Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 24, 2014, 04:22:48 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  Constitution and Law (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  Alternate Federal Marriage Amendment
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: Would you support this constitutional amendment?
Yes   -4 (30.8%)
No   -9 (69.2%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 13

Author Topic: Alternate Federal Marriage Amendment  (Read 2215 times)
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« on: November 23, 2005, 10:37:12 pm »
Ignore

Section 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require any institution of government in the United States to recognize as marriage, or grant any benefits or incidents of marriage to, any union except that of one man and one woman.

Section 2. No state shall be required by any federal law, or by any provision of this Constitution, to recognize the validity of any marriage except a marriage of one man and one woman.

Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed as an endorsement of any prior judicial interpretation of any provision of this Constitution.
Logged
Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6064


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2005, 11:09:39 pm »
Ignore

No, I could not support it.

My principal bone is with Clause 2: If two states have instituted gay marriage, then I believe that under Comity they should be required to recognise one another's marriages.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28562
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2005, 11:13:25 pm »
Ignore

No.  The opposition to gay marriage is not a matter so pressing nor a position whose support is so strong that it should be brought anywhere near the Constitution.
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2005, 11:19:46 pm »
Ignore

No, I could not support it.

My principal bone is with Clause 2: If two states have instituted gay marriage, then I believe that under Comity they should be required to recognise one another's marriages.

Good point. I copied this out of a footnote of a law review article. Evidently they didn't think of that.

No.  The opposition to gay marriage is not a matter so pressing nor a position whose support is so strong that it should be brought anywhere near the Constitution.

This amendment is entirely neutral towards gay marriage.
Logged
bgwah
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2005, 11:44:10 pm »
Ignore

No.
Logged

A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2005, 11:47:06 pm »
Ignore

No.

I thought you supported states' rights.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32026
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2005, 12:49:35 am »
Ignore

Section 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require any institution of government in the United States to recognize as marriage, or grant any benefits or incidents of marriage to, any union except that of one man and one woman.

Section 2. No state shall be required by any federal law, or by any provision of this Constitution, to recognize the validity of any marriage except a marriage of one man and one woman.

Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed as an endorsement of any prior judicial interpretation of any provision of this Constitution.

Yes, this leaves it to the states.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Emsworth
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9081


Political Matrix
E: 8.32, S: -7.22

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2005, 07:58:21 am »
Ignore

No. There is no need to constitutionalize this issue.
Logged
bgwah
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2005, 02:16:35 pm »
Ignore

No.

I thought you supported states' rights.

I don't like the second part.

States should have to recognize all marriages issued in another state, or shouldn't have to recognize any.
Logged

GOP = Terrorists
Progress
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1673


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2005, 04:46:24 pm »
Ignore

Would you support this constitutional amendment?

Nope.  Just like I would have refused to turn over the rights of blacks a few decades ago to states that would deny their rights I will stand now and refuse to turn over the rights of homosexuals to states that would deny their rights.
Logged

A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2005, 07:22:05 pm »
Ignore

This amendment doesn't turn anything over to states. It actually just preserves the present law.

I guess you support judicial activism, and imperialism.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines