27-02-2004 10:33									#301
	Tired of ads?

That doesn't mean anything. The 17th amendment which allows popular election in the Senate for instance contradicts the original provision that legislatures elect the Senate. That doesn't mean that it's thrown out because it "violates" the original provision. What an amendment does is change the constitution.

	27-02-2004 10:34									#302
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Sava so amendments can contradict each other as long as they are in succession?

Indeed. The courts sort out the grey areas, afterwards.

Providing its not completely overlapping the prior amendment, of course.

	27-02-2004 10:35									#303
	Tired of ads?

quote: so amendments can contradict each other as long as they are in succession?

Yep. Look at the 18th and 21st Amendment. The 21st says, basically, we are tossing out the 18th.

	27-02-2004 10:42									#304
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ned Bush made it clear that he does not oppose civil unions and the author of the US constitutional amendment offered to change the language to make that abundantly clear.

Bork?

	27-02-2004 10:59									#305
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: so amendments can contradict each other as long as they are in succession? Yep. Look at the 18th and 21st Amendment. The 21st says, basically, we are tossing out the 18th.

but doesn't the 21st specifically void the 18th? would a marriage amendment void the 1st and 14th?

	27-02-2004 10:59									#306
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

34 Senators definitely opposing the Amendment:

quote: These are official finds through the press or the senators offices. These are not speculation. It looks like the bill is DEAD. This should be forwarded to the news agencies. Let them start talking about it. 34 confirmed: Boxer Breaux Carper Chafee (R) Clinton Collins (R) Corzine Daschle Dodd Edwards Feinstein Fiengold Graham Hagel (R) Jeffords Kennedy Kerry Lautenburg Leahy Lieberman Lugar (R) McCain (R) Murray Nelson Schumer Snowe (R) Campbell (R) Durbin Wyden Cantwell Reid Alexander (R) Bingaman Lincoln

http://www.democraticunderground.co...ess=104x1163292

	27-02-2004 11:00									#307
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Snowe and McCain are good repukes

	27-02-2004 11:03									#308
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: but doesn't the 21st specifically void the 18th? would a marriage amendment void the 1st and 14th?

Only with regards to gay marriage. But the 1st isn't relevant at all.

	27-02-2004 11:04									#309
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Only with regards to gay marriage. But the 1st isn't relevant at all.

but marriage is pretty much a religious institution... that kinda violates "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion"

	27-02-2004 11:06									#310
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: But doesn't the 21st specifically void the 18th? would a marriage amendment void the 1st and 14th?

Sava, slow down and think this through for a second. How would a gay marriage amendment void out parts of an amendment it doesn't even discuss? It only voids out the 14th in respect to what is covered by that marriage amendment.

quote: Snowe and McCain are good repukes

What about Hagel, Lugar, and Campbell (and the rest of the Republicans, whom I don't know ).

	27-02-2004 11:06									#311
	Increase Your PM Length

Not really. It's a civil institution (which discriminates against certain people).

	27-02-2004 11:07									#312
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Sava, slow down and think this through for a second. How would a gay marriage amendment void out parts of an amendment it doesn't even discuss? It only voids out the 14th in respect to what is covered by that marriage amendment.

the 14th says equal protection under law banning gay marriage is unequal protection under law... plus there's some crap about privilages I think.

quote: What about Hagel, Lugar, and Campbell (and the rest of the Republicans, whom I don't know ).

the jury is still out on those... the only repukes I'm sure of are McCain and Snowe

	27-02-2004 11:09									#313
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Not really. It's a civil institution (which discriminates against certain people).

but weddings are in churches... and performed by priests... and conservatives are using the bible and christianity for the basis of their opposition saying marriage is an institution defined by god. That sounds like a religious law to me.

	27-02-2004 11:10									#314
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: the 14th says equal protection under law banning gay marriage is unequal protection under law...

And this is inconsistent with what I said how? If this passes, then equal protection as it relates to gay marriages will not apply. It applies for every other context.

(We so need to start teaching more civics in school )

	27-02-2004 11:12									#315
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I love to sit back and think abut what a truly "Sacred Union" marriage is. Marriage is an eternal bond that can be solidified by Elvis at a drive through in Las Vegas and then ended in a divorce that passes just as quickly as the marrriage did the next day.

	27-02-2004 11:13									#316
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Imran, what's your take on my suggestion that the proposed amendment violates the 14th and 1st amendments? Didn't I already said that was a dumb argument? Since it is a Constitutional Amendment which comes later, it superceeds the 1st and 14th Amendment and cannot be ruled unconstitution under any grounds. Even if you follow Templar's argument, this amendment, once passed is unassailable, except by another amendment.

But it does cause a problem I brought up earlier on. Say FMA passes. When read together with the equal protection section in the 14th a court could hold that:

(1) marriage is confined to a man and a woman
(2) this violates equal protection
(3) therefore no one can get married.

That scenario reads the 14th Amendment and the FMA together. The thing I think that recommends this argument is that equal protection is all or nothing - there can be no exception (then it would not be equal protection under law).

