Gay Marraige Amendment

[© tweed]

An old issue, but go.

[Alcon]

No.  It is certainly not worth changing the Constitution over.

[Emsworth]

Absolutely not. Firstly, the amendment would detract from federalism, by nationalizing what might as well be a state issue. Secondly, I see no reason for which invidious and unreasonable discrimination should be written into the Constitution.

Furthermore, the issue strikes me as a very insignificant one. I cannot think of a more trivial constitutional amendment, except the Eighteenth and the Twenty-Seventh.

[Joe Republic]

No.  It is certainly not worth changing the Constitution over.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Flying Dog]

NO

[Ebowed]

No.

[Frodo]

Hell, no. 

[nini2287]

No on moral and federalist grounds.

[CheeseWhiz]

Absolutely not. Firstly, the amendment would detract from federalism, by nationalizing what might as well be a state issue. Secondly, I see no reason for which invidious and unreasonable discrimination should be written into the Constitution.

Furthermore, the issue strikes me as a very insignificant one. I cannot think of a more trivial constitutional amendment, except the Eighteenth and the Twenty-Seventh.

^^^^^
Except the part about the 18th and 27th amendments, I can't remember what those are

[nini2287]

Absolutely not. Firstly, the amendment would detract from federalism, by nationalizing what might as well be a state issue. Secondly, I see no reason for which invidious and unreasonable discrimination should be written into the Constitution.

Furthermore, the issue strikes me as a very insignificant one. I cannot think of a more trivial constitutional amendment, except the Eighteenth and the Twenty-Seventh.

^^^^^
Except the part about the 18th and 27th amendments, I can't remember what those are

Prohibition and Congressional Pay Raises

[Moooooo]

Yes (normal).

[Richard]

Yes (normal).

[Joe Republic]

Yes (normal).

Seriously, why?  We all know your personal opinions on the general issue of gay marriage (although Nick surprises me), but do you seriously believe it is worth amending the Constitution for?

[Emsworth]

Seriously, why?  We all know your personal opinions on the general issue of gay marriage (although Nick surprises me), but do you seriously believe it is worth amending the Constitution for?

You bring up a very good point. Even if we accept that allowing gay marriage would harm society, it does not follow that a constitutional amendment is justified. The Constitution is a document that is meant to mark the great outlines of government, and address the most serious problems facing the nation. It is not (to use Justice Harlan's words) a panacea for every blot upon the general welfare.

[Storebought]

No need: Gay marriage is a social fad that will die out in four years time, like pet rocks or hoop skirts.

[nclib]

No.

Regardless of whether one supports or opposes gay marriage, this is not a constitutional issue.

[KillerPollo]

Yes (normal).

[The Dowager Mod]

No.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

No!

[J. J.]

No, but I would favor one exempting same sex marriages from the "full faith and credit" clause.

[Giant Saguaro]

If this makes any sense, I wouldn't initiate it but if it got started I would have to support it. Ideally, though, I'd like it left up to the states and I'd like it defeated in the states that permit it.

[Emsworth]

No, but I would favor one exempting same sex marriages from the "full faith and credit" clause.

I don't think that such an amendment would be necessary. Nothing in the full faith and credit clause would compel one state to recognize a same-sex marriage contracted in another.

Of course, with the modern-day judiciary, that is somewhat doubtful ...

[MaC]

clearly unconstitutional

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No need: Gay marriage is a social fad that will die out in four years time, like pet rocks or hoop skirts.

LOL

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

clearly unconstitutional

I'm definitely against it, but you mean the Constitution would be unconstitutional?