Which constitutional amendment?

[markay714]

Heard Orin Hatch wants to propose a constitutional amendment to make it where the president no longer has to be born in the U.S. Now, President Bush wants to propose an amendment to preclude gay marriages. Which or both do you favor?

I'm opposed to a naturalized citizen being allowed to be president...I see these terrorists as so willing to give their lives they could be willing to live a pretend life for way too long to have their way. You just never know and I don't think we've really missed out on anybody that would have been super (not sure Kissinger would've been that good in that role).

I'm all for the no gay marriage one. And, somehow I'd wish that they'd include stuff where the judicial branch can no longer legislate stuff anyway. I can't even imagine that its needed, but with all that's going on in California then clearly something has to be done.

The "no gay marriage" one is a restriction of rights.

Only one other amendment has ever restricted rights. Prohibition. That one was real fun, wasnt it?

As for you worrying about a terrorist living a pretend life to become president... I hope you were at least partly joking. Taking you seriously for a minute, look at the way they arent afraid to use children. Right now, what's to keep one of them from coming here, then having a child (who would then be a natural-born citizen) and raising him to do that? And then again, do you know the odds of them being able to live their life and get to be president?

With that said, I still think you should need to be a natural born citizen to be president. Just because.

[Cal&Ken]

I am for the ban on gay marriage, and against the change in letting a non-natural born citizen run for president. But, they need a new one to keep the liberal judges from trying to change the law on every turn to fit the liberal agenda.

[sportdawg]

I am opposed to both.

This is a social issue, not a political issue.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

I am for the ban on gay marriage, and against the change in letting a non-natural born citizen run for president. But, they need a new one to keep the liberal judges from trying to change the law on every turn to fit the liberal agenda.

We see eye to eye on these issues.

[DCDAWG]

What happened to the old conservative platform of "states rights"? If the people of a particular state choose to ok gay marriages, why should the Constitution stop them? The Defense of Marriage Act already guarantees that no state has to recognize a same-sex union performed in another state. This is "big government" in full -- just the kind of centralized decree-making from Washington I thought Republicans hated.

And all this superior talk about not wanting "activist" judges just floors me. The only reason I can see why most of you support our spend-thrift president is because he intends to pack the judiciary with activist conservatives.

[CARTEK]

The Defense of Marriage Act is just that an act; it could be declared unconstitutional by an activist judge.

The basis for an amendment lies in Article IV, Section 1 and the full faith and credit clause. All states are constitutionally bound to give the public records (e.g., marriage licenses, judgments for causes of action) of every other state legal effect. Therefore, a marriage license issued in California to a homosexual couple must be honored in Oklahoma; this is known as the Fauntleroy Doctrine. The Fauntleroy Doctrine involved an act that was illegal in the state in which the judgment was to be given effect, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the party seek enforcement of his otherwise "illegal" judgment.

If for no other reason, an amendment is warranted.

As for the argument that "marriage" ensures that the couple gets all the benefits that other couples are afforded, I disagree completely. How many of you married your husband or wife so that you would get health benefits? Retirement benefits? Tax benefits? Entitlements? This has nothing to do with benefits; it has everything to do with special privileges and benefits for a discrete segment of society.

As for an amendment to allow naturalized citizens to become president, I say "No thanks." Our forefathers knew what they were doing when that put that prohibition in the Constitution. I'm not an isolationist, but I'm not an internationalist either.

[DCDAWG]

Fauntleroy Doctrine. I don't have a shop-vac handy to dust off that one. Regardless, a constitutional amendment could be overturned too. And the sky could fall.
Are voting rights for women and minorities also "special privileges" for a "discrete" segment of society? I guess it boils down to whether you think gay people are born that way, or whether you think it's a lifestyle choice. If homosexuality is found to be a genetic condition, then this becomes a matter of civil rights.
I personally can't imagine anyone wanting to be an societal outcast or being able to teach him or herself to be attracted to same sex if they originally weren't.

