Gay Marraige Amendment

[Emsworth]

Absolutely not. Firstly, the amendment would detract from federalism, by nationalizing what might as well be a state issue. Secondly, I see no reason for which invidious and unreasonable discrimination should be written into the Constitution.

Furthermore, the issue strikes me as a very insignificant one. I cannot think of a more trivial constitutional amendment, except the Eighteenth and the Twenty-Seventh.

[Emsworth]

Seriously, why?  We all know your personal opinions on the general issue of gay marriage (although Nick surprises me), but do you seriously believe it is worth amending the Constitution for?

You bring up a very good point. Even if we accept that allowing gay marriage would harm society, it does not follow that a constitutional amendment is justified. The Constitution is a document that is meant to mark the great outlines of government, and address the most serious problems facing the nation. It is not (to use Justice Harlan's words) a panacea for every blot upon the general welfare.

[Emsworth]

No, but I would favor one exempting same sex marriages from the "full faith and credit" clause.

I don't think that such an amendment would be necessary. Nothing in the full faith and credit clause would compel one state to recognize a same-sex marriage contracted in another.

Of course, with the modern-day judiciary, that is somewhat doubtful ...

[Emsworth]

You ask them their name, they scream 'Unconstitutional".

It is interesting that you bring up this point. The Supreme Court made a ruling on the subject in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County.

[Emsworth]

Uh, first of all, marriage laws clearly do not amount to an "establishment of religion" within the meaning of the First Amendment.

Agreed. Considering that the establishment applies to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, M&C's position would imply that all marriages are unconstitutional. Needless to say, nothing of the sort was intended, meant, or enacted.

Furthermore, as A18 suggests, a constitutional amendment supersedes any previous provision to the contrary. The only forbidden type of constitutional amendment is one that deprives a state of equal representation in the Senate without its consent.

[Emsworth]

Although this is a tangent issue htmldon, what's wrong with us saying things are unconstitutional?

There is, in general, nothing wrong with claiming that something is unconstitutional. However, claiming that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional is completely different.