Cheney Daughter Remark

[J. J.]

Here is what was actually proposed:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. [Emphasis added] 

I believe your analysis of the language is inaccurate.  The proposed amendment would do 2 things:

1) make it unconstitutional for any state to recognize marriage other than between a man and a woman;
2) allow the states to set up other "rights", not including marriage upon same-sex couples, while not requiring other states to recognize those rights.

Under the proposed amendment, civil unions could be legal, but need not be recognized by other states.  Marriage would not be possible between same sex couples in the United States.

The specific language is irrelevant, of course, since it would never pass; it is merely an election year attempt to woo voters who are scared of anything relating to gay rights.

No constitutional amendment is required to permit any state to establish civil unions; they can do that now.  For the record, I defend any state legislature that wishes to do that.

Second, as pointed out, the Constitution did not grant anyone who was under 21 or female (any age) from being defined as a voter.  The states, quite constitutionally, did choose to (oddly, PA wasn't one of them).  MT elected a Member of the US House, Jenette Rankin (R), to the House in 1916; she served one term at that time.  The 20th Amendment wasn't adopted until 1920.  

There is nothing in this proposed amendment that say,"No state shall permit a marriage between people of the same sex."  It doesn't prohibit any state from doing anything.  It does say that one state does not have to recognize a marriage from another state, unless that marriage is between a man and a woman.  It wouldn't have to recognize a marriage between one man and two women, either, but it could chose to do so.

I love the contradiction between you cliams that Bush feels that "gay marriage should be illegal," and that "the specific language is irrelevant."  If he is claiming that the it should be illegal, why doesn't the specific language say that?

[elcorazon]

so how do you interpret the language:

marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman .

Is that just superfluous language?  The next clause has to do with negating the requirement of recognizing civil unions and the like. 

If Massachusetts law now says couples of the same sex can marry.  This amendment negates that. [clause 1]

If Vermont allows civil unions, this amendment allows other states to decide if they want to recognize the Vermont civil unions.[clause 2]

That's my reading.  Did you go to law school J.J.?

[A18]

Yes, it does require that marriage only be between a man and a woman. Almost everyone supports that.

Individual rights are meaningless if those rights are at the whim of the majority.  Saying 'everyone supports that' is not a good argument - of course the majority often supports horrors.  The vast majority of Germans supported gassing the Jews, or perhaps more to the point, the vast majority of Americans used to support banning interracial marriage.  For that matter a lot probably still do!

You don't have a right to have everyone else recognize your "marriage." Why don't you take a break and go protest some church?

[A18]

so how do you interpret the language:

marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman .

Is that just superfluous language?  The next clause has to do with negating the requirement of recognizing civil unions and the like. 

If Massachusetts law now says couples of the same sex can marry.  This amendment negates that. [clause 1]

If Vermont allows civil unions, this amendment allows other states to decide if they want to recognize the Vermont civil unions.[clause 2]

That's my reading.  Did you go to law school J.J.?

That is correct. This is a good amendment.

[A18]

What one State issues cannot be rejected by another State on the basis of being issued in that other State. It can be rejected on the basis that such an institution or license is not honored in the other.

If Missouri licenses a man to carry a concealed weapon, Kansas has every right to have its own standards and ban all guns. What it cannot do is issue its own concealed weapons license of identical or near identical qualification and reject his on the sole basis that it's from Missouri, Maryland, Virginia, or where ever.

The worry is not that the Constitution will force states to honor each other's same same marriages. The worry is that an activist judge will make an @$$ out of himself.

[J. J.]

so how do you interpret the language:

marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman .

Is that just superfluous language?  The next clause has to do with negating the requirement of recognizing civil unions and the like. 

If Massachusetts law now says couples of the same sex can marry.  This amendment negates that. [clause 1]

If Vermont allows civil unions, this amendment allows other states to decide if they want to recognize the Vermont civil unions.[clause 2]

That's my reading.  Did you go to law school J.J.?

I would interpret as someone who goes, or graduated from, law school does, plain and clear meaning of the words.  The Constitution, as previously cited, did state a condition where men over 21 counted not vote.  That group could not, was prohibited, in some cases, from voting.  It didn't state that the states were permitted or prohibited from females or people under 21 from voting.

Actually, I am, in the constulting that I do, someone that attorneys, and occasionally, judges, do contact on interpreting rules and constitutions.  Last time, even the PA Supreme Court refused to even here a challenge.  :-)

As noted on this site, I am a bit of a historian as well.  What I'm citing here, is history.

In answer to your specific comments, no, it doesn't "negate" that.  It would overturn the construction of the MA Constitution by the MA Court (and I'm not overjoyed about that).   It would, however, not prevent, the MA Legislature from adopting a statute to permit it.  They never did.

Second, yes, a VT civil union would not have to be recognized in a state outside of VT.  A state could pass a law stating that it will not recognized civil unions; likewise, if another state established a law relating to marriage that VT didn't like, they would not have to recognize it.

Since I've answered your questions, please answer two of mine:

Are you liscensed to practice law in any jurisdiction?  I think I know the answer.

If a man 30, married a girl 10, outside of VT, should VT be required to recognize it?  (Hint: That is not hypothetical.)

[A18]

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

This would negate Massachusetts's gay marriage statutes, just as the 13th amendment negated any state laws to the contrary.

[elcorazon]

I am not currently licensed to practice law, but I DID go to law school and did practice law for a few years.  I could easily renew my license if I so chose.

Should VT be required to recognize a marriage between a 30 year old and a 10 year old?  I'll say no, they shouldn't.

[J. J.]

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

This would negate Massachusetts's gay marriage statutes, just as the 13th amendment negated any state laws to the contrary.