[Cal&Ken]

The only reason I can see why most of you support our spend-thrift president is because he intends to pack the judiciary with activist conservatives.

Certainly not the only reason, there are many. But, I sure do hope that is true. The judges with the liberal agendas that are not even close to the "will of the people" as I hear so often is disgusting. We need some moderation and common sense in our judges. That has been severely lacking lately.

Exactly, DCDAWG.

Also, another main argument is that it's not a "healthy family environment" for children.

But how many people in prison were the result of a same sex household? How many children that are at a below average learning level come from a same sex household?

I'm not saying a same-sex household would produce perfect children 100% of the time, I'm just saying that "normal" households are also often "unhealthy family environments"

I still feel that education of children is more important right now than preventing Billy from having two daddies.

[CARTEK]

DCDAWG,

I mentioned the Fauntleroy Doctrine so that anyone interested enough could find it on an internet search. Hwever, it doesn't matter how old the doctrine is...it is still good law! Of course since you can't argue with the basis for the argument, you deflected the conversation to your talking points. BTW, black folks and women would not be voting today had it not been for the votes of Republicans...something liberals always fail to remember!

As British essayist/poet/reporter Gilbert Keith Chesterson once wrote, "The people who are the most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all."

[DCDAWG]

DCDAWG,

I mentioned the Fauntleroy Doctrine so that anyone interested enough could find it on an internet search. Hwever, it doesn't matter how old the doctrine is...it is still good law! Of course since you can't argue with the basis for the argument, you deflected the conversation to your talking points. BTW, black folks and women would not be voting today had it not been for the votes of Republicans...something liberals always fail to remember!

As British essayist/poet/reporter Gilbert Keith Chesterson once wrote, "The people who are the most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all."

I didn't argue Fauntleroy Doctrainology with you because I don't disagree that a constitutional amendment can supersede an act. My point was that no law is permanent. And, while no law is permanent, no law is easily overturned, either. No one judge can overturn an act passed by Congress, signed by the president and approved by the Supreme Court.

Besides, the Defense of Marriage Act is not even under assault here. The state judges in Massachusetts and the mayor of San Francisco are only saying that the couples married there should be recognized in those states. If these folks wanted to move and be recognized in oh, say, Texas, they wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on now because of the marriage act.

I just think a constitutional amendment is unnecessary and being used by the president to placate his ultra-conservative base.

[CARTEK]

I'm sorry, but I disagree.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution mandates that the public records of one state be recognized in another. The Defense of Marriage Act, in my opinion, does nothing but placate people that do not understand the power of the Constitution. The fact that a "radical left-wing" judge in Massachusetts or a "wacko left-wing" mayor in California might say that homosexual marriages entered into in their jurisdiction are only recognized in their jusrisdiction is pointless because their utterances are not the law of the land.

[Cal&Ken]

The fact that a "radical left-wing" judge in Massachusetts or a "wacko left-wing" mayor in California might say that homosexual marriages entered into in their jurisdiction are only recognized in their jusrisdiction is pointless because their utterances are not the law of the land.

It is not even legal in the state of California. I am ready for them to go take action against them. But, unfortunately, "The Terminator" must be scared to do it.

[markay714]

Fauntleroy Doctrine. I don't have a shop-vac handy to dust off that one. Regardless, a constitutional amendment could be overturned too. And the sky could fall.
Are voting rights for women and minorities also "special privileges" for a "discrete" segment of society? I guess it boils down to whether you think gay people are born that way, or whether you think it's a lifestyle choice. If homosexuality is found to be a genetic condition, then this becomes a matter of civil rights.
I personally can't imagine anyone wanting to be an societal outcast or being able to teach him or herself to be attracted to same sex if they originally weren't.

I was born a sinner myself, but in order to live in society I refrain from stealing, killing, etc. just to get along better in society. We all have propensities for sin, but it doesn't mean we should force our weaknesses on others as normal. Bring on the amendment!