The proposed amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman got me thinking about why an amendment should be passed.

Question for Debate:

Do you believe the Constitution should be amended to reflect the will of the masses or the good of the people (which includes the minority population)?

I believe that any amendment to the Constitution should not be taken lightly. The government officials that support a discriminatory amendment, even if such an amendment has the will of the masses at heart, are not true leaders. A leader needs to protect the rights of a minority group so the masses do not trample on their liberties. If the minority population is not infringing on my own personal liberty or safety then they should have the right to pursue their own happiness and challenge any discriminatory pieces of legislation.

I want us to debate this on any possible amendment that could potentially harm a minority group.

I voted for will of the masses. Because this is a broad question, there will obviously cases to which the will of the masses need not apply. However, I think the whole premise of the government, or some judge deciding what is the best for the people is a little condescending. I think that most people can decide what is best for themselves, and it is because of activist judges, and mayors deciding what is good for the people that most Americans are resisting gay marriage as much as they are. This is a representative democracy, who are the politicians representing if they disregard what the people are saying?

CP

I'm not sure on this one - I can see CPs point about the difficulty / condescension inherent in deciding what is in the people's interest...(then you end up with a situation like China, where the Party decides what is best for everyone - and sends tanks after anyone who disagrees)..

but then..

people can be irrational and follow mob dynamics, even the best of us. Worst case scenario - the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany - sometimes the will of the people can go astray - and it is difficult for society to notice, as most of us compare ourselves to our neighbours when trying to decide on what acceptable behaviour is....so if everyone is doing something - it can't be bad?

I think it has to be a balance.....and to be honest I'd rather see a society that was slightly biased towards the rights of the minority vs the majority (i.e. towards 'good of the people' rather than 'will of the majority') - but thats just because I'm fairly socially libertarian....so I don't really have an argument other than a gut feeling.

I believe one of the greatest insight of our founding father's was protecting the individual against the masses. The idea that an amendment could pass that infringes on an individual's right, when it doesn't harm another individual, is frightening.

Challenging legislation that infringes on an individual's right is best served through the courts. I view such challenges not as activism but the true test of protecting the rights and liberties of the individual against discriminatory legislation. Laws are written to represent the masses. The courts duty is to interpret such laws to make sure they do not infringe on the Constitution.

"The will of the people" is a somewhat nebulous term. If we were to use that as the chalk mark, then were people wrong back in 2003 when they supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq or are they wrong now when the evidence of weapons of mass destruction has failed to materialize?

There are those who are opposed to gay marriage and those who support the idea and then there's everybody else stuck somewhere in the middle. Personally, I don't consider the subject to have sufficient importance to merit a constitutional amendment.

The Constitution should only be tampered with only after serious debate and all other means of redress have been attempted and exhausted. That isn't the case so far.

That's fine, but my point is that it should never be up to one or a small group of people to decide what is best for millions. Again, in a representative democracy, the people's views on issues are to be acted on by those chosen to represent them. In the specific case of gay marriage, no rights are being taken away from homosexuals, civil unions [with the same rights as marriages] are still very possible [after all, at least from the polls I've seen, civil unions are extremely popular], the word marriage is being taken off the table.

And in the case of gay marriage, those courts are themselves, infringing on the state constitutions they are supposed to be protecting. Too much power is being given to politicians, and not enough to the people who have elected them.

CP

Who is protecting the minority from the oppression of the majority if not the judges? Judges are seeing that the majority cannot present one, not even ONE, solid, logical argument that could justify denying rights to a minority of the country. The masses are not required to use logic and intelligence to vote. Judges are here to protect us from the emotion, unsupported opinion, and ignorance of the masses. I, for one, couldn't be more thankful for that protection.

Who are the politicians representing if they disregard what the people are saying? It happens all the time. Even for relevant issues - issues the government actually deserves some jurisdiction - like the election of the leader of the free world. (2000)

Again, no rights have been taken away from homosexuals, all the proposed amendment would do is define marriage...Civil unions with EQUAL RIGHT are still on the table.

