Constitutional Amendment : Slippery Slope

by patio34 41 Replies latest social current

• 

  patio34

  This was too good to leave on the Bush/Gay Marriage thread so I'm starting a new topic on it:

  The following was sent to me recently:

  As certain politicians work diligently to prevent marriage between two people of the same sex, others of us have been busy drafting a Constitutional Amendment codifying all marriages entirely on Biblical principles.

  After all, God wouldn't want us to "pick and choose" which of the Scriptures we elevate to civil law and which we choose to ignore:

  Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Biblical Marriage

  * Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

  * Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21) There's that pesky "slippery slope" to polygamy: the Bible!!

  * A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21) Well, good luck on that one!! Say, what about the guy!!??!!

  * Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30, 2Cor 6:14) How's that going to be defined ?

  * Since marriage is for life, neither the US Constitution nor any state law shall permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9-12) Uh-oh, trouble in River City . . .

  * If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10) Okay, guys pay the fine of one shoe. Brothers-in-law, line up!

  * In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found), a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him. (Gen 19:31-36) Oh, that's a good one. Another "slippery slope," except it's reverse incest.

  I hope this helps to clarify the finer details of the Government's righteous struggle against the infidels and heathens among us.

  **********************
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  Thanks, patio, for a well-made point.

  Hee hee.
• 

  Valis

  The constitution does not need to be messed with. Only a tyrant would want to use such a thing to their own political ends...I say NO!

  Funny how all MEN can be equal as long as they abide by someone else's morals...

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  I think tyrant is not actually accurate... a tyrant would throw the thing out. And he's not really trying - just wants to look like he is so he doesn't get blamed by his base for the deficit too bad.

  I have been waiting for the open homosexuality of the Greeks, inventors of our form of government, to be debated (that's why they are not longer around! No, that's not it - etc.)
• 

  cruzanheart

  Well, the way I look at it, that proposed Constitutional amendment is very very unconstitutional. I don't think it matters what one thinks of homosexuals, let's look at this from a practical business standpoint. A man and a woman who get married, in addition to the sexual aspect, are entering into a CONTRACT. As long as they abide by that contract, they are entitled to certain benefits from the government, like insurance, Social Security benefits, etc., because they are a couple. Well, why can't gays make that same commitment? I think two people who are willing to make that kind of commitment, that CONTRACT, are entitled to the same benefits as two other people who happen to be of the opposite sex.

  Nina
• 

  AlanF

  I know one thing -- if any politician I could vote for comes out in favor of such a constitutional amendment, I'll immediately get involved in politics and campaign against him.

  The U.S. Constitution is clear: government is not in the business of promoting religious agendas, and the Constitution itself was designed expressly to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. We have only to look at the abuses of Islamic states where religious agendas dominate government to see why the Constitution is such a wonderful thing.

  AlanF
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  I feel the same way in general, C, but it should be noted that the purpose of a constitutional amendment is to introduce law that wouldn't pass the constitutionality test any other way - i.e., it would be contradicted by the constitution as it currently stands.

  Emancipation and female suffrage required amendments because the original language of the Constitution would not have permitted them.

  This from http://slate.msn.com/id/2096309/:

  Can a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution be declared unconstitutional? The short answer is no. The reader who posed it may be thinking of the process by which a provision of a state constitution can be declared unconstitutional.

  Frequently, state amendments are declared unconstitutional because they are found to violate the U.S. Constitution. The "supremacy clause" of the federal Constitution states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Consequently, the federal Constitution trumps any state constitutional provision.

  But it's improbable that any court could declare an amendment to the U.S. Constitution unconstitutional, because the amendment itself would already be a part of the Constitution and would therefore be implicitly constitutional. Scholars might argue about whether it's possible in the abstract. But as a practical matter, the courts are most likely to read a newly amended constitution as internally consistent, and try to reconcile any provisions that seem to contradict each other.
• 

  Thirdson

  Patio makes some good points if you use the Bible to make law.

  I thought about this subject today, waiting in the bank and reading a recent Time magazine article on the subject of transsexuals. A surprisingly large number of people are transsexual, many unaware. What made me think about constitutional amendments to make marriage to be between and 'man and a woman only' is what actually constitutes gender?

  For transsexuals this is ambiguous. Gender (in humans) is normally determined by the 23rd pair of chromosomes, XX being female and XY male. Some people have both cells that are XX and cells that are XY. What gender are they? Is gender based on early conditioning and dress? How about physical attributes? Does lacking ovaries make someone male? One person interviewed was raised as a girl. Only well in to adulthood did she see her medical records. As a child she had surgery to remove her 'twisted ovaries' -- actually testes. Although genetically XY the embryo failed to develop as a boy, some condition caused the testes not to develop properly and without testosterone never developed male genitalia. She was raised as a girl and was told she will never be able to have children. Now an adult, she is in a relationship with a woman.

  Although the subject of marriage was not considered in the article it made me think. What about people like the aforementioned person, a woman who is genetically male, in a relationship with another woman? Will a constitutional amendment take them in consideration? What about all the other varying degrees of transsexual physiology? Will ambiguous men be allowed to marry? What about girls who develop male characteristics at puberty? Will they need to become legally male in order to marry a woman? Isn't a constitutional amendment defining marriage so loosely opening up a whole can of worms particularly when it comes to equality for all?
• 

  patio34

  By the way, the original post wasn't mine, it was emailed to me and I copied it here.

  Phantom, Lol about the Greeks, and the knee-jerk reaction that the far-right faction has. And as it stands now, the states would have the right to decide, but with the amendment, it overrides the states, right?

  Hi Nina, you said

  Well, why can't gays make that same commitment? I think two people who are willing to make that kind of commitment, that CONTRACT, are entitled to the same benefits

  That seems so absolutely plain to me. It should be up to the two people involved--simple.

  Thanks Alan F for

  Constitution itself was designed expressly to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

  It's one thing to put elections, propositions up for popular vote, but not put rights of minorities on the bidding block. Especially when it's so influenced by religions!

  Good aspect, Thirdson,

  what actually constitutes gender?

  THERE would be a slippery slope that could put unneccessary burdens on the courts. Besides, it's none of the rest of our business who marries whom. If the religions want to condemn, let them and shut up about it.

  Marriage consists of two people who enter into a contract.

  Pat
• 

  ThiChi

  If a Democratic Congress can amend the constitution for pay raises, why can't you amend it for higher values? The Founding Fathers stated that there are "two pillars" that make a Nation strong: religion and morality. One of the four organic laws of the US is that religion is needed and good. Our laws are based, in part on the Decalogue. Why do some here "breeze over" these important facts of the founding of our Nation? This secular, radical movement that is trying to rewrite history must be stopped. Our current Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court said: The "separation of church and state" is a metaphor based upon bad history & worse law. It has made chaos out of judgments and should be frankly and explicitly abandoned." William Rheinquist, our current Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. The words nor the term "separation of church and state" are in our American Constitution nor are they in the Bill of Rights. It's time that we stopped this BIG LIE that there is some mythical law called the separation of church and state in the US Constitution. These words were only in the fallen Russian constitution. 70 years without God destroyed the USSR. We cannot let God be taken out of our nation. We do not want nor will we tolerate the ACLU and atheistic judges and courts destroying our beloved nation. Unfortunately, our "Self Evident" truths have been muddled by the radical left. We are in a culture war, and it must be resolved. Fortunately, I have faith that most of the Citizens of the US will do the right thing. The Gay marriage movement is opposed 3 to 1.