Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kg_veteran
This is the most recent version I've seen:
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.
That amendment wouldn't prohibit state legislation allowing same-sex civil unions. It's debatable whether it would prohibit same-sex marriages. My view is that it probably wouldn't; however, I can see the opposite view.
Personally, I'm opposed to a federal constitutional amendment PROHIBITING states from allowing gay marriage, if the people of that state (by and through their elected representatives) so choose. The rationale behind such an amendment would again be, however, that if you don't make it constitutional, then someone will challenge state laws prohibiting gay marriage on a federal constitutional basis (e.g., Equal Protection). My thought is, the second sentence of this proposed amendment would be sufficient to protect states that don't want gay marriage without prohibiting states that want to pass such legislation from doing so.
I agree, and I think that kind of legislation would probably go too far, as I discussed above.
|
kg you might take the position that the amendment wouldn't prohibit any state from allowing homosexual marriage, but that's pretty tough to do with the exact wording about a "man and a women" coupled with the prohibition of any other type of union.
clearly this amendment, if approved as above, removes the right of any state to allow homosexual marriage, my description of frist is accurate.
the bottom line is with doma is an amendment needed? a presumption that it might be overturned doesn't sway the argument imo.