This is what I mean. Thank God for the judges, protecting minorities from the stupid, immoral, supressing majority. What would we do without the judges. It almost sounds like these judges are incapable of having an unsupported opinion, incapable of being ignorant and incapable of being emotional. Judges are people too, they are extremely capable of making mistakes, giving them [or anyone] enough power to decide the fates of millions is not right.

CP

If you think that most people can decide what is best for themselves, why should a Constitutional amendment be created which prevents certain people from deciding what is best for themselves? Or do you mean most people should decide what is best for everyone else?

I voted for "good of the people" simply because we live in a representative republic created by our founding fathers to prevent a tyrannous majority from unduly affecting the rights of minorities. There are no "activist judges" which seems to be a calling card of the right wing conservatives. In terms of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, those judges ruled on a case brought before them. How this can be viewed as "activism" when they were doing their job is something I'd like answered by those throwing the term "activist judges" around. The judges looked at their state's constitution, decided in a 5-4 decision that their "equal rights" clause included marriage rights for gay couples, and decreed it was against Constitutional policy to discriminate. I know, for a fact, that if the decision were reversed, the conservatives would never say they were being activist judges.

Amending the Constitution is a serious issue, and should certainly not deal with social policy (the only time it did affect social policy, the amendment had to be repealed later). A marriage amendment would contradict the 14th amendment, so should we repeal the 14th amendment first? Especially now with several counties issuing gay marriage licenses. Has the world stopped spinning? Have divorce rates increased? Is the end of the world near? Are heterosexual couples suddenly realizing their marriages are phony? Logic precludes faith, and logically, gay marriage harms nobody, and it certainly won't destroy our country.


This is slightly off topic, but if civil unions provide equal rights compared to marriage, why does it need a different label? A rose by any other name is still a rose. So why call it a tulip?

I'm not crazy about the Amendment at all, don't get me wrong...I just don't think that one state should dictate the domestic policies of other states...Such would be the case if we allowed homosexual marriage in California, or any other state...Just because one state decides on it doesn't mean the rest should have to.

CP

So why are we using a different term? Is there a reason we need a different term to say the exact same thing? Logic and reason....


I agree the judges have a lot of power (which is why I aspire to be one). In our judicial system, there are many judges who hear a case before it is finally decided. It works it's way up through the system. Never is it just one person deciding the fates of millions.

Most Americans have a definition of marriage that does not encompass two men or two women. I'm one of them.

My point is that there is a small group of human people deciding the fate of a large group of human people...I suggest we let the large group decide for themselves. Judges aren't sinless, to say that they will have a completely fair and balanced opinion is pure utopia.

CP

I believe the Constitution is in place to directly protect citizens/all of the people, from the will of the masses and/or the will of any particular government branch or ideology which seeks to destroy the original intent of a free Republic where citizens rights are protected under the law.

The will of the masses can be incredibly irrational at times, proven in the case of witch burnings, slavery, Nazi Germany or the civil rights era. Our Constitution protects us from would be zealots, totalitarian leaders who would usurp power for themselves and the Church, so that we are not regulated by particular beliefs, by certain humans perceptions of their god's will.

This is a representative democracy, but the Constitution is not about being swayed by the ravings of the mob on any current fad of an issue, thats why it is so difficult to amend and I am very glad for that.

It is the job of judges as the supreme law of the land to interpret the Constitution. It has been decided that discrimination of a particular people in this land is unconstitutional, and we all know this is true, we would not stand for it if it were any other group.
President Bush knows this is true, therefore calls for an amendment to 'fix' this truth.
Passing of a marriage amendment would be based on emotion, religion, tradition, not reason or valid arguement for discrimination against US citizens.
That is what the Constitution and the difficult amendment procedure protects us from, irrational, religious or emotionally based amendments which would usurp citizens rights by will of the masses.\

conservpat


I dont see this rationale, this in no way affects the larger group.....its a rights issue for a minority group. In this way, civil rights in the 60's affected the larger group to a much greater extent in that it effected all areas of life, and your arguement didnt stand up then either.

