Gay Marriage Petition, To prevent a Constitutional Ammendment. Options

[Righteous]

Here is a petition that a friend of mine sent me. Here is her original message:

Did you know...

That 96% of Americans OPPOSE the idea of ammending the constitution to ban gay marriage? Even Christians who oppose gay marriage itself think that an ammendment is going too far!!!

Sign the petition and pass it on!!! Everyone deserves the right to be happy!!

I signed it and called one of my state senators (I participated in the democratic process; I feel unclean...so unclean...unclean). You can get the numbers of various government officials on the site with which you may voice your opinion.

Hey, it's worth a shot.

[Prince Aries]

This is a complete waste of time. The only thing that would even theoretically work, is calling your congressmen and going through the usual channels. But even then, it's not going to do a lick of good. Welcome to the Wide World of Things Not Changing! Hope you enjoy your stay.

I did hear theories that the *REAL* reason they're doing this is not because of moralistic issues, but because it would screw with the entire tax system, or some such as that. I'm not sure how the process works, because I don't care. But, it does sound a somewhat feasible meaning. The American people wouldn't like to hear that, so feeding on the moralistic idealogy would be the best way to justify what they want to do. Let's face. Me and people like me are not generally appreciated and we need to just suck it up and deal with it.

[spuglet]

The only thing I really have to say on this issue is that I thought in such a free country as America, Government and Religion were supposed to stay well apart?

[Polocrunch]

I could swear I read an article in the Independent about this amendment being ruined in Congress.

I think I'll just hunt that one down...

[Some time later...]

Yeah, that's what I thought. The amendment's taking a LOT of flak right now:

Independent - we salute you!

[Silver Star Ange...]

I heard that they didn't pass the amendment... not enough votes. I forgot the exact numbers though.

[artist.unknown]

No, I don't think they've voted on it yet. It's still in its earlier stages. Bush is still campeigning for it; besides, he'd like for it to be delayed. If it's voted down before the election, it looks poor for him. If he can dangle the possibility before conservative voters long enough, it may help him.

I think it's a worthy cause, but I don't think Bush cares about petitions. If he or most of the other politians cared what many of their citizens thought, there'd be a whole lot that wouldn't be going on.

[Tigersong]

I think it's a worthy cause, but I don't think Bush cares about petitions. If he or most of the other politians cared what many of their citizens thought, there'd be a whole lot that wouldn't be going on.

My friend's mom is something of a bureaucrat for the Saskatchewan government, and her opinion on petitions goes something like this:

Petitions are meaningless. The government gets petitions all the time. Anyone can sign a petition, so when government officials see them, they are as good as in the trash can already. In fact, petitions are pretty annoying to them. However, if you send a letter or give someone important a call, it actually means you cared enough to do something about it, and it's much more valuable to them, in the long run.

[Ikemook]

The same-sex marriage amendment died in Congress. The republicans couldn't get enough of their own party to vote to even put it on the floor. See the CNN Article on the vote.

Apparantley, several republicans, including John McCain, wouldn't vote for it because it would interfere with states rights, a rather core republican ideology.

Personally, while I don't like the hetero-marriage amendment, I outright abhor this. Righteous, you'll get a kick out of it. Or you'll have a heart attack. Not sure which ^_~

The precedent the republicans will set with that bill is far, far more disturbing and dangerous than the one set by the hetero-marriage amendment, even though technically it is constitutional.

[Edit] Just thought I'd copy the text from the constitution that might make the bill legal. Article 3, Section 2 states: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Now, wether or not this means that Congress can chose to give the USSC original jurisdiction over a matter, or whether it can actually impose limits on what the USSC can cover, is lost on me. Personally, I can see both; it's rather obvious what the people in the House view as the correct interpretation.

Sadly, I don't know enough about constitutional law or the writings of the founders to know if there are any other sources of insight into this. Hopefully, I'll have time to find some in the next few months. To anyone who knows more than me, some insight would be really nice

[/edit]

Sincerely and Respectfully,

David Carlson

[The Lorax]

The only thing I have to say is.... Who are we to choose the fate of other people's relationships?

