I'm surprised that no one has created a topic on this:

[Natoma]

An amendment to the constitution making marriage exclusionary of legal homosexual relationships would be in conflict with the constitution. Why? Equal Protection Clause, 14th amendment.

Think of it this way: a homosexual can get married just like everyone else. The fact that you are a homosexual doesn't mean you can't get married...you just have to marry someone of the opposite sex.

The fact that I'm a heterosexual doesn't give me any more right to marry a male than you.

So, we're being treated equally. 8)

Not if the amendment specifically states that marriage can only occur between one man and one woman. Then it is codifying rights for heterosexuals while explicitly denying them to homosexuals.

The fact that I could marry a woman doesn't change the fact that I am still homosexual.

Seriously, Where does the 14th amendment say anything about all relationships being equal? I thought we had all kinds of laws on the books, deemed constitutional, that discriminate between different kinds of relationships?

You are correct. Those laws include marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships. Heterosexuals are free to engage in all of those types of relationships. Homosexuals are not.

"Equal Protection" is not some magical blanket, otherwise the 15th wouldn't even need to exist.

It was made specific to protect black americans from those who tried to legislate that a black person was 1/4 that of a white person, thus 1 white vote was equivalent to 4 black votes.

I can't vote if I'm not 18. By definition, those under 18 are not being treated "equally" than those older than me. Age discrimination? No, because the law states that adults can vote

Exactly. The law states that only adults can vote.

The supreme court stated that sodomy, i.e. sex other than vaginal, is not illegal. Homosexual relationships are recognized as lawful relationships in this country.

Since Homosexual relationships and the sexual interactions therein are legal, then there is no reason to deny homosexuals the right to enter into the legal construct and all the rights entitled therein of marriage.

Hell, look at Amendment 26: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. "

So, we can't discriminate on the basis of age...as long as you meet some age criteria? I guess that Amendment is self-defeating?

This isn't permanent discrimination. Why? Everyone ages. Save for death, you will eventually be 18 or older. You cannot change your sexuality. You cannot change your race. These are immutable, and thus would be permanent discriminatory practices enshrined within the constitution. Age is not.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I will. If you name one who would agree with you.

p.s.: I've spoken with my parents on this one, who both work in the legal profession, and they agree with me.

Great, are they "Constitutionalists?" And what exact question did you pose to them?

Ask them this:

Question: Once a constitutional amendment is passed, is it constitutional? I really can't believe we're having this discussion...

I've also asked them to speak with the lawyers at their respective firms and garner their opinions on the subject.

Of course, I have no idea what SPECIFIC question you are asking them to answer, so your "summarized answer" (which will of course be that they agree with you), doesn't mean anyting.

If you PM me I'll send you my parent's email addresses so you can speak with them directly if you need further evidence.

Ask them the above question yourself. If they say "no, it's not constitutional", then you can PM me their address.

They still existed for 80 some odd years. They were legislated into law, despite the constitution.

Which is completely irrelevant. There's all sorts of laws that can be written and passed, and they can all be unconstitutional. Our process is not one were legistlation is constitutionally tested before passage.

I don't know of one constitutional amendment that was legistlated into the constitution, which was then striken down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Why? Because it can't be. That's the point.

That's allowed by the 16th amendment. Again, what is wrong here?

Why was the 16th amendment ratified? If such taxes were deemed constiutional before its passage?

 

[Natoma]

Can you two speak with the lawyers in your companies and ask them if it's at all possible than an unconstitutional amendment can be considered unconstitutional even if it is legislated into the constitution?

So for instance, if the congress legislated the 28th amendment stating that only white men can vote, and it was ratified by the states and became the 28th amendment, would it still be legally correct to call that amendment unconstitutional due to the fact that it is in direct violation with the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments? The fact that it breaks with the spirit of the constitution?

I'm having a debate with someone on this. Thanks mom. Thanks John.

That's the email I sent. They both said yes, it is unconstitutional. They're getting the responses from the lawyers now.

And yes, my mom deals with constitutional law. John does not, but that does not invalidate his knowledge on the subject.

[EDIT]I just emailed my uncle the same question as well. He works for Reich & Tang (big financial company), so he should be able to get me some answers as well.[/EDIT]

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The fact that I could marry a woman doesn't change the fact that I am still homosexual.