Exactly. Judges have a lot of power because they are judges. According to dictionary.com, the term is defined as "A public official who hears and decides cases brought before a court of law." Since the Supreme Court had a case brought before them, they judged on it accordingly. Also defined, judge can be a verb: "To determine or declare after consideration or deliberation." So yes, judges have a lot of power. That's why they went to law school and have practiced law for years. Who would understand the law better than a judge?

And it isn't really Massachusetts fault for the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. Blame that on the writers of that document. They merely judged the case presented to them. And now we criticize them? They are part of a system of checks and balances, no more, no less.

NO, there is a small group of human people deciding the fate of a small group of homosexual human people.

The majority(you and those who think like you) has no fate in this decision.

I never said it was. But in doing what they are doing, they are potentially affecting the domestic laws in other states, which isn't right.

Many of those who think like me do feel that they have a fate in this decision...This ruling does not only affect the minority.

CP

I just have one small thing to add to this discussion. How long has marriage been recognized as a union between a man and a woman? Not only in this country but all around the world, for different cultures,religions, and races.

And suddenly it should be changed? And please don't use the argument that sometimes the majority is not always what should be done. Using examples of slavery and Nazi's. This is marriage. Not enslaving or gassing people

Also. Based on this thinking, there should be no problem that Bush was elected president without a majority of the popular vote.

And when interracial marriage was allowed, this same discussion was had then. However, this does not mean Utah must allow gay marriage. Only that Utah must recognize the marriage of a gay couple married in Massachusetts. Yes, it does affect social policy in other states, but it doesn't force any other state to promote gay marriage. Just as any other married couple from another state, Utah would recognize the marriage but they wouldn't have had to permit the marriage from occurring.

And as far as fate is concerned, unless you are somehow harmed by gay couples being married, I don't see it as a problem. Your marriage is still the same--if you view it as substandard or differently, that is your problem, not the state's. (I'm presuming you are married, as I don't know either way). How is your fate affected by two people committing to each other? I'd really like to know.


We complain, but that doesn't change the fact that he's in office. Again, despite the majority's opinion, the minority was right. This upcoming election, the situation will be rectified.

Marriage has never been defined in the Constitution. Our rights and liberties and governmental powers are. How does defining marriage affect our rights, liberties and governmental powers? If defining marriage affected my personal liberties and harmed me then I could see making such change.

I don't have a problem with how Bush was elected. I see it as our Constitution working to protect the minority.

WHY OH WHY OH WHY, do I always get this multi racial arguement? I'm not saying that multi racial marriages are wrong! This has nothing to do with multi-racial marriages, not at all. I don't generalize, I take issues individualy, I believe that inter-racial marriage is perfectly fine...And I think that gay unions are fine, just not gay marriage...And besides, if equal rights are the issue, a civil union with equal rights is perfect!

First of all, no, I'm not married. Second of all, this thread isn't about whether gay marriage is right or wrong, that's for another thread, which is fine. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH GAY PEOPLE COMMMITTING TO EACH OTHER. I and most others have a problem with that committment being called marriage, because according to the definition of marriage, sanctified by time and tradition, it is between a man and a woman.

CP

No. But marriage has been defined by 1000's of years of wold history.

This is my post from another like thread that was closed soon after my input . These bits of history directly relate to the founding Fathers concerns for individual Liberties. The founding Fathers understood all too well what the masses were capable of.

The history of the French Huguenots depict it well. The Huguenots were beheaded and all worldly possessions confiscated. Protestants were no longer welcome in France as the majority had converted to Catholicism. We must tread the waters of individual rights carefully as they may lead to unexpected outcomes, we may become what we feared most.





What saddens me the most is to see GW's name listed as a descendent of the Huguenots. It would appear that he has lost touch with his family history as well as our Nations history. By now you must have guessed that I voted for the Good of the People.

Times have changed PiperPlexed...People have grown, and modernized. They are more civilized, and are used to Democracy. People are perfectly capable of deciding what they want for their country. Why allow some group of judges to do that for them?

