NationStates Jolt Archive

[Disclaimer: I don't want this thread to turn into a homosexual marriage debate/Bush Bashing thread/whatever, there are plenty of threads for that.]

Is the plan for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman illegal, with regards to the constitution?

I'll explain my reasoning. In Article I, Section 9, clause 3 states that:


No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html)

I take ex post facto to mean something that take affect retroactively.

And since same sex marriages [/civil unions] have been performed, it would mean that the amendment would act retroactively (that is, nullify the existing marriage contracts between same sex couples).

Now I fully acknowledge I may be wrong, I am new to this so might be misinterpreting/overlooking something relevent. Such as, amendments are special or whatever.

Needless to say I doubted that the amendment would pass and was just proposed to make Bush/whoever look good. But I don't care about that at the moment.

Firstly, most of those were voided, secondly some of us have found out that The constitution can pretty much be ignored. Thirdly, hasn't the amendment been dropped like a hot potato?

Firstly, most of those were voided, secondly some of us have found out that The constitution can pretty much be ignored. Thirdly, hasn't the amendment been dropped like a hot potato?
I think so. But I have stopped even going into the threads that deal with this stuff. But as I said, I didn't think it mattered that the issue had been dropped. I was just wondering if it was legal in the first place.

But I wasn't sure if some of the more Liberal states still had same-sex marriages.
Also I assume that if they were voided it would be by the individual state (which as far as I know wouldn't be restricted by that clause of the constitution [since it deals with Congress]).

In the constitution, the ex post facto clause has been disregarded. For example, slaves still existed in some Union states after the Emancipation Proclaimation. That did not stop them from being freed by the 15th Amendment. Should such an amendment pass, it is unlikely that saame sex marraiges won't be nullified. However, don't count on its immediate passage. Except for a few ministers and ultra right Congressmen, no one is calling for its passage.

One important thing to note, that if a constitutional ammendment did go through, it wouldn't matter what the rest of the constitution says. By it being an Ammendment, it won't matter what rules are on the books on the subject. All will be changed in accordance to the ammendment.

Glenorand :sniper:

[Disclaimer: I don't want this thread to turn into a homosexual marriage debate
How can you request that when the entire basis of a Federal Marriage Amendment would be solely for the banning of homosexual marriage?

At any rate, Nice try, but everyone ignores the constitution anyway until the Supreme Court says "Dumbasses, you can't do that. Unconstitutional" Which will take years upon years, assuming Congress would let them take it, if they wanted to take it and it wasn't stacked with nazis

it could be argued, i think, that any existing same sex marriages would be legal. someone would take it to the supreme court and the court would decide the issue. if they are "grandfathered in" then there would be a period of time when such marriages existed but there could be no new ones made. when they all died or divorced, there would be no legal same sex marriages in this country

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-4.html
According to Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, "no State shall pass any ex post facto Law.'' A similar provision that applies to Congress is found in Section 9 of the same article. At first glance these constitutional prohibitions seem simple enough--retroactive laws violate the Constitution. Unfortunately, the issue is not so simple. With one ruling in 1798, the Supreme Court succeeded in muddling the issue of ex post facto laws by holding that the prohibition of retroactive laws applies only to criminal, not civil, laws.

The amendment hasn't been officially dropped so people will watch.

The fact the Repubs could take controll of the Senate guarantees there will be a filabuster

How can you request that when the entire basis of a Federal Marriage Amendment would be solely for the banning of homosexual marriage?

I was wondering if the Federal Marriage Amendment was 'legal,' rather then debating the pros and cons of homosexual marriage.

I was wondering if the Federal Marriage Amendment was 'legal,' rather then debating the pros and cons of homosexual marriage.
Well give it 3 more pages, then we are all boned and it's going to be a yelling match between homophobes and whoever else.

it could be argued, i think, that any existing same sex marriages would be legal. someone would take it to the supreme court and the court would decide the issue. if they are "grandfathered in" then there would be a period of time when such marriages existed but there could be no new ones made. when they all died or divorced, there would be no legal same sex marriages in this country

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-4.html
Interesting, thanks.

Well give it 3 more pages, then we are all boned and it's going to be a yelling match between homophobes and whoever else.

True. But that is a three page leeway for me to learn ;)

As the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, a change to the Constitution through an amendment cannot be illegal. :headbang:

i am awestruck how tollerant you are... i applaud you

As the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, a change to the Constitution through an amendment cannot be illegal. :headbang:

Well I said that may be the case in my opening post. Just wasn't sure ;)

So less of the headbanging.

once such an ammendment is passed *shudder* then there is law created based on it and court rulings modifying those laws

so who knows what would really happen. it depends on the exact wording and how it might be worked around. there may still be room for "civil unions" to exist for any 2 adults who might want to form them. maybe even polygamous civil unions.... who knows.

As the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, a change to the Constitution through an amendment cannot be illegal. :headbang:
Unless it contradicts itself. :headbang:

Funny how that justification arguments for institutionalised homophobia are becoming ever more desperate and illogical on this board.

Unless it contradicts itself. :headbang:

No, if it contradicts itself the latest amendment is the one used. That was Celtlunds point.

No, if it contradicts itself the latest amendment is the one used. That was Celtlunds point.

An example would be prohibition and then the repeal of prohibition.

Well I said that may be the case in my opening post. Just wasn't sure ;)

So less of the headbanging.

Sorry. I didn't realize you were not from the US and may not have the same understanding of out Constitutional process as we should have.

Sorry. I didn't realize you were not from the US and may not have the same understanding of out Constitutional process as we should have.
No worries.

An example would be prohibition and then the repeal of prohibition.
No.

Amendment XXI

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

... everyone ignores the constitution anyway until the Supreme Court says "Dumbasses, you can't do that. Unconstitutional" [sic]...

:D