Of course. And the fact that you are a homosexual doesn't change the fact that you can marry a woman.

You are correct. Those laws include marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships. Heterosexuals are free to engage in all of those types of relationships. Homosexuals are not.

Depends on the state you live in. And as I said, no where are relationships given any type of constitutional equality. And homosexuals are free to engage in all of those relationships...just not with people of the same sex.

"Equal Protection" is not some magical blanket, otherwise the 15th wouldn't even need to exist.

It was made specific to protect black americans from those who tried to legislate that a black person was 1/4 that of a white person, thus 1 white vote was equivalent to 4 black votes.

And yet, in the constitution it stipulates that census counts (for determining representation) don't count slaves as much as "free" men.

So I guess "equal protection" amendment itself is "unconstitutional". Because clearly, the original constitution sees that all men should NOT be treated equally in all cases.

Exactly. The law states that only adults can vote.

And that's exactly discrimination based on age.

The supreme court stated that sodomy, i.e. sex other than vaginal, is not illegal.

No, the Supreme Cournt said that such acts, done in the privacy of one's home are Constitionally Protected. They CAN be illegal in other contexts.

Homosexual relationships are recognized as lawful relationships in this country.

And so are friendships. And the relationship between a man and his dog, and a daughter and a father. All "lawful" relationships too. That doesn't mean that all friendships should be given some special legal status.

Since Homosexual relationships and the sexual interactions therein are legal, then there is no reason to deny homosexuals the right to enter into the legal construct and all the rights entitled therein of marriage.

Again, homosexual "relationships" are no more "legal" than a relationship between me and my hetersoexual male friend living in an apartment together. There is no law "against" it, but that doesn't mean grating legal marital status is a natural extension.

Granted, Justice Scalia shares your same concern. That even though the majority opinion of the Texas case expressly mentions that it has no impact on things like the legality of homosexual marriage, Scalia sees it more like you do.

This isn't permanent discrimination. Why? Everyone ages.

So what? Where does the constitution say that "nonpermanent discrimination" is OK?

Save for death, you will eventually be 18 or older. You cannot change your sexuality.

Spoken as fact, and yet there are plenty of examples to the contrary. (And no, I don't believe that everyone can change his/her sexuality.)

You cannot change your race. These are immutable, and thus would be permanent discriminatory practices enshrined within the constitution. Age is not.

Does someone actually teach you this stuff, or do you make it up all on your own?

So a state can make a law that says 25-35 year olds can't drive a car. Hey, it's only "temporary". Equal treatment doesn't really apply to age.

So then...how does religion fit in? Religion isn't "permanent". People change that every day. So we can discriminate based on it?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

So for instance, if the congress legislated the 28th amendment stating that only white men can vote, and it was ratified by the states and became the 28th amendment, would it still be legally correct to call that amendment unconstitutional due to the fact that it is in direct violation with the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments? The fact that it breaks with the spirit of the constitution?

I'm having a debate with someone on this. Thanks mom. Thanks John.

No, you're not having a debate with me on that. (Sigh).

You really think that in such plain language, an amendment would even be constructed that is in direct opposition to a previous one without either repealing the other amendment, or making specific mention?

You proposed amendment is obviously directly in clash with 15 and 19. There is no way that such an amendment would be passed without addressing the others. It is NOT in direct clash with 14. 14 says "NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW...". Amend 14 does NOT say anything about constitutional amendments.

Ask your parents this, which is really the RELEVANT question to ask: Could a supreme court judge strike down a constitutional amendment as unconstitutional? Or can a Supreme Court Judge only use his judgement as to which constitutional protection is the most applicable or more important in cases of apparent constitutional conflict?

 

[Natoma]

The fact that I could marry a woman doesn't change the fact that I am still homosexual.

Of course. And the fact that you are a homosexual doesn't change the fact that you can marry a woman.

Again. If the amendment specifically states that marriage can only occur between one man and one woman, then it is codifying rights for heterosexuals while explicitly denying them to homosexuals.

You are correct. Those laws include marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships. Heterosexuals are free to engage in all of those types of relationships. Homosexuals are not.