CP

I would like to remind everyone that we are talking about a very serious concept "Amending the Constitution". While "Marriage" brings this topic up it is more important that we discuss the reasons the Constitution should be amended and how such changes affect the people (individual's) versus the mass consensus.

Please lets not take this into a deeper debate of the word Marriage.

I have a problem with you defining marriage as sanctified. Religion is personal, and I don't tell you which religion you should belong to anymore than you should tell me who I can or can not marry. Every "slippery slope" instance brought in collusion with gay marriage is absurd: incest, because of genetic flaws in non-consentual children resulting from such a union; beastiality, because no animal can consent to marriage; polygamy is arguable, and yet in fact it has been done in the past. Once upon a time, polygamy was legal and acceptable (or at least in Utah it was). If several people want to marry each other, then fine by me. It doesn't affect my life whatsoever. If they want to fight for that right, then they are more than welcome.

The word "gay" once meant happy and joyful. Are we to say that words' definitions do not change with the times? Yet this brings us back to my previous debate: "What's in a name?" If a flower has thorns, looks like a rose, smells like a rose, what possible reason do we have to call it a tulip?


Sorry, I guess it just naturally leads into the subject of gay marriage since that is the central issue at hand nowadays. It seems to be the only issue up for Constitutional Amendment.

Per Dreampipers' request, I will not continue to debate the meaning of marriage. If you'd like, you can start a thread about that. However just to clear up, I said that marriage was sanctified, by time and tradition, I didn't mention relgion at all.

CP

The question that now must be answered is if liberty and minority rights are now outdated are we as a nation and as individuals prepared to accept the consequences when the majority finds something that you or I hold dear unacceptable. Liberty and inalienable rights are concepts that we should never allow to become outdated and they must apply to all and be protected by our constitution. It is the essence of freedom and a free society.

Its a rights issue. When you begin removing rights by amendment for no reason other than prejudice then we have comparisons to make with history.

I agree Conservpat. People have grown, modernized, become more civilized and used to Democracy. They are perfectly capable of deciding what they want for their country.

I just don't want politicians making these decisions either. Let the states thrash this out and then if it still is a problem the Feds can get involved.

The Constitution is not something to be yanking around with for political expediency. If I were in Las Vegas, I'd give you odds that this idea won't get any further than the balanced budget amendment, the protection of the flag amendment or the Equal Rights amendment.

There's no stomach for this crappy idea that Bush is foisting on the Congress. Most Republicans know this idea is D.O.A. Bush does too, but he's a bit more cynical than the GOP troops on the Hill.

To pass an amendment to the constitution I believe takes a 2/3rd majority vote in congress and then 2/3rds of the states have to ratify it (if I remember my civics class from 9th grade well enough).

It seems to me that the system is geared toward the will of the majority.

We are a representative republic and not a democracy in order to avoid the "tyranny of the majority". But changing the constitution requires significant support of "the masses" in order to pass.

I am not concerned about the majority when in comes to the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. A large majority oppose gay marriage (which is unfortunate) but a similar majority oppose a constitutional amendment banning it.

Seems to me that the majority in this country still hold the constitution as a sacred document.

Amen, Nighttimer, amen...But I think that the states should hold a popular vote to decide on the gay marriage issue in particular. I just don't trust these judges and politicians. They all have their own agendas, a popular vote is the only way that the people can be heard.

CP

Please explain to me how you have a fate in this decision. Explain how I, or anyone else who isn't trying to get married to someone of the same sex (besides the children of said couple) has a fate in this decision.

I gotta hear this one.

So for ideas you happen to support, "times have changed," yet your defense of marriage is as it is defined by history and tradition? By the way, I think blacks should have ALL the rights of citizenship - but they should just be called "blackizens." Hey, it's equal, right?

