Constitutional amendment to ban fundamentalist marriages

Why not just ban marriage?

Wouldn't that stop the fundamentalists from procreating?

Oh wait...not the christian ones...they'd just keep getting born again and again and again...

0 Replies

I heard a discourse on this today on OnPoint, NPR. One speaker was a baptist preacher and he was hell-bent on sounding logical, but he didn't pull it off. Lots of callers and other panelists (including a second baptist preacher) were there to state the case for gay marriage. Anyway, one caller called the first baptist preachers arguements 'tortured' - that was exactly the word I'd use to describe them

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

blueflame1 wrote:
Brandon, if gay rights were not already guaranteed by the Constitution there would be no need for an amendment. Equal rights under law.

That hardly means that everyone gets to do anything he wants to do. Care to hazard a guess whether the founding fathers intended the Constitution to legalize gay marriage?

You don't need to consult the "founding fathers." You would need to consult the post civil war drafters and ratifiers of the fourteenth amendment to determine their intent.

I suppose a good argument could be made that many of the drafters and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended that blacks should have the fundamental right to marry whites. But, as Justice Scalia will forcefully tell you, their intent isn't relevant when we apply the clear and unambiguous language of the law. The Fourteenth Amendment clearly and unambiguously prohibits the States from depriving any person within its jurisdiction of equal protection under the law.

Brandon, equal protection under the law does not mean "everyone gets to do anything he wants to do." Equal protection under the law means, when the government discriminates among persons, it must have a compelling, important, or legitimate interest that is served by the discrimination. Prohibiting same-sex marriage discriminates against gay persons and does not serve any compelling, important, or legitimate government interest.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Noddy24 wrote:
Quote:
That hardly means that everyone gets to do anything he wants to do. Care to hazard a guess whether the founding fathers intended the Constitution to legalize gay marriage?

The Founding Fathers also denied the vote to women and blacks. The Founding Fathers created a Constitution that could change with the times.

Now Shari'a....Shari'a is eternal.

(1) The Founding Fathers created a constitution that left this question for the states to decide.

(2) The Founding Fathers created a constitution that could be amended.
But they did not create a constitution that compels the states to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.

(3) The Founding Fathers, perhaps without wanting to, created a constituton that was subsequently reinterpreted by the federal courts -- just as the Sharia was. It is my understanding that the Sharia, as enforced in practice, was a lot more liberal 600 years ago than it is now.

1. The Founding fathers created a document that organized and set forth the LIMITED POWERS of the federal/national government. The regulation of domestic relations was left to the states.

2. The original amendments (the bill of rights) applied to the federal government, e.g., CONGRESS shall make no law . . . . Our founding fathers, however, did create a document that could be amended---and our constitution was indeed amended after the civil war. The Fourteenth Amendment PROHIBITS the states from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and PROHIBITS the states from depriving persons of equal protection of the law. (It is through the Fourteenth Amendment that key provisions of the Bill of Rights were made applicable to the states.) A state's discrimination against any person must be justified by a compelling, important, or legitimate state interest.

Accordingly, the state's power to regulate domestic relations is LIMITED by the Fourteenth Amendment.

3. The founders created the judicial branch of government and specifically granted the judiciary the power to interpret and apply the Constitution and the laws made in pursuant thereof to cases and controversies.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

But, as Justice Scalia will forcefully tell you, their intent isn't relevant when we apply the clear and unambiguous language of the law. The Fourteenth Amendment clearly and unambiguously prohibits the States from depriving any person within its jurisdiction of equal protection under the law.

You mean, not even fundamentalists? Wow, now you're using our own authorities against us. This thread has suddenly turned mean!

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
But, as Justice Scalia will forcefully tell you, their intent isn't relevant when we apply the clear and unambiguous language of the law. The Fourteenth Amendment clearly and unambiguously prohibits the States from depriving any person within its jurisdiction of equal protection under the law.

You mean, not even fundamentalists? Wow, now you're using our own authorities against us. This thread has suddenly turned mean!