Depends on the state you live in. And as I said, no where are relationships given any type of constitutional equality. And homosexuals are free to engage in all of those relationships...just not with people of the same sex.

Again, discriminatory based on who we are. I'm homosexual because I am predominantly aroused by members of the same sex. By extension I engage in relationships with members of the same sex. Telling me that it's fine if I'm homosexual, but I can't engage in all of those relationships is the same as telling me that it's fine if I'm black, but I can't vote. Voting and Marriage are both treated as legal rights of lawful and legal individuals and relationships. Thus you can't vote if you've been convicted of a crime, and you can't get married unless your sexual relationship is legal.

Oh and btw, it doesn't depend on the state you live in wrt marriage. Homosexuals can never get married in homosexual relationships. Yet.

"Equal Protection" is not some magical blanket, otherwise the 15th wouldn't even need to exist.

It was made specific to protect black americans from those who tried to legislate that a black person was 1/4 that of a white person, thus 1 white vote was equivalent to 4 black votes.

And yet, in the constitution it stipulates that census counts (for determining representation) don't count slaves as much as "free" men.

So I guess "equal protection" amendment itself is "unconstitutional". Because clearly, the original constitution sees that all men should NOT be treated equally in all cases.

No, because blacks were no longer conferred the status of slaves after the emancipation proclamation. Equal Protection deals with citizens. Blacks were full citizens after the emancipation proclamation, as am I a full citizen, even as a homosexual.

The supreme court stated that sodomy, i.e. sex other than vaginal, is not illegal.

No, the Supreme Cournt said that such acts, done in the privacy of one's home are Constitionally Protected. They CAN be illegal in other contexts.

Well duh. It's illegal to flash somebody. It's illegal to have heterosexual sex on a public street. This is not what is in contention.

Homosexual relationships are recognized as lawful relationships in this country.

And so are friendships. And the relationship between a man and his dog, and a daughter and a father. All "lawful" relationships too. That doesn't mean that all friendships should be given some special legal status.

No one is looking for a friendship to have a special legal status. However, those friends can enter into marriage. No one is looking for homosexual relationships to have special legal status. However, those homosexuals should be able to enter into marriage. Sexual Man/Dog and Father/Daughter relationships are illegal. Completely different.

Since Homosexual relationships and the sexual interactions therein are legal, then there is no reason to deny homosexuals the right to enter into the legal construct and all the rights entitled therein of marriage.

Again, homosexual "relationships" are no more "legal" than a relationship between me and my hetersoexual male friend living in an apartment together. There is no law "against" it, but that doesn't mean grating legal marital status is a natural extension.

Homosexual relationships that entail the sexual aspect are certainly legal. Please, what do you think makes it a homosexual relationship? What do you think the word suffix "sexual" is there for?

I have male friends that I'm very close with. Is it a homosexual relationship? No. You have female friends that you're very close with. Is it a heterosexual relationship? No. This is quite obvious.

Granted, Justice Scalia shares your same concern. That even though the majority opinion of the Texas case expressly mentions that it has no impact on things like the legality of homosexual marriage, Scalia sees it more like you do.

That's because he knows exactly how this decision can be used through legal channels. He knows what's coming, and he fears it. Bless his conservative heart.

This isn't permanent discrimination. Why? Everyone ages.

So what? Where does the constitution say that "nonpermanent discrimination" is OK?

Speaks on it nowhere. If you want to argue that age laws shouldn't exist because of the Equal Protection Clause, go right ahead. I won't stop you.

Save for death, you will eventually be 18 or older. You cannot change your sexuality.

Spoken as fact, and yet there are plenty of examples to the contrary. (And no, I don't believe that everyone can change his/her sexuality.)

Which contradict the scientific studies and examples given to support immutable sexuality from birth. I don't believe those examples either.

You cannot change your race. These are immutable, and thus would be permanent discriminatory practices enshrined within the constitution. Age is not.

So a state can make a law that says 25-35 year olds can't drive a car. Hey, it's only "temporary". Equal treatment doesn't really apply to age.

Actually there are states that are considering not allowing driving for those over 75, due to diminshed faculties that would impede driving ability. Is this necessarily a violation of equal protection? No, because they pose a danger to others on the road.