One of the problems facing this amendment debate is the wording in the question. I would contend that the choice is not between "the will of the people" and "the good of the people," because that makes the second choice sound very condescending. In truth, the amendment process is expressing the will of the people as embodied by their representatives. Now, to protect this system from being corrupted, I would not be opposed to imposing an additional hurdle for all potential amendments to the Constitution - a large majority of the people must vote for it, in addition to the present requirements. Though it may be cumbersome, adding amendments onto our constitution should be difficult, and should be deliberated carefully.

Some believe that marriage is strictly a religious issue, and that changing it will interfere and "desanctify" marriage. Others feel offended that traditional values are being forgotten in this country, and resent this becuase they feel that it is another example of that, there are several reasons... Again, I'm trying not to turn this into a gay marriage debate, gotta stay on topic.

Quark: C'mon quark, that quote is taken WAY out of context. I was responding to Piper Plexed post about the Hugenots...Way out of context.

Again, comparing apples and oranges...I'll repeat myself, all of these other examples, multi-racial marriages, "blackizens" are null and void...I'm talking solely about gay unions...I don't see how anything else applies. Making a racial distinction, and one based on fact [or in this case a definition] are completely different.

Marriage: from merriam webster online: A man and a man, by definition, cannot marry.

Citizen: A black person who inhabbits a city or town, is by definition, a citizen, calling him a blackizen, would go against the definition of a citizen. Your analogy doesn't work.


CP

We are staying on topic.

Amending the Constitution just because allowing gay marriage:
A. violates a religious principle
B. is not in following with traditional definitions
C. offends people
D. would be resented by people

All 4 of these reasons (you listed above) are not good enough reasons in the eye of the law to deny equal rights to tax paying citizens of this country. And they are certainly not good enough reasons to amend the constitution - as you will see in the coming months. You're gonna have to do better than that.

If you can give a actual, logical reason why we need to concretely define emotional, religious, or traditional principles in the constitution, please let's hear it.

quarkhead Posted on Mar 3 2004, 05:50 PM


Quark, I like the way you think, while Piper was prepping this debate we discussed just that Idea. As it stands to ratify an amendment it is 2/3 of each body of Gov. and states. This translates to a 66.66 majority 33.33 minority.

Kim and I didn't like the way that looked either 33.33 is a large minority. We much preferred a 3/4 majority 1/4 minority which translates to 75.00 majority 25.00 minority.

Now that is an amendment I would support!

Oy...No rights are being taken away from homosexual people. They can still be given the same rights as everyone else. Nobody is being denied anything in terms of rights. From all polls I've seen most people support civil unions with equal rights for gays. What exactly is the problem? BTW, I find it funny how the opposign view here says that this constitutional amendment goes against what is good for the people...I would love to hear that explanation.

CP

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

It appears the dictionary does include "same-sex marriage" as a definition of marriage, albeit not under legal force. However, that is the the issue at hand--whether or not we should make them legal. Since many dictionaries now define marriage as between two people of either gender, their gender should not matter.

Since we are arguing for the good of the people, as you mentioned - your own camp has repeatedly stated how married couples raise more productive children than single parents. You guys are also keen on stating that children NEED two parent households to grow up properly.

The good of the people is obvious - according to your own arguments. Children of homosexual parents would be healthier if they were raised in a married household. The statistics prove it (the statistics you yourselves post repeatedly).

Reserving a word for only some people in the population is ridiculous without proper reason. Marriage versus Civil Union - separate is rarely equal.

All of what you just said, persepective, is a generalization of the anti-gay marriage "camp". Why not just argue my points, specifically? I've never used those stats...So what you just said doesn't apply to my arguement at all.

CP

ConservPat!
You selectively quote the dictionary!



Sorry just had to call you on it! Now I posted earlier Sir, in reponse to you...no answer .
Here to refresh your memory and minimize clicks..

I would only favor amending the constitution for the good of the poeple if it resulted in more freedom without loss of security for more poeple.

If I could wave a wand and amend the constitution, I would make a freedom FROM religioun amendment, that basically disallowed religious moral arguments from being allowed into law, and laws that only are directly harmful to others, such as fraud and violence, murder etc vs "sin" or "victimless" crimes. Every issue in this country that took social upheaval to fix (slavery, civil rights, prohibition) would have been much easier and less bloodshed if not for christians influence politically in this country.

