Gay Marraige Amendment

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

clearly unconstitutional

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

That's the standard Libertarian response.  You ask them their name, they scream 'Unconstitutional".  Ask them if they would like fries with that?  "Unconsti...oh.. yes" 

[Ebowed]

clearly unconstitutional

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

That's the standard Libertarian response.

Actually, it was one libertarian's response.

[Emsworth]

You ask them their name, they scream 'Unconstitutional".

It is interesting that you bring up this point. The Supreme Court made a ruling on the subject in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County.

[A18]

No, but I would support an amendment authorizing cruel and unusual punishment for any judge that mandates it.

[MaC]

clearly unconstitutional

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

It would be contradicting.  Since "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", and Marraige is a religious act, making any law against gay marraige would be unconstitutional.

[Gabu]

clearly unconstitutional

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

It would be contradicting.  Since "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", and Marraige is a religious act, making any law against gay marraige would be unconstitutional.

Given that something in the constitution is by definition constitutional, you're going to have to find a different word to describe the problem.

[A18]

Uh, first of all, marriage laws clearly do not amount to an "establishment of religion" within the meaning of the First Amendment. Please quit making bull**** up just to suit your personal views, like your laughable "interpretation" of the Sixteenth Amendment (i.e. "income taxes are still unconstitutional because I don't like them").

Second, new law supersedes old law. A new amendment destroys any conflicting provision of an old amendment.

[Emsworth]

Uh, first of all, marriage laws clearly do not amount to an "establishment of religion" within the meaning of the First Amendment.

Agreed. Considering that the establishment applies to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, M&C's position would imply that all marriages are unconstitutional. Needless to say, nothing of the sort was intended, meant, or enacted.

Furthermore, as A18 suggests, a constitutional amendment supersedes any previous provision to the contrary. The only forbidden type of constitutional amendment is one that deprives a state of equal representation in the Senate without its consent.

[Jake]

clearly unconstitutional

Great answer. I really hope you're kidding.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

no

[Hatman 🍁]

no

no (normalist)

[MaC]

Uh, first of all, marriage laws clearly do not amount to an "establishment of religion" within the meaning of the First Amendment. Please quit making bull**** up just to suit your personal views, like your laughable "interpretation" of the Sixteenth Amendment (i.e. "income taxes are still unconstitutional because I don't like them").

Second, new law supersedes old law. A new amendment destroys any conflicting provision of an old amendment.

I really haven't said anything about the 16th in a while.  I don't like it and want it repealed-doesn't means there are constitutionality issues with that.

[MaC]

clearly unconstitutional

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

That's the standard Libertarian response.  You ask them their name, they scream 'Unconstitutional".  Ask them if they would like fries with that?  "Unconsti...oh.. yes" 

Although this is a tangent issue htmldon, what's wrong with us saying things are unconstitutional?

I mean, what test is there to measure up to.  Why not torture people for speaking out against the Iraq war?  If we had no constitution to protect these rights, what sort of goverment would we be in?

Okay, better yet, how would you measure things up?  Moral values seem to be the Republican line- but what defines moral?  At least with the constitution, we have a test to make sure that tyrannical laws don't come to our country.

[Emsworth]

Although this is a tangent issue htmldon, what's wrong with us saying things are unconstitutional?

There is, in general, nothing wrong with claiming that something is unconstitutional. However, claiming that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional is completely different.

[Platypus]

why all this discussion about a piece of old, illegal and outdated parchment?

[Joe Republic]

why all this discussion about a piece of old, illegal and outdated parchment?

Huh?  Are you referring to the Constitution itself?  I sincerely hope not.

[Moooooo]

For the record, I was joking about voting Yes (normal).  I was bored and felt like starting a flame war.  I really fall in to the category of "Dont give a sh**t."  Gay Marriage is one of the least important issues to me.

[Joe Republic]

For the record, I was joking about voting Yes (normal).  I was bored and felt like starting a flame war.  I really fall in to the category of "Dont give a sh**t."  Gay Marriage is one of the least important issues to me.

You mean you don't intend to marry another man at some point in the future? 

I know what you mean.  I have the same (lack of) opinion about abortion, for the similar reason that is has nothing to do with me.

[J. J.]

For the record, I was joking about voting Yes (normal).  I was bored and felt like starting a flame war.  I really fall in to the category of "Dont give a sh**t."  Gay Marriage is one of the least important issues to me.

I understands that it inflames a lot of people, on both sides, which is why I don't want national enforcement.  I have no problem with a state, e.g. NH, doing it, so long as the don't tell people in another state, e.g. FL, that they have to as well.

[The Constitarian]

Definitely not

     First off I think gay marriage should be legal.

    Secondly, I don't think ammendments should be made over such petty patters.

[Joe Republic]

I understands that it inflames a lot of people, on both sides, which is why I don't want national enforcement.  I have no problem with a state, e.g. NH, doing it, so long as the don't tell people in another state, e.g. FL, that they have to as well.

Exactly.  Nobody could ever expect Utah and Massachusetts to agree on any social issue; especially this one.  This is very much a states' rights issue.  It's not even an issue for federal statute, much less the friggin' Constitution.

[Richard]

Lovely.  Two women marry in Massachusetts, and have a baby via some artificial means.  After three years, one woman moves to Utah and takes the child along.  She now is a citizen of the State of Utah.

What recourse does the other woman have?

[J. J.]

Lovely.  Two women marry in Massachusetts, and have a baby via some artificial means.  After three years, one woman moves to Utah and takes the child along.  She now is a citizen of the State of Utah.

What recourse does the other woman have?

Do you think a non-biological father from MA would have recourse in the Utah courts? 

[Richard]

Lovely.  Two women marry in Massachusetts, and have a baby via some artificial means.  After three years, one woman moves to Utah and takes the child along.  She now is a citizen of the State of Utah.

What recourse does the other woman have?

Do you think a non-biological father from MA would have recourse in the Utah courts? 

Yes.  Absolutely.  He would have signed the papers, right?  Just like the woman did, except Utah wouldn't recognize it for the woman.

[Alcon]

Lovely.  Two women marry in Massachusetts, and have a baby via some artificial means.  After three years, one woman moves to Utah and takes the child along.  She now is a citizen of the State of Utah.

What recourse does the other woman have?

Little, but that has nothing to do with the marriage.

Although she could be prosecuted for illegally transporting a minor across state lines back in Massachusetts, no?