So then...how does religion fit in? Religion isn't "permanent". People change that every day. So we can discriminate based on it?

No, because of the first amendment. Free Speech.

 

[Natoma]

So for instance, if the congress legislated the 28th amendment stating that only white men can vote, and it was ratified by the states and became the 28th amendment, would it still be legally correct to call that amendment unconstitutional due to the fact that it is in direct violation with the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments? The fact that it breaks with the spirit of the constitution?

I'm having a debate with someone on this. Thanks mom. Thanks John.

No, you're not having a debate with me on that. (Sigh).

You really think that in such plain language, an amendment would even be constructed that is in direct opposition to a previous one without either repealing the other amendment, or making specific mention?

You proposed amendment is obviously directly in clash with 15 and 19. There is no way that such an amendment would be passed without addressing the others. It is NOT in direct clash with 14. 14 says "NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW...". Amend 14 does NOT say anything about constitutional amendments.

Ask your parents this, which is really the RELEVANT question to ask: Could a supreme court judge strike down a constitutional amendment as unconstitutional? Or can a Supreme Court Judge only use his judgement as to which constitutional protection is the most applicable or more important in cases of apparent constitutional conflict?

Actually we are having a debate on that. It is the same concept, different example. I made this example specifically this plain language so that it would be a black and white case. Of course Bush's lawyers will attempt to obfuscate the language as much as possible so that it will seem benign when it's very nature is exactly what I know it will try to be.

14 states that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, property, without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you make an amendment barring homosexual marriage and the states ratify it, they are helping to make laws that will explicitly deny equal protection of the laws to homosexual couples wrt heterosexual couples.

And btw, I copied that question to them. I'll report back what they say when they respond. However, since it is 6:51pm they won't be at their offices anymore, so it will have to wait until Monday morning.

 

[RussSchultz]

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a3.html#Q57

Of course, its not your mother her husband, or your esteemed uncle...


(please ignore their typo. its obvious that they meant 'un constitutional' in the second sentence of the answer.)

 

[Natoma]

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a3.html#Q57

Of course, its not your mother her husband, or your esteemed uncle...


(please ignore their typo. its obvious that they meant 'un constitutional' in the second sentence of the answer.)

Steve Mount does indeed support your line of argumentation. However, after perusing the site, he is no more an authority on this particular subject than my mother or her husband. My esteemed uncle is not a lawyer. He merely knows a good many of them. But I'll let him know he's so famous that you bestowed the title of esteemed on him.

This site would be the same as if my mom created a website called uscontitution.org.

And yes, I understood what he was saying.

 

[Blade]

No wonder th' Vatican is against gay marriage.

It says in th' Bible that you're supposed to suppress those feelings and attempt to live a normal life.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Again. If the amendment specifically states that marriage can only occur between one man and one woman, then it is codifying rights for heterosexuals while explicitly denying them to homosexuals.

Again, you are missing the point entirely. Forget about for the moment on whether or not we agree that the amendment is unconstitutionally discriminitory against homosexuals.

The point is, even if it IS, that does not make the amendment unconstitutional.

Again, discriminatory based on who we are. I'm homosexual because I am predominantly aroused by members of the same sex.

Right. And you can still get married.

By extension I engage in relationships with members of the same sex. Telling me that it's fine if I'm homosexual, but I can't engage in all of those relationships...

You can engage in homosexual relationships.

is the same as telling me that it's fine if I'm black, but I can't vote. Voting and Marriage are both treated as legal rights of lawful and legal individuals and relationships.

I don't see it as the same at all.

But regardless...the point is, if a constitutional amendment passes that says "only whites can vote", that would not be unconstitutional!

Oh and btw, it doesn't depend on the state you live in wrt marriage. Homosexuals can never get married in homosexual relationships. Yet.

Homosexuals can enter into relationships in certain states that share the same legal benefits of that state as heterosexual marriage

No, because blacks were no longer conferred the status of slaves after the emancipation proclamation. Equal Protection deals with citizens.

Right...and slaves are discriminated against from being citizens.

Well duh. It's illegal to flash somebody. It's illegal to have heterosexual sex on a public street. This is not what is in contention.