A traditional marriage, as stated here, is between a man and a woman...That is the leagal definition. I wasn't trying to be misleading...Sorry to anyone if that's how it appeared...The leagal definition of marriage is between a man and a woman...As is the traditional, culturally excepted definition.


Sorry Jaimie, we posted simultaneously

CP

This question is kinda Dead on Arrival, since it's very difficult to amend the Constitution without a strong majority behind you (and, thankfully, this current amendment is likely to fail miserably). However, if the Constitution could be amended anytime the will of people desired something, the Constitution would be pointless.

If the will of the people was the only consideration, then why not have the laws of Congress be the supreme law? Then whenever people don't like the individual rights granted by the Bill of Rights, they could work around such meddlesome concepts as "freedom of speech" and "due process" allowing "activist judges" to frustrate the volkgeist. The original amendments of the Constitution were created as a further check on majoritarian power by a populace wary of a gov't that could invalidate their rights with the stroke of a pen. Note that all the really good amendments were from a general progressive sentiment, and not reactive to some faddish social movement (the 1st amendment versus Prohibition). If all power in the country resided with a simple majority in all the major controversies of our past, the country would have progressed much more slowly than it has.

But being absolutely terrified of progress is kind of essential to the Conservative movement, now, isn't it?

I'm using the research that Amlord posted to answer your question (and the topic of this thread) how does amending the constitution for the good of the people pertain to the current amendment proposal.

True, you did not post those stats, but the pages they link to are still statistics. You can see clearly through those statistics that children are more likely to succeed in life when they come from married households.

The good of the people (the good of homosexual people who just every privilege, right, and government assistance to raise their children as afforded to the rest of the tax paying citizens) should outweigh the desire of the masses in this argument because they are obviously in conflict.

Your argument that civil unions would grant them these rights still doesn't hold water. You still haven't answered the question why a separate policy is needed. Saying "because it would ruin tradition otherwise" is not a sufficient answer. But you won't debate that here, and you won't debate it elsewhere - because the truth is there is no reason.

In general, the Constitution should not be tinkered with unless absolutely necessary. If it is amended, the proposed amendment should have the best interest of freedom in mind, without undermining other areas of the Constitution. I don't understand how making discrimination constitutionally protected could possibly have our nation's best interest at heart.

The catalyst for this debate, the Federal Marriage Amendment, aims to discriminate against homosexuals and is being portrayed incorrectly by many, many people. As I read it, I get a different meaning than ConservPat :



The actual text of the amendment reads :

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union between a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

This tells me that no state would be allowed to grant civil-unions between homosexuals the same rights as a married heterosexual couple. Clearly that is the intent, separate and unequal. The amendment would take the idea of civil unions with equal rights right off the table.

I can agree to an extent. Since the founding fathers took such great strides in protecting the minority it is my understanding that the will or good of the people is meant to encompass everyone. I also believe that some consider the will/good of the people to be equal to majority vote. I don't believe that is the case. In order to have the will/good of the people it must be by all of the people.


The constitution should never be amended to do anything other than give more rights to the people or to provide protection against the people from harm. Otherwise it should be left to the States.

I view any possible amendments to our Constitution as extremely serious. If such amendments could potentially be stepping stones to discriminate then they should be rejected outright.

Tradition is a flimsy argument.
Traditionally blacks had few rights, women had few rights, only property owners had the right to vote. Then there were traditionally male only jobs, traditionally women were relegated to the home. Traditionally divorce was looked down upon, as was sex before marriage, single parenthood and stay at home dads were virtually unknown, adultery was almost a crime upon which one wore a scarlet letter (the women only of course). Society evolves against some traditions, like it or not. We have beaten down traditions that were no longer valid and come out better for it.
Society has evolved to see that exclusion is detrimental to large groupings of citizens, productive tax payers that have children to look after also, as american life and the peoples needs change with time.
We oh-so-slowly accepted that minorities and women were part and parcel of the fabric of the nation. Truly Shocking!
I suppose at this point, that homosexuals are the last on the list to receive equal rights under the law and under the Constitution. Minority and womens rights were a tough battle, but were won, interestingly womens equality never received an amendment towards but became commonly accepted without one. Race discrimination DID receive an amendment, granting. Go figure, maybe it was that men were involved.

