and a black person from marrying, purely because of the color of their skin.

However, the one issue that I have is that the first two words of those sentences should not be downplayed.  In my view, too many people drop those two words and act as if their opinions are the definitive way reality really is, and, consequently, begin to feel that their view should be the view that everyone else should have to accept.  It would be a lie to state that there's no big debate over homosexual marriage, or to state that one side is clearly correct and that the other side is clearly wrong.  There are certainly sides that we agree and disagree with, but to agree with a statement is not to prove anything about its truth value - to attempt to do so would be a logical fallacy.

As well as that, I cannot immediately see why marriage would not be able to function if not uniformly defined at the federal level.  I would certainly be in favor of federal legislation even with the above in mind if it was evident that leaving it to the regions would be a woefully impractical option that would have no purpose other than to say we left it to the regions, but I'm not exactly convinced of that at this point in time.  Different countries have different definitions of marriage, but each country is able to function just fine in spite of that.  I see no reason why this could not be brought to a smaller version in which the definition of marriage was left up to individual regions.

Because of the above, while I certainly support gay marriage, I don't support forcing it on everybody else when there is still such a debate over its relative merits, over the theological issues surrounding it, and other issues relating to the subject, and when there is no giant impracticality that I perceive as being introduced by letting the regions decide.  I feel that the best option we have available is to leave it up to the individual regions to decide for themselves, since that will likely result in the fewest people being forced to accept the decision one way or another.  Perhaps one day will arrive in which there isn't such a huge controversy over this issue and when we have concrete evidence that gives full backing to one side of the debate and that totally invalidates the arguments of the other side, but if that day does arrive, each region will likely have already reached the same conclusion, making federal legislation unnecessary.

Believe me, I will certainly push for the legalization of same-sex marriage in each region if that amendment does pass.  I'm simply uncomfortable with blanket federal legislation on the subject for the reasons above.

---

I am opposed to this amendment on several grounds the first being that this was more a peace making tactic than anything else. This amendment is stained with the illegal acts of former Governor StatesRights and as such has made me very much against this on a personal level.

The origin of the debate on regional rights has no bearing whatsoever of whether or not it's valid.  If you don't do something purely because someone else supports it, you're giving that person an awful lot of power over you.

Thirdly, I have the same fears as Alcon about marriage laws being set and revised every month or so by the regions. Regions, especially heavily devided regions, could flip back and forth between a certain set of marriage laws and another set of marriage laws. This could easily happen in places like the Northeast, my region, where a good majority of the people either do not vote in the Regional Assembly or are not active. This could lead to new sets of rules being inacted depending on who votes. We could also see something like this happening in the Midwest or the Southeast which have smaller populations with a good number of people who would either not vote a second time, forget to vote, are swing voters on the gay marriage issue, or are just inactive.

Given that this is quite a conservative Senate where a repeal of gay marriage probably would have a good chance of passing, why would leaving it to the Senate make it less volatile than leaving it to the regions?  People generally don't change something that's in place unless there is tons of public support for it, purely because it takes a lot of effort to do so and people are generally okay with leaving something that's already there because they get used to it.  It's proposed new stuff that generally is more harshly debated.

First off, I don't like the idea of the federal government not being able to recognise the marriage of a couple in one Region where they are allowed to marry, but doesn't recognise when they move to a Region where they aren't. For this reason, I feel the Federal Government should take a residency-neutral view of all marriages consecrated in the Republic and I call on a Senator to introduce the following addition to this Amendment:

All marriages consecrated within the Republic of Atlasia shall be recognised by the federal government regardless of the residency of those concerned.

I have one question about this amendment: regarding the "regardless of the residency of those concerned" bit, does that mean that two gay people could get married in a place that doesn't allow gay marriage and still have it recognized by the federal government, or does this just mean that two people who are already married will be recognized as such even if they move to another region?

I think this amendment could be more specific to address that... how about something like this:

Any marriage consecrated within the a region in the Republic of Atlasia that allows such a marriage shall be recognised by the federal government regardless of the residency now or in the future of those concerned.

Second, adoption will be something of a nightmare if we have a situation where a parent is only a parent in one Region and not in the other four. This creates very real issues, such as giving consent for emergency surgery whilst travelling though another Region. Whilst I would enjoy running ads along the lines of "Cosmo Kramer and the homophobes in Congress killed this little boy ....", I don't think I should really be placing that political gain above that boy's life. I call on a Senator to introduce this:

Once adopted by a parent or parents in one Region, a child shall be considered the legal child of this parent or parents by all Regions of Atlasia and the federal government.

I would have no problem with this; I propose it as a third clause.

I'd like some idea of what happens to marriage in the interim between the amendment passing the Regions and them actually bothering to legislate. Once again, if one of you could do this it would be appreciated:

Until such time as a Region shall make rules concerning marriage, then the provisions of the Marriage Equity Act, as they stood at the time of submission of this Amendment by the Senate to the Regions, shall be in effect in the Region concerned.

I think it would be good practice if we also started to slap time expiries on our amendments, as it wouldn't be ideal if we suffered an Amendment coming into effect 200 years after original proposal as happened with the RL 27th amendment. So surprisingly, once again, if somebody wouldn't mind:

This Amendment shall only become operative if ratified within one year from the date of its submission to the Regions by the Senate.