Well, duh, that why I don't understand why you brought the Supreme Court up. Exactly because the Supreme Court decision is not what's in contention here. Thanks for agreeing with me.

No one is looking for a friendship to have a special legal status. However, those friends can enter into marriage.

No, I cannot enter into a marriage with my Frind Mike over here.

No one is looking for homosexual relationships to have special legal status. However, those homosexuals should be able to enter into marriage. Sexual Man/og and Father/Daughter relationships are illegal. Completely different.

Natoma, I know your view on this. It's irrelevant.

Can we get back to the topic of whether or not a constituational amendment is constitutional? (As much as I can't believe we're actually having a debate on that?)

Speaks on it nowhere. If you want to argue that age laws shouldn't exist because of the Equal Protection Clause, go right ahead. I won't stop you.

That's my point. Equal Protection Clause exists, and yet so do laws (and constitutional amendments) that discriminate on age, and I don't recall them being "unconstitutional"

Which contradict the scientific studies and examples given to support immutable sexuality from birth. I don't believe those examples either.

Of course, you choose not to believe for whatever reason.

Actually there are states that are considering not allowing driving for those over 75, due to diminshed faculties that would impede driving ability. Is this necessarily a violation of equal protection? No, because they pose a danger to others on the road.

Natoma, you don't get it.

Where does the Constitution say that "posing a danger to others on the road" is some valid reason to discriminate based on age? The end result is, you are saying "hey, if we have some reason which we believe is good, it's OK to discriminate"

However, you are not being consistent , and you are not applying that line of argumentation toward homosexuality.

Obviously, you don't think there's any "good" reason to discriminate againt homosexuality, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. If states can constitutionally pass laws that discriminate against age "for some reason", and you think that's OK, then to be consistent, states can pass laws that discriminate agaisnt homosexuality "for some reason." (Again, you would obviously disagree with any such reason.)

No, because of the first amendment. Free Speech.

Oh, so my religion says it's required of me to yell "I have a Bomb" on every airplane that I get on. Laws that prosecute me for doing that are Unconstitutional? Free speach?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Actually we are having a debate on that. It is the same concept, different example. I made this example specifically this plain language so that it would be a black and white case. Of course Bush's lawyers will attempt to obfuscate the language as much as possible so that it will seem benign when it's very nature is exactly what I know it will try to be.

What is the exact text of your "amendment", Natoma?

I'll emphasize something for you:

14: states that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, property, without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note: STATES shall make no LAW.

A constitutional amendment is NOT a STATE making any LAW. Nothing in the constitution has anything to do with state law.

If you make an amendment barring homosexual marriage and the states ratify it, they are helping to make laws that will explicitly deny equal protection of the laws to homosexual couples wrt heterosexual couples.

Wrong.

If an amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman is ratifed, that means it is part of the constitution, and therefore constitutional.

 

[Willmeister]

If an amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman is ratifed, that means it is part of the constitution, and therefore constitutional.

Well, not if it violates another part of the Constitution...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Well, not if it violates another part of the Constitution...

Wrong.

To be clear, constitutional conflicts arise all the time. Then it's up to the court to decide which contitutional argument is the most prevalent / relevant to the case at hand. This doesn't mean one constitutional argument or one constitutional amendment is unconstitutional.

 

[Natoma]

Again. If the amendment specifically states that marriage can only occur between one man and one woman, then it is codifying rights for heterosexuals while explicitly denying them to homosexuals.

Again, you are missing the point entirely. Forget about for the moment on whether or not we agree that the amendment is unconstitutionally discriminitory against homosexuals.

The point is, even if it IS, that does not make the amendment unconstitutional.

That remains to be seen.

Again, discriminatory based on who we are. I'm homosexual because I am predominantly aroused by members of the same sex.

Right. And you can still get married.

Not in the sexual relationships to which I am naturally beholden to engage in, which are legal.

By extension I engage in relationships with members of the same sex. Telling me that it's fine if I'm homosexual, but I can't engage in all of those relationships...

You can engage in homosexual relationships.

Not without the rights and privileges conferred upon marriage. Civil Unions do not encompass all the rights and privileges of marriage, and it's not even close. That is not equal representation by any stretch of the imagination.

is the same as telling me that it's fine if I'm black, but I can't vote. Voting and Marriage are both treated as legal rights of lawful and legal individuals and relationships.

