North Carolina Enacts Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Romney would still lose a debate with Cameron. A politician can only go so far as The Pretender, before he's exposed as The Puppet.

---

I'm glad you care more about winning debates than ability to govern.

Enoch's contention was if this decision was not delegated state by state, and instead is made into a federal government issue it runs the risk (and as he points out at times in history he would have been right) of not 38 states being against gay marriage, but all 50 being forced into a wrongful decision. I would say though in today's political climate, I find it much more hard-pressed to think that ban would pass now. The Co-erced/explicit legal recognition may take a bit to pass but the banning I don't think would pass in today's federal government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

What exactly does happen if an amendment conflicts with the rest of the constitution?

---

It can't. An amendment either supercedes prior text or clarifies and expands on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I'm saying if there were no States' rights, (i.e. there was no 10th Amendment and all law was determined by Federal law) that there were points in history where there would have been more then ample public support, political capital, and willing members of Congress to ban gay marriage.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Yeah, you missed the point.

---

Yes, apparently I did. That was a pretty big What If (no 10th Amendment, and all law determined by federal law). :confused:

I was referring to states "amending" their own constitutions so one man/one woman is the only legally recognized definition of marriage....and that could be challenged as a violation of the US Constitution and taken to SCOTUS. Even federal laws can be challenged by state attorney generals or even individual citizens, and if found to be unconstitutional by Scotus, they're overturned. Sorry, but I'm still missing your point. :(

Lebbie is right --- today's federal government could never pass an Amendment to the US Constitution banning same sex marriage --- even though some social conservatives claim that's their ultimate goal (along with defining Personhood). Hell, they can't even pass a frickin' budget. :p

Lebbie is not right. While it's not 100% certain, it is looking like it could have been possible to pass such an amendment if there were a real push for it. Ten or twenty years ago, it would have been even easier. Right now there's not much of a push, because there doesn't need to be. The constituencies that want it, have it. The ones that don't, don't. The damnable states rights allowing different groups to have different rules that suit them best has helped limit the damage that could be imposed on the minority by the majority, which by the way is exactly what it was meant to do.

We'll see how it pans out over time. IMO, Lebbie is right about our federal gov't atmosphere.

Question: if 30 states banning gay marriage is considered limited damage to minorities....at what point would you consider damage? :bulb:

Also, should states be legislating civil rights this way, because the majority (of voters) deems it's in "their" best interest? :bulb:

I think you're still missing the point.

Is the sky blue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

I think you're still missing the point.

---

If you think so, then why not answer the questions I posed?

Because in addition to being non sequiturs, you are trying to twist my words into saying something I did not. I don't feel an obligation to play that game or try to drag you back on topic - I don't generally answer "have you stopped beating your wife yet" questions.

Well, have you? :o

It was a genuine proposal --- if you think I'm "missing the point", then please explain which point, so I can address it head-on.

From my POV, "State Rights" tailoring legislation for/by their voters doesn't include amending their State Constitution to deny certain groups civil rights. Substitute same-sex marriage with interracial marriage, and it's clear what I mean. But if you weren't referring to State Rights, then would it kill ya to give me another clue? :noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Lebbie is right --- today's federal government could never pass an Amendment to the US Constitution banning same sex marriage --- even though some social conservatives claim that's their ultimate goal (along with defining Personhood). Hell, they can't even pass a frickin' budget. :p

---

They'd need a special convention but the total number of states you need to pass an amendment via convention is 38. Which happens to be how many have passed this sort of thing for themselves. So Lebbie's not right. I'm rather surprised that it's the case but it looks like it's definitely within the realm of possibility.

What's required to hold this special convention?



edit to clarify to Wraith and others:

I understood what was meant by "limited damage" by using state powers...instead of an Amendment to the US Constitution. However, if all 50 states amend their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, as NC has done....the result would be the same as a nation-wide ban.

Just because it can be done separately, state-by-state, doesn't mean damage isn't done to civil rights of GLBT minorities. And even though it's possible to see a push for an Amendment to the US Constitution, I still think federal gov't is too dysfunctional and politicized to try it. They're in constant campaigning and re-election mode, and probably prefer to leave those controversial social issues to the states, where it's been pretty "effective".

Seriously, if for some bizarre reason that kind of special convention was held, and an amendment passed...we'd see millions of people protesting. And it wouldn't look like the Day Without a Mexican protests about immigration or Papers Please state laws.