The 13th Amendment does say:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude , except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

I'll add that MA does not have a statute, as this is based on the MA Supreme Court's interpretation of the MA Constitution (that MA is trying to amend).

If this was a flat out ban the words "construed to require" would not be needed.  You'll note that there is nothing in the 13th amendment about state constitutional construction.

[J. J.]

I am not currently licensed to practice law, but I DID go to law school and did practice law for a few years.  I could easily renew my license if I so chose.

Should VT be required to recognize a marriage between a 30 year old and a 10 year old?  I'll say no, they shouldn't.

Under your theory, if consistent, they should.  This, however was my state, PA, that called it a legitimate marriage, based on the principles of common law.  Until last year, common law marriages were permitted.

If you did go to law school, my suggestion is, don't practice.

[A18]

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude , except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

I could reword this:

Involuntary servitude shall exist in the United States, and any place subject to their jurisdiction, only as punishment for crime whereof the party shall been duly convicted.

Same relationship between,

Marriage in the United States shall not exist, except between a man and a woman.

And:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

Even though one is clearly worded better than the other, the legal provisions are the same.

I thought the Massachusetts Supreme Court ordered the legislature to rewrite the state's law. I'm not sure on that, though.

[J. J.]

If the first sentence "banned" same sex marraige, why would you need to worry about how state and the US Constitution's are "construed" in regard to same sex marriage.  I think it was AL or MS that just removed the slavery language in its constitiution in the 1990's.

[elcorazon]

I am not currently licensed to practice law, but I DID go to law school and did practice law for a few years.  I could easily renew my license if I so chose.

Should VT be required to recognize a marriage between a 30 year old and a 10 year old?  I'll say no, they shouldn't.

Under your theory, if consistent, they should.  This, however was my state, PA, that called it a legitimate marriage, based on the principles of common law.  Until last year, common law marriages were permitted.

If you did go to law school, my suggestion is, don't practice.

First of all, you are presuming you have any clue as to what "my theory" is.  Which "theory" of mine presumes that they should?

And, as I stated previously I did go to law school, but am not currently practicing.  Believe me, my not practicing has NOTHING to do with my ability to analyze statutes and laws.  I was Order of the Coif and a very good law school.

By the way, you never explained why the language about the definition of marriage would even be in the amendment if it had no meaning.

[J. J.]

First of all, you are presuming you have any clue as to what "my theory" is.  Which "theory" of mine presumes that they should?

And, as I stated previously I did go to law school, but am not currently practicing.  Believe me, my not practicing has NOTHING to do with my ability to analyze statutes and laws.  I was Order of the Coif and a very good law school.

By the way, you never explained why the language about the definition of marriage would even be in the amendment if it had no meaning.

The theory that there should not be a state by state prohibition. 

The language defines what "marriage" in in the rest of the amendment much like the clause as to what constitutes treason (Art. 3, Sec. 3).  That statement does not make treason "illegal," but it does define what constitutes it.

Now, you'll notice that the proposed amendment states that the courts cannot interpret a constitution (US or state) to be "construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

If the definition, as you've suggested, means that same sex marriages are banned, why would it be necessary to have a statement on construction?  If this a 'ban' why not leave it without a construction clause, like the 13th Amendment?

[A18]

To take the issue completely out of judicial review.

By the way, are you for or opposed to this amendment?

[Bogart]

Just to provide some input through a fresh pair of eyes by someone with a vested interest in this topic, it seems pretty clear to me that the amendment as proposed DOES NOT prohibit same-sex marriage, but merely PREVENTS judicial review from interpreting the US Constitution, or the various state constitutions, so as to say that they already contain provisions which require recognition of same-sex marriage. Not sure which one of you is arguing this side without reviewing.

I see two parts....a part stating that marriage for Federal purposes shall be a man and a woman....and a part that says that no other parts of the Consitution may be interpreted by the courts to undermine the meaning of part one.

Seems clear as glass to me. Not that I agree with passing anything like it in any event.

[A18]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why?

[J. J.]

Just to provide some input through a fresh pair of eyes by someone with a vested interest in this topic, it seems pretty clear to me that the amendment as proposed DOES NOT prohibit same-sex marriage, but merely PREVENTS judicial review from interpreting the US Constitution, or the various state constitutions, so as to say that they already contain provisions which require recognition of same-sex marriage. Not sure which one of you is arguing this side without reviewing.

I see two parts....a part stating that marriage for Federal purposes shall be a man and a woman....and a part that says that no other parts of the Consitution may be interpreted by the courts to undermine the meaning of part one.

Seems clear as glass to me. Not that I agree with passing anything like it in any event.

It's closer if not identical to mine.  This looks more like more like the 11th Amendment than the 13th.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Will this topic die? Boring.

[A18]

Will jfern die? Hopefully.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Will jfern die? Hopefully.

You're boring too.

[A18]

Are you dead yet?

[J. J.]

Oh, I think think this is very interesting.  We've had one guy :

1.  Claim to understand how sexual preference is formed. (Well, actually two guys.)

2.  Hint that he knows the mind of God.

3.  Claim that he knows exactly how George Bush feels on an issue.

4.  Ask me, er, for a "date (I'm cleaning up the language a bit.)"  Ah, I don't swing that way, not there's anything wrong with it.

[elcorazon]

Here's what a defender of the Amendment says about it:

The Federal Marriage Amendment introduced in Congress takes a prudent and reasonable approach to the problem. It abolishes same-sex marriage in the United States, and prohibits judges from legalizing other forms of same-sex unions, while preserving both federalism in family law and local self-government by protecting the authority of the legislatures to establish state policy regarding whether (and to what extent) to give some legal benefits to unmarried — including same-sex — couples.

bold added by me to show my point.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wardle200402170918.asp


I'm too tired to address anything else tonight.

[A18]

Which of you support and oppose the amendment?