Same thing with this; I'll introduce both of these as a fourth and fifth clause, although, given the confusion between "game year" and "real year", I edit the second to read as follows:

This Amendment shall only become operative if ratified within one calendar year from the date of its submission to the Regions by the Senate.

So, the four amendments we have are...

§ 2. Any marriage consecrated within the a region in the Republic of Atlasia that allows such a marriage shall be recognised by the federal government regardless of the residency now or in the future of those concerned.

---

§ 3. Once adopted by a parent or parents in one Region, a child shall be considered the legal child of this parent or parents by all Regions of Atlasia and the federal government.

---

§ 4. Until such time as a Region shall make rules concerning marriage, then the provisions of the Marriage Equity Act, as they stood at the time of submission of this Amendment by the Senate to the Regions, shall be in effect in the Region concerned.

---

§ 5. This Amendment shall only become operative if ratified within one calendar year from the date of its submission to the Regions by the Senate.

---

I'll open debate on these to see if anyone has any comments to make.

[Peter]

I suggest that what you have modified the second clause to makes  sense before we vote on it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There has been considerable problems in the history of the US of having 50 states having different definitions of marriage, and especially of recognition of marriage in one State by another. This is more a problem of the Congress not getting off its ass and using the Comity powers given to it by the Constitution however. The one time it has used its Comity powers in regard of marriage, in the Defense of Marriage Act, there has been some academic debate as to whether that use of the Comity power was even constitutional.

There are very real practicality problems, many of which I am trying to fix by dealing with the comity issues right here and now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody is ever forced to marry a person of the same sex, or go to a wedding between anybody of the same sex, nor are any organisations except governmental ones forced to consecrate marriages. Gay marriage is not particularly forced upon anybody except those who actually want it.

Theological issues are also completely irrelevant as this Republic has separation of state and church.

You state that you don't support forcing gay marriage on everybody else, but in fact you state that you actually do: "I will certainly push for the legalization of same-sex marriage in each region".

[Sam Spade]

Strangely enough, I have no real problems with any of these amendments, though I may introduce an amendment later on to shorten the time to the effect of these amendments.

[12th Doctor]

I oppose this ammendment.  Personally, I think that this issue has absorbed entirely too much of our time.  With terrorists trying to kill our citizens and a looming international crisis with the Chinese government, I fail to see how the issue of whether or not citizens of this country are allowed to affirm their bonds through civil union, is in the least bit worthy of the time of our government, esspeciallt since this matter has already been settled once before.

There are people out there who are dying, because they need better access to health care and we are devoting our energies to blocking gays from the court houses.  Please....

We talk about our rights, but for no real apparent reason, we block certain of our citizens from execising theirs.  What is it that we are affraid of, anyway?  That seeing gay couples wondering the streets will make us gay too?

In the time it has taken me to type this, hundreds of babies have been slaughtered in the abortion mills of our country.  Why aren't we doing something about that.  Why not, worry about that, instead of whether or not our child's friend is a homosexual?

If some of those of us were as concerned about life as they claimed, they would be working on opening up our society.  Droping our fears and bigotry and making life easier for our citizens, instead of slamming doors in their faces.

I truely find it sad, how obssesed some of my otherwise, fine collegues are with this issue.

[J. J.]

Just a parenthetical thought.  Has any one ever considered making different standard for marriage for federal and regional purposes. 

Ah, that might solve a lot of problems.

[The Duke]

I oppose this ammendment.  Personally, I think that this issue has absorbed entirely too much of our time.  With terrorists trying to kill our citizens and a looming international crisis with the Chinese government, I fail to see how the issue of whether or not citizens of this country are allowed to affirm their bonds through civil union, is in the least bit worthy of the time of our government, esspeciallt since this matter has already been settled once before.

There are people out there who are dying, because they need better access to health care and we are devoting our energies to blocking gays from the court houses.  Please....

We talk about our rights, but for no real apparent reason, we block certain of our citizens from execising theirs.  What is it that we are affraid of, anyway?  That seeing gay couples wondering the streets will make us gay too?

In the time it has taken me to type this, hundreds of babies have been slaughtered in the abortion mills of our country.  Why aren't we doing something about that.  Why not, worry about that, instead of whether or not our child's friend is a homosexual?

If some of those of us were as concerned about life as they claimed, they would be working on opening up our society.  Droping our fears and bigotry and making life easier for our citizens, instead of slamming doors in their faces.

I truely find it sad, how obssesed some of my otherwise, fine collegues are with this issue.

Applause from the rafters.  Sorry to shed any pretense of GM nonpartisanship, but...

Gay marriage is a settled issue in Atlasia.  I did not agree with the judgement we made, but it was made by the people in a democratic fashion, and should be respected.  We have rendered several verdicts on the issue, all coming out the same.  The idea that the secessionists have actually gotten this garbage onto the Senate floor is shameful in itself.

[A18]

If it was a settled issue, it wouldn't be on the Senate floor, and it wouldn't have the support of the biggest liberal in the Senate.