The Constitution has evolved with society also, to further grant rights previously denied. Tradition dictates that the Constitution does not deny rights, except Prohibition (repealed), under 18 voting, and that foreign born citizens cannot become President (now in question).

Perhaps Conservpat, this is a good argument about the erosion of traditional values in America, but tradition cannot really be artificially held onto when that tradition is no longer logical for the overall workings of an evolving society. If that were the case, as has been mentioned, amendments against adultery or divorce would also be the order of the day and someone would put a halt to "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire' and other such 'unsanctified' marriage drivel.

It appears clear to me that some heterosexuals are using the sanctification issue in the WORD 'marriage', something so eroded in their own culture, as a pretext to discriminate against those that make them uncomfortable, which is PREJUDICE.
Nothing different from denying equal rights to minorities or women in the day of their battles, or inter-racial marriage, which made people uncomfortable in that time, with the same arguments, which never ultimately held up under scrutiny.

If the word 'Marriage' is the problem, that will have to be explained...because it is a WORD. If Civil Unions are EXACTLY the same in all rights as Marriage then why the differentiation, in all logic? From where and how is a WORD the problem, enough to propose an amendment? It is obviously a smokescreen. There is a big case for attributing DENIAL in arguing such semantics, used as an anchor to promote a case of separate but equal. If it were equal, such division would not be necessary.

Children and the ban...Most of my lesbian friends have children. Women often like to have children. They have had these children with men but are lesbians who would like to marry the person of their choice but have not been given the right to do so. These children also need the protections of the Constitution through their parents, ie; guardianship, health care, inheritance and not to be left with social services upon injury or death of one parent, the other having no rights.

This is an issue which time has come and the Anti- are going to have to come up with something better than, 'We just dont like it, at all', (too bad) tradition (no bearing on history), religion (no bearing by separation of church and state clause) , semantics, (flimsy) or any other prejudice.

In my mind the Constitution on this issue is perfectly clear, with no amendment either necessary nor should even be in question. An amendment (against, in effect a ban on rights) would in fact be the second, (wrongly) to discriminate against 'some' US citizens.
Besides that, a precedent would be set, possibly allowing for other 'mob' tactics to infiltrate the Constitution at any FAD/WHIM of the religious or other prejudicial ideals that the majority might hold as important for a select period of time. (ie: gun control, martial law, free speech, free assembly) if the majority or government fears these things are against the 'will' of the people, especially considering post 911.
We talk slippery slopes? Before this I have already been worried about the erosion of the Constitution, about all of our rights to live in a free Republic, without Federal invasion.

I have not wanted to infer upon conservative agenda in my posts, but what happened to the doctrine of the Feds out of our business? States rights? How has so much government intrusion been met with such complete apathy by Conservatives and how is such intrusion so suddenly condoned on one particular issue and not any of the others?
(ie:children killing each other with guns, so much more a concern and DEATH OF INNOCENTS problem, but defended without question as a Constitutional right above all others) Rhetorical, because of thread objectives, just food for thought.
Where are your values, ultimately?( Its ok for your children to kill each other with your guns, but gays should not marry?) When is the Constitution valid or invalid only upon certain sections, parts or parcels?

Just one small question:

How do you tell people are married if not by law? In other words, civil union is the only marriage recognized by law.

The rest is up to individuals and their notion of spirituality. Spirituality cannot be legislated toward nor legislated against. Ergo, the Consitution cannot be amended to define spiritual marriage.

Our current President has pledged to defend the Constitution. He is not doing that. Rather, he is caving to the wishes of a group of citizens who find homosexuality to be unacceptable. He is proposing we all cave to these people as well.

By the way, I voted "good of the people." It cannot be any other way because tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.