Replies

This is a total waste of time and energy - folks, the constitution is a very serious document and should not be cluttered with every popular idea that comes along (even good ideas qua ideas). The simple approach is to appoint justices who do not see a conumdrum within a penumbra with every case but rather a clear reading of the founding fathers' document.

folks, the constitution is a very serious document and should not be cluttered with every popular idea that comes along (even good ideas qua ideas).

I agree. Which is why the Supreme Court should not have arbitrarily inserted a "right to sodomy" (or a "right to abortion" or a "right to pornography") into it in the first place. They did it by extra-legal, despotic judicial fiat. We want to use the Constitution the way the Founding Fathers envisioned. You treat the Marriage Amendment as if it weren't serious business. Given our current cultural climate, neck deep in sludge driven by illegally imposed judicial lawmaking, I say that it is very serious business. Is there any doubt it'll help curb the rot and head off future corruption?

The simple approach is to appoint justices who do not see a conumdrum within a penumbra with every case but rather a clear reading of the founding fathers' document.

Yeah, we thought we'd been doing that for 30 years since Roe v. Wade and look how far we've gotten: 6-3 vote in favor of a "right to sodomy." Washington is a foetid cess pool of corruption that eventually turns weak but conservative individuals like Sundried O'Connor into moral relativist dopes.

It's past time for the people to impose their check on this nonsense.

This is a total waste of time and energy - folks, the constitution is a very serious document and should not be cluttered with every popular idea that comes along (even good ideas qua ideas). The simple approach is to appoint justices who do not see a conumdrum within a penumbra with every case but rather a clear reading of the founding fathers' document.

I aggree, as to the marriage amendment. However the whole affair, plus the Affirmitive Action debacle, put into stark relief a glaring weakness in the Constitution, that is allowing judicial activism. Now that could be the subject of a more general amendment, one that changes the structure of the government, although not necessarily very much. Let the Supreme Court continue to rule on the Constitutionality of the laws, but make them do it within a few months to years of the time a law is passed. If it passes muster then, it's constitutional until modifed by the other two branches, at which point they get a crack at the modifications. Perhaps set up a new parralel judical body to do that, and take the Constitutionality review power out of the hands of the current Supreme Court, since it was never specifically granted to them in the first place, let their rulings only apply to the case before them. The other Court would be the one that could strike down laws, you might even want to make it a requirement that they review them before they take effect. You'd have to have some provision for striking down unconsitutional state laws as well, but retaining the notion of only having a limited time after passage in which to do so.

I'm opposed to amending the Constitution, but marriage contracts are a valid enterprise for the state. There's nothing wrong with defining it in the Constitution. My question is how would this affect hermaphrodites?