The state constitutional amendments are so that state courts do not rule that gender-based discrimination violates the state constitution.
The issue arose first in Hawaii in the 1980s, then Vermont and Massachusetts and recently New Jersey. State courts looked at the state constitutions, which can often offer more protections that the federal constitution, and found discriminating against same-sex couples violates the state equal protection clauses. So, the courts ruled that it was illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation or the gender of those seeking marriage.
To ensure that equal protection arguments fail, and that laws can legally discriminate, many state constitutions were amended to allow such discrimination. It's basically state-sanctioned bigotry.
Those states who are so bigoted that they refuse to allow the courts to even consider the equal protection argument amend their state constitutions to ensure that nobody can even ask the question, and can therefore never even challenge the discriminator laws in court.
It's like if the federal Constitution didn't have the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amednment. Racial segregation would never have stopped, because nobody would have been allowed to challenge it in court. Same thing here, only for gender.
2006-11-04 09:37:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
The key word you left out in your inquiry is "Gay marriage isn't legal NOW."
If it isn't banned NOW, it will become legal LATER.
Yes, this issue is on several states' ballots this year as it was 2 years ago.
As a rule of thumb in politics (for all parties), the more extreme the consequences are for a certain behavior, the more extreme the legislative action must be to prevent it.
2006-11-04 17:45:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by STILL standing 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Both state and federal initiatives are an attempt to make the constitutions more restrictive, effectively denying rights to a group of people within the state (or, if you look at the attempt to amend the US Constitution, to a class of Americans).
The problem is with the use of the word 'marriage' in statute. This is a mistake in that it describes both a civil contract (civil marriage) and a religious sacrament. These amendments are inevitably passed because voters are thinking in terms of religious marriage, not a civil contract.
The better remedy is to amend all state and federal laws to remove all references to marriage, replacing them by the words 'civil contract'. This would allow gay men and lesbians the same 1,017 rights that are currently enacted in federal law for heterosexual couples - who receive those rights the second they marry. In contrast, a gay couple in a stable relationship for 20 years is unable to obtain most of those rights; and those that they can obtain through complex legal documentation are expensive.
Marriage should be left entirely to religious organizations, and they should remain free to marry whomever they please.
Sadly, although there has been some attempt to introduce legislation along these lines, it has zero chance of passing.
2006-11-04 18:35:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
At least if a question is on the ballot the people actually get to vote on the issue, rather than have some moronic representative vote for whoever pays him the most.
2006-11-04 17:38:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by ChaliQ 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, it is on the Virginia Ballot, and yes, it is extreme. I don't even think gay marriage should be against the law. In any case, the Virginia resolution (#1 on the ballot) is so vague and general that it could have a lot of repercussions. Please, if you are in Virginia, on ballot question #1, vote
NO!
2006-11-05 23:38:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by alnitaka 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who feel threatened by gay folk loving one another, although I can't imagine why. So unfoutunately, there are several states that are trying to codify discrimination. I was just thinking the other day how ironic it is that several decades ago we couldn't pass a constitutional ammendment to guarantee equal rights for women, but now so many people have their panties in a bunch trying to ammend the constitution to guarantee inequality. Just seems strange to me.
2006-11-04 17:41:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by micah's mom 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
By definition, you can't BAN something that's already illegal. To ban it implies that it's legal to do and you're trying to make it illegal. It'd make things much easier if government just gets their hooks out of marriage and leave it up to the people.
2006-11-04 17:43:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by bennyjoe81 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
By putting it in state constitutions, they hope to take it out of the reach of courts that don't like the laws the legislature makes.
The fears are well-founded. Courts do this often enough to cause concern.
2006-11-04 17:41:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by open4one 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
It's totally absurd that we are even voting for or against gay marriage. Gays should have the same basic rights we all enjoy, after all they are human beings.
2006-11-04 17:37:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by carpediem 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
no, they are not "baning" but they are making constitutional admendments to their state constitutions that marriage is only between one man and one women.
What is happening is that in some states the gay and liberals are using the courts to allow marriage of gays, something the majority of the people don't want.
So by allowing it to go to vote of the people, the real will of the people are known and carried out
2006-11-04 17:40:23
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