Granted, the current court would likely not buy this argument (but you really never know). Then again, the Dred Scott court didn't buy that blacks were citizens so its not as if the Supreme Court is always right.

	27-02-2004 11:13									#317
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui And this is inconsistent with what I said how? If this passes, then equal protection as it relates to gay marriages will not apply. It applies for every other context.

oh okay... so even though we have an amendment saying there is equal protectino under law, we can still have laws that go against that... I see.

quote: (We so need to start teaching more civics in school )

yes... because I'm not a legal constitutional expert versed in the procedures and precedents... I'm a moron... actually, I'm a moron for other reasons.

	27-02-2004 11:14									#318
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Sava *SNIP* I'm a moron... actually, I'm a moron for other reasons.

And we have a quote of the week nominee

	27-02-2004 11:15									#319
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: the 14th says equal protection under law banning gay marriage is unequal protection under law... And this is inconsistent with what I said how? If this passes, then equal protection as it relates to gay marriages will not apply. It applies for every other context. (We so need to start teaching more civics in school )

Some laws are more equal than others?

(Teach the kids logic first )

	27-02-2004 11:15									#320
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: but weddings are in churches... and performed by priests...

They don't have to be.

quote: and conservatives are using the bible and christianity for the basis of their opposition saying marriage is an institution defined by god. That sounds like a religious law to me.

Some conservatives outlaw killing because its inconsistent with their religion. That doesn't mean murder laws promote the establishment of religion.

	27-02-2004 11:18									#321
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ramo They don't have to be.

I guess... but there's no denying marriage and religion are very much intertwined.

quote: Some conservatives outlaw killing because its inconsistent with their religion. That doesn't mean murder laws promote the establishment of religion.

yeah, but outlawing killing is part of every other moral code in existance (pretty much)

	27-02-2004 11:18									#322
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: so even though we have an amendment saying there is equal protectino under law, we can still have laws that go against that... I see.

Now simply LAWS, but Amendments.

quote: Some laws are more equal than others?

If an amendment is passed enshrining those laws in the Constitution, then yes.

	27-02-2004 11:20									#323
	Tired of ads?

quote: When read together with the equal protection section in the 14th a court could hold that: (1) marriage is confined to a man and a woman (2) this violates equal protection (3) therefore no one can get married.

Only a silly court . The FMA clearly indicates that Congress and the States wanted the institution of marriage to exist and only between a man and a woman. Therefore, the equal protection clause would be deemed to not apply to marriages based on the later amendment.

	27-02-2004 11:29									#324
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: When read together with the equal protection section in the 14th a court could hold that: (1) marriage is confined to a man and a woman (2) this violates equal protection (3) therefore no one can get married. Only a silly court . The FMA clearly indicates that Congress and the States wanted the institution of marriage to exist and only between a man and a woman. Therefore, the equal protection clause would be deemed to not apply to marriages based on the later amendment.

I assume that marriage is to be read as a package of benefits. Gays would have to go against their sexuality to get the benefits while heterosexuals would not. Thus the law does not provide equal protection vis a vis obtaining the benefit.

So if defining marriage as solely between man and woman runs afoul of equal protection and states are forbidden from defining marriage otherwise, no one can be married.

I would guess that the Court would give one of those lame "gays can marry straights" arguments to fudge equal protection.

	27-02-2004 11:31									#325
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by asleepathewheel Bork?

I think the author of the US amendment is a congresswoman.

	27-02-2004 11:31									#326
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Some laws are more equal than others? If an amendment is passed enshrining those laws in the Constitution, then yes.

Allow me to rephrase : Some groups are protected more equally by the law.

	27-02-2004 11:33									#327
	Got spare money?

quote: I assume that marriage is to be read as a package of benefits. Gays would have to go against their sexuality to get the benefits while heterosexuals would not. Thus the law does not provide equal protection vis a vis obtaining the benefit. So if defining marriage as solely between man and woman runs afoul of equal protection and states are forbidden from defining marriage otherwise, no one can be married.

No, because the FMA indicates a desire to include marriage with all its benefits, but to shield it from Equal Protection Challenges.

The Court would only have to go to the obvious reading of the text, and if that doesn't float your boat, then Congressional Intent.

I mean, there is no way a court would say the FMA means marriage is now not allowed. None.

	27-02-2004 11:34									#328
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

As I said earlier, we are going to get to the constitutional issue very soon. As soon as one of these married folk try to file a federal return, we are going to the Supreme Court pronto.

The need or absence of need for a constitutional amendment will soon become apparent.

	27-02-2004 11:35									#329
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: The need or absence of need for a constitutional amendment will soon become apparent.

There will never be any need for an amendment, no matter what the Courts decide. Equal Protection should mean it.

	27-02-2004 11:36									#330
	Remove this text

quote: I guess... but there's no denying marriage and religion are very much intertwined.

But it's a secular institution nowadays.

quote: yeah, but outlawing killing is part of every other moral code in existance (pretty much)

Likewise, people of most other religions, even some atheists believe that it's ok to treat gay people unequally. Point is, a law being consistent with a religion's morality doesn't violate the establishment clause.