[Aislinn Faye]

Because.. of the "morality of the country" crap. And what sucks is if they pass it, and it goes to the supreme court, it's going to be ruled illegal more than likely, and we're gonna have to wait until they die and get our generation (which will then be old) in there to reverse it.

[arpeggiodreams]

Ikemook-- That's old news. Congress passed the Protection of Marriage Act a while ago, which says that the federal government does not recognize same sex unions, even if the states do. So while civil unions in Vermont file state taxes jointly, they must file federal taxes seperately.

Sorry I can't be more specific. We went over this in class, but not in detail, since it's just an introductory class.

[Ikemook]

arpeggiodreams,

I'm well aware of what the DOMA does ^_~

The link I posted is hardly old news. It's not about the DOMA itself. It's about a potential House bill that will make the DOMA incapable of being reviewed or ruled against (or for) by the USSC.

A summary of the House Bill, as of 10/16/2003, from this site (search for HR3313):

"Marriage Protection Act of 2003 - Amends the Federal judicial code to deny Federal courts jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of the Defense of Marriage Act or the Federal statute defining marriage."

If this goes into effect (and bear in mind it's still in committee, though I *think* it will be hitting the house soon), there will be no way for homosexual marriage to receive A) recognition under the term homosexual marriage by the FedGov, and B) benefits from the FedGov.

And while I personally am not too fond of that (I would like to see homosexual marriage allowed in the US), what disturbs me more is that this is an instance of Congress limiting the powers of the judicial branch to oversee and assess the constitutionality of a law. As far as I know, this hasn't happened before.

Technically--or rather, depending on your interpretation of Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution--they can do this. Should they, however, is another matter.

Quoting myself from above, concerning the text of that part of the Constitution:

"Now, wether or not this means that Congress can chose to give the USSC original jurisdiction over a matter, or whether it can actually impose limits on what the USSC can cover, is lost on me. Personally, I can see both; it's rather obvious what the people in the House view as the correct interpretation."

So again, is there anyone with more knowledge of constitutional law than I who can throw some insight out onto this?

Sincerely and Respectfully,

David Carlson

[eleraama]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Funny. Never says all *straight* men, or a pursuit of happiness *that the president supports.* The very idea of this amendment goes against the basic precept that this country was founded on. I mean, really, double-ya, I didn't just write that. It's the bloody DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

[tptcow]

I don't see why the federal government should have any say in this matter at all. In fact they should reverse any decision made against the matter and let the states decide for theirselves.

I might be incorrect, but wasn't there something about same sex marriage being on the presidential ballot this November?

[Baron]

Marriage has been developed by society and government for the last tens of thousands years. Early societies, and later societies, experimented with the idea of gay marriage and found that it wasn't beneficial to the society.

If you want the right to legal union, that's all right with me. If anyone wants the right to legal union, that's all right.

However, marriage is a religious institution, so you should only be able to get married through a special institution, like a church or something.

[gothictheysay]

However, marriage is a religious institution, so you should only be able to get married through a special institution, like a church or something.

But marriage has a legal basis as well...

[Baron]

Civil union is a legal, or government, institution.

Marriage is a religious institution.

You shouldn't even be marriable by the government.

Civil union is a legal contract performed by a government.

Marriage is something different, performed by churches.

Being a legal contract, civil union is full of loopholes and rules and regulations and penalties.

A marriage contract, performed by a church, means you either follow the contract, or you get kicked out of the church.

We should just seperate the whole business of civil union from the business of marriage.

If you want to be "married" in the economic sense, get a civil union, and the government will recognize it.

If you want to be "married" in the religious sense, go to a church, and get a marriage.

A person can get married through a church without getting a civil union through a government, just as a person can get civil union through a government withouth getting a marriage through a church.

YOU STUPID PEOPLE STOP MIXING UP THE DAMN TERMS. THEN THERE WON'T BE ALL THIS MESS ABOUT MARRIAGE AND UNION AND !@#$.

I want to slap George Bush, the mayors of Portland and San Francisco, and all the religious leaders for SAYING STUPID STUFF JUST TO GET PUBLICITY.

It's simple. Civil Union. Marriage. To different things.

AND IF ONE PERSON ASKS ME ABOUT WEDDING CEREMONIES I WILL...uh...shoot them with the SkittleGun Mk.5...