Alternate Federal Marriage Amendment
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:54:57 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Alternate Federal Marriage Amendment
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Would you support this constitutional amendment?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 13

Author Topic: Alternate Federal Marriage Amendment  (Read 3107 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 23, 2005, 10:37:12 PM »

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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,030


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2005, 11:09:39 PM »

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
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2005, 11:13:25 PM »

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
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2005, 11:19:46 PM »

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
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2005, 11:44:10 PM »

No.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2005, 11:47:06 PM »


I thought you supported states' rights.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2005, 12:49:35 AM »

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
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2005, 07:58:21 AM »

No. There is no need to constitutionalize this issue.
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2005, 02:16:35 PM »


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
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,667


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2005, 04:46:24 PM »

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
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2005, 07:22:05 PM »

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]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.039 seconds with 15 queries.