Oh, this REAKS...

[feren]

I just got a pointer to this thanks to one of Kette's friends, who made a comment in her journal about this. Do I oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment? You bet your sweet ass I do. This is a free country, and people who love one another should be allowed to join in a union regardless of their gender/race/religion/whatever. Some up-tight group has decided that this needs to be stopped because it's contributing to the moral decay of America (Yeah, sure... see my earlier rant, Control Your Goddamn Progeny if you want my take on that one), and have proposed an amendment to the Constitution to have it read something along the lines of "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and woman."

Here is where I call bullshit. This needs to stop right here and right now. Please, everyone, even if you don't believe in gay rights, at least see how easily this can lead to laws that trample on personal freedoms and rights that you DO care about, and go to http://www.petitiononline.com/0712t001/petition.html and put your name to this. Slap this down before people start thinking they have the right to define WHO and WHAT you marry -- or worse.

Comments

politics, feh

[jenwolf.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Even if it manages to make it to the floor, it would be deemed unconstitutional anyways [it violates the first amendment].
But by all means put your name on the petition. Some things need to be fought for. It's not enough to say that it's not okay to deny same sex couples the right to marry. We need to demand equality for all couples in marriage rights, regardless of sexual orientation.

And I must say Feren, for a committment-phobe your thinking about marriage and children lately surprises me.

Re: politics, feh

[shaddragon.livejournal.com]

Hopefully it'd be judged unconstitutional, yes. That it's even been brought up makes me somewhat doubtful of that, though. The very fact that same-sex marriage is NOT currently allowed quite crushes any good opinion I have of the government's attitude toward this particular freedom in the first place, especially when it ends up equated with pedophilia and other incomparable things that make lawmakers go ick.

Do I think it could pass? You bet your tail. Too many people in politics who think with their religious attitudes and their desire to be re-elected for it not to have a good chance at it, petition or no petition. Just look at the last time same-sex marriage was brought up to be legalized-- it lost. Hopefully next time it won't win, but you never know.

Re: politics, feh

[pogo101.livejournal.com]

Pardon me for butting in.

I doubt that an amendment TO the Constitution would be judged itself unconstitutional. Generally, courts, when faced with two pieces of law of the same rank that are in some ways inconsistent (for example, two statutes in the United States Code), they will try to construe them so as to give both of them effect, but if THAT isn't possible, the later-in-time law will win out over the earlier-in-time law to the extent that the two are incompatible.

What is going on with that amendment notion is this. The unamended Constitution requires the states to give "full faith and credit" to the judgments and decrees of the other states. That means that if Hawaii or Vermont or another state begins to recognize same-sex marriages (or something close to it), then other states are required to recognize such decrees -- unless the Constitution itself is amended to provide otherwise. And however wrong in policy terms suhc an amendment may be, as a matter of legal mechanics, it would work, IMO. (An amendment specifically limiting what the definition of marriage is, passed after 2000, would probably be held to trump a broad, general provision passed in 1787.)

I read recently that Germany began recognizing same-sex unions of some sort, but I don't know the details. The more conservative federal states within Germany, including Bavaria, which is predominantly Catholic, challenged that law in the country's federal constitutional court, but I heard that they (the challenging states) lost.

Bleh amendments

[roho.livejournal.com]

While I do agree with marriage regardless of the sex of the couple, I would be strongly against the amendment even otherwise.

The constitution is a framework for government. The main body deals only with the branches of government, which rights and duties they have, the states, which rights and duties they have, and pretty much everything for how to structure the government. There are some small passages dealing with citizens' rights, but in all cases they deal with the rights a citizen has in direct dealings with the government or in trying to become part of the government.

Then there's the amendments. These deal either in specific rights guaranteed to citizens, or further clarifications and updates to how the government is structured.

In the whole entire document, there is exactly one instance of a specific act being made criminal. The 18th amendment, no booze act. Sticks out like a sore thumb, doesn't it? Then in the 21st, they add an oopsie amendment, "We shouldn't have done that." Also sticks out like a sore thumb. Neither of these should have existed in the first place...the 18th had no place in a constitution, and the 21st wouldn't need to be there without the 18th.