I don't see it as the same at all.

But regardless...the point is, if a constitutional amendment passes that says "only whites can vote", that would not be unconstitutional!

Again, that remains to be seen.

Oh and btw, it doesn't depend on the state you live in wrt marriage. Homosexuals can never get married in homosexual relationships. Yet.

Homosexuals can enter into relationships in certain states that share the same legal benefits of that state as heterosexual marriage

Some of the same. Actually, not even most of the same. Civil Unions in Vermont, for instance, do not have all of the rights and privileges of marriage bestowed upon them. State rights conferred by vermont, yes. Federal rights? Oh most certainly not. And there are thousands of those.

No, because blacks were no longer conferred the status of slaves after the emancipation proclamation. Equal Protection deals with citizens.

Right...and slaves are discriminated against from being citizens.

The Constitution has nothing in it about non-citizens, As awful as that sounds.

Well duh. It's illegal to flash somebody. It's illegal to have heterosexual sex on a public street. This is not what is in contention.

Well, duh, that why I don't understand why you brought the Supreme Court up. Exactly because the Supreme Court decision is not what's in contention here. Thanks for agreeing with me.

?? What are you smoking.

No one is looking for a friendship to have a special legal status. However, those friends can enter into marriage.

No, I cannot enter into a marriage with my Frind Mike over here.

Actually you can't because you're already married and polygamy is illegal. Obviously.

Speaks on it nowhere. If you want to argue that age laws shouldn't exist because of the Equal Protection Clause, go right ahead. I won't stop you.

That's my point. Equal Protection Clause exists, and yet so do laws (and constitutional amendments) that discriminate on age, and I don't recall them being "unconstitutional"

They put limits on what you can do until you reach a certain age, due to maturity factors. That is different than putting limits on what you can do just for being a particular sexual orientation that is never changing.

Which contradict the scientific studies and examples given to support immutable sexuality from birth. I don't believe those examples either.

Of course, you choose not to believe for whatever reason.

So I'll believe a couple of people here that say they changed their sexuality through religious conversion (which usually is practiced through electroshock treatment, tremendous peer pressure, and other unsavory practices), who then either go back to homosexuality and leave the programs or relapse and go through the torture all over again, or I'll believe scientific studies which have nothing to do with pressure or torture and simply to do with human sexuality.

Yea, tough choice.

Actually there are states that are considering not allowing driving for those over 75, due to diminshed faculties that would impede driving ability. Is this necessarily a violation of equal protection? No, because they pose a danger to others on the road.

Natoma, you don't get it.

Where does the Constitution say that "posing a danger to others on the road" is some valid reason to discriminate based on age? The end result is, you are saying "hey, if we have some reason which we believe is good, it's OK to discriminate"

However, you are not being consistent , and you are not applying that line of argumentation toward homosexuality.

Obviously, you don't think there's any "good" reason to discriminate againt homosexuality, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. If states can constitutionally pass laws that discriminate against age "for some reason", and you think that's OK, then to be consistent, states can pass laws that discriminate agaisnt homosexuality "for some reason." (Again, you would obviously disagree with any such reason.)

Elderly drivers pose a greater danger not only to themselves, but to others. That is why there are laws coming up now to restrict them from driving, if they show diminished faculties in being able to perform their duties. There are drivers who are in their 80s who are fully capable of driving, and there are drivers in their 60s who are not. Increased testing for those people, and scrutiny on their driving ability is not a violation of Equal Protection at all.

Homosexuality poses no danger to anyone.

No, because of the first amendment. Free Speech.

Oh, so my religion says it's required of me to yell "I have a Bomb" on every airplane that I get on. Laws that prosecute me for doing that are Unconstitutional? Free speach?

The first amendment says congress shall make no law abridging free speech. It makes no bones about the states. But that's a legal technicality expressed for the purposes of this post.

 

[Natoma]

Note: STATES shall make no LAW.

A constitutional amendment is NOT a STATE making any LAW. Nothing in the constitution has anything to do with state law.

If the states ratify the amendment then they are helping make a law which will violate the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.