So true, Thomas. The Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamentalists' right to marry each other against state infringement. As noted before--since the Constitution guarantees this right to marry (a liberty interest)---an amendment to the Constitution is necessary in order to thwart that guarantee of liberty and to allow us to constitutionally and legally discriminate against them. :wink:

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

Brandon, if gay rights were not already guaranteed by the Constitution there would be no need for an amendment. Equal rights under law.

Blueflame: You're right and you earned an "A" in constitutional law with respect to today's lesson. Very Happy

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Why not just ban marriage?

There you go. Joefromchicago started a thread suggesting something along these lines a few weeks ago. He made a lot of sense.

0 Replies

Is there a right to marriage?
"Why not just ban marriage?"
"...a thread a few weeks ago..."

I just joined and missed the previous discussion so forgive me if I repeat.

As I see it, the more the religious groups stir this up and make it a federal issue the more these people are going to divorce the government from the whole marriage issue. Since marriage is a religious right, not a governmental one, these groups are going to force the feds to stop issuing marriage licenses and get out of the marriage game. There is nothing in the constitution that issues the right to marriage.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

blueflame1 wrote:
Brandon, if gay rights were not already guaranteed by the Constitution there would be no need for an amendment. Equal rights under law.

That hardly means that everyone gets to do anything he wants to do. Care to hazard a guess whether the founding fathers intended the Constitution to legalize gay marriage?

well, since they didn't write anything down that said something like;

"we the people (except fags)"

or

"Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people (except queers). "

i guess they reckoned it was already legal enough...

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
blueflame1 wrote:
Brandon, if gay rights were not already guaranteed by the Constitution there would be no need for an amendment. Equal rights under law.

That hardly means that everyone gets to do anything he wants to do. Care to hazard a guess whether the founding fathers intended the Constitution to legalize gay marriage?

well, since they didn't write anything down that said something like;

"we the people (except fags)"

or

"Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people (except queers). "

i guess they reckoned it was already legal enough...

Really? Then why the need for the 13th and 19th amendments? Surely since they didn't write "We the people (except for blacks and women)" those amendments must not really have been needed by your thinking.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueflame1 wrote:
Brandon, if gay rights were not already guaranteed by the Constitution there would be no need for an amendment. Equal rights under law.

That hardly means that everyone gets to do anything he wants to do. Care to hazard a guess whether the founding fathers intended the Constitution to legalize gay marriage?

well, since they didn't write anything down that said something like;

"we the people (except fags)"

or

"Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people (except queers). "

i guess they reckoned it was already legal enough...

Really? Then why the need for the 13th and 19th amendments? Surely since they didn't write "We the people (except for blacks and women)" those amendments must not really have been needed by your thinking.

Your thesis is specious--the Constitution does in fact refer to black people, and refers to them as "Persons" (with the capital "P"), very specifically excluded from civil rights.

Article I, Section 9, first paragraph reads:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

That is a reference to slaves and the slave trade.

Article IV, Section 2, third paragraph reads:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

That passage specifically refers to slaves, and it was that passage which was specifically voided by the ratification of the thirteenth amendment.

The Constitution refers to the President in more than one place as "he" and "him." In fact, the issue of the franchise for women was left to each state, and in the late 18th Century, women who owned real property of a minimum value of $250 were allowed to vote in the state of New Jersey, and in 1790, women were allowed to vote without the property qualification. That law was repealed in 1807, because the state wanted road building funds from the Congress. The territory of Wyoming granted the vote to women in 1869, and Utah followed suit in 1870. In 1887, however, the Congress repealed Utah's statute. In 1890, however, Wyoming was then a state, and enfranchised women--something Congress could no longer prohibit because Wyoming was then a state and no longer a territory. Colorado followed suit in 1893, Utah in 1895, and Idaho joined the club in 1896. Wyoming was the first state to send a woman to Congress (before the XIXth Amendment was ratififed), and elected Nellie Ross as governor in 1924, the first woman to enter the Governor's Mansion in United States history.

Women were granted the vote by constitutional amendment because so many people called for it, and Congress had a history of prohibiting the vote to women.

You shouldn't open your mouth on topics about which you are so ill-informed.

0 Replies

Constitutional amendment to ban fundamentalist marriages

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know