Wouldn't it be so grand to have a governmental constitution consisting of "These are the rights of the government. These are the rights of the states. These are the rights of the people. So be it. Oh, and by the way, no male/male action."

I hate politicians. Anyways, I'm no constitutional scholar. I've just read the thing, as every citizen should at one time or another, and this is how I see it. Keep your damn flag burning and hetero couples clauses out of it. Hell, I'd even be against a 'No Hacking People Apart with an Axe' amendment, for the same reasons. Make a law like everyone else has to, sit your ass down, and let the process do its thing.

unfortunately

[yakkette.livejournal.com]

i hate it when some of my libertarian ideals clash with my moral beliefs. For example, in the boy scout case, I firmly believe the boy scouts suck ass for not letting gay people in. However, I support the supreme court's decision that a private organization cannot be forced to admit anybody. If I wanted to start an all-women club, and the supreme court ordered that I had to admit men, that would fucking suck. BUT i also think that if the boy scouts are going to discriminate, they shouldn't get a single cent of taxpayer money, whether it's at the local, state, or federal level. I believe that Barbera Boxer, my lovely Senator, is pushing some legistation saying something to that effect (I dont' konw the details, however) and the religious right is saying that the liberals and the gay activists are tryign to impede on THEIR 1st admendment and religious freedoms! Because we don't think TAXPAYERS SHOULD BE PAYING FROM DISCRIMINATION!
Nobody is saying the boyscouts can't exist, people are just saying that if they're gonna be bigoted jerks, they can do it with their own damn money. Argh.
Anyway, that was off topic, here's what I'm getting to: I think gay marriage should be legal, everywhere. But I also think that the states should have more power and the federal goverment should have less, and this amendment would infringe upon state rights. :( but I hate the amendment!! god dammit. It'sl ike with the pot thing, CA voters said "it's okay to smoke pot for medical uses" and the feds say "nope" and I say that's fucked up, the people of the state have spoken, it should be legal. So that's how I feel about the state rights thing, so I dont' really know if I can feel comforable opposing this amendment but I certainly don't support it, either.

Re: unfortunately

[pogo101.livejournal.com]

I have the same view re: libertarian/BSA/funding. Do you think that it is a violation of artists' free speech rights to be denied a government (taxpayer-funded) grant based on the content of the artists' work?

Re: unfortunately

[pogo101.livejournal.com]

Is it okay to chuckle (with you, not at you) for the expression, "the boy scouts s**k a*s for not letting gay people in"? Not that I'm saying such activity really has much to do with gayness! But our society is rife with expressions that, although not used in homophobic ways, derive from a disapproval of homosexuality. ("That's so gay." "That suc*s a*s." etc.) I can just see the BSA response to you. "No, we DON't s*** a**, that's our POINT! That's what [we think] gay ppl DO!"

wait, i'm confused

[yakkette.livejournal.com]

I can't find any online info on this federal marriage amendment, so I gathered from pogo's entry that it was something that I think I've already heard abotu which would simply say that a marriage in one state would not necessarily be vaild in another - which does uphold state rights, unfortunately if they're bigoted stupid ass states. But if it's an amendment with that 'marriage is only between a man or a woman' crap, then i heartily oppose that and feel that duh, it infringes on state rights and is evil anyway.
I'm confused now, which one is it?

Re: wait, i'm confused

[pogo101.livejournal.com]

Interesting question. The primary purpose of the proposed amendment, in my view, is to CONFINE same-sex unions to those individual states that begin recognizing them -- i.e., to bar the Full Faith and Credit clause from spreading those unions' legal recognition to other states.

But an amendment to the Constitution CAN effectively bar individual states from doing things. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments are excellent examples. Now then: would the proposed amendment bar Hawaii, Vermont and the other forty-eight states from recognizing marriage as a matter of THOSE OWN STATES' INTERNAL AFFAIRS? I don't know. But, again, I don't see such as the *primary* impetus behind this amendment drive.

By request...

[feren.livejournal.com]

I am posting the URL to the group (and to their page about it) who wrote this bill and is currently pushing it through the various legislative channels to get approval.

The group: The Alliance For Marriage. Warning, front page loads slowly.

Their page on the bill:http://www.allianceformarriage.org/reports/fma/amendment.htm