If an amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman is ratifed, that means it is part of the constitution, and therefore constitutional.

That remains to be seen. Not to mention the fact that merely creating the amendment which is in violation of the 14th and attempting to pass it into the constitution could be construed as unconstitutional, due to the intent of the proposed amendment.

 

[Natoma]

Well, not if it violates another part of the Constitution...

Wrong.

To be clear, constitutional conflicts arise all the time. Then it's up to the court to decide which contitutional argument is the most prevalent / relevant to the case at hand. This doesn't mean one constitutional argument or one constitutional amendment is unconstitutional.

So if you have a case in front of a judge where one side is arguing that the "28th amendment" supports keeping a homosexual marriage illegal, and the other side is arguing that the "28th amendment" is in direct violation with the 14th amendment's Equal Protection Clause and thus cannot be used to deny these rights to homosexuals, where would that leave the judge eh?

If the judge rules in favor of the latter argument, they are in essence stating that the amendment is indeed unconstitutional and null and void wrt that case. Where does that leave that constitutional amendment?

 

[Althornin]

I find it offensive that you associate intelligence with moral beliefs. Or are you one of the kinds of athiests, for example, who also have the attitude how "otherwise intelligent men" could possibly have faith in any type of religion?

Well, i guess you are offended.
I find it impossible not to associate intelligence with moral beliefs - i tend to think that an intelligent person would be able to use logic rather than a blind faith to determine what is right and wrong.

Althornin asked why I felt the way I did. I responded and answered his question. =)

Dr. Ffreeze

and i appreciate your honesty, while simultaneously not understanding how you can hold these beliefs.

Note: I dont think it makes you evil, or stupid - it just boggles my mind that you actually think that way.

 

[epicstruggle]

3 things:

1- It was stated earlier that the vatican was trying to get politicians to vote a certain way. And someone replied sarcasticaly about "separation of church and state" not being true. Anyways, The vatican has every right to push their agenda, as natoma is in his. Separation of church and state does not mean they cant fight for their beliefs in the political arena.

2-

i tend to think that an intelligent person would be able to use logic rather than a blind faith to determine what is right and wrong

If an intelligent person/society came to the conclusion that in a limited supplied govermnent/nation "survival of the fittest" was the best/smartest policy. Would the govermnent and its people be correct in eliminating services to the extremely poor and sick since they dont contribute and suck the resource that should be given to those who can produce.

3- I was not born in the US, but will become a citizen in 2 years. Later in life I had hoped to become President. However I cant since I wasnt born in the country. , So how does the equal protection work for me? Does that make it unconstitutional since its not provide me equality to me natoma?

later,
epic

 

[Natoma]

3 things:

1- It was stated earlier that the vatican was trying to get politicians to vote a certain way. And someone replied sarcasticaly about "separation of church and state" not being true. Anyways, The vatican has every right to push their agenda, as natoma is in his. Separation of church and state does not mean they cant fight for their beliefs in the political arena.

Indeed the vatican has every right to say as they please. But as I said earlier, thank goodness for separation of church and state in modern society. We've seen what not having separation of church and state does in societies. View any islamic fundamentalist nation as a prime example.

2-

i tend to think that an intelligent person would be able to use logic rather than a blind faith to determine what is right and wrong

If an intelligent person/society came to the conclusion that in a limited supplied govermnent/nation "survival of the fittest" was the best/smartest policy. Would the govermnent and its people be correct in eliminating services to the extremely poor and sick since they dont contribute and suck the resource that should be given to those who can produce.

There is a difference between believing in religion blindly, and believing in a doctrine that would espouse genocide. Then again, there are some religions that espouse genocide, but common sense overrules it. See Islam wrt Infidels, or Christianity wrt non-believers (OT, not NT, unless you're speaking about the book of Revelations)

3- I was not born in the US, but will become a citizen in 2 years. Later in life I had hoped to become President. However I cant since I wasnt born in the country. , So how does the equal protection work for me? Does that make it unconstitutional since its not provide me equality to me natoma?

later,
epic

Already in the works.

http://www.s-t.com/daily/03-00/03-15-00/a03lo019.htm

also

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/CitizenParticipation/ConstitutionNewswire/2457.shtml