A Danger to the Constitution (moral, Earth, birth control, minority)

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

The Gay-Marriage Amendment: A Danger to the Constitution
By David E. Kyvig
History News Service

http://www.h-net.org/~hns/articles/2004/062904a.html

Current vocal advocates of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage ought to consider the old Chinese adage, "Be careful what you wish for, because you may get it."

A gay marriage amendment, if adopted, could produce unintended and fateful consequences for the U.S. Constitution. Some of the possible results are certain to prove distasteful to the proposal's supporters, not to mention damaging to confidence in our constitutional system.

In amending the Constitution, unintended consequences should not be shrugged off lightly. Once an amendment is adopted, it can only be altered or removed by another amendment. Since a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states is needed to approve any amendment, a small but zealous minority of Congress or state legislators can block the repair of a mistake. If we amend in haste, we will likely have to endure the result regardless of how much we come to regret it.

The nation's constitutional history is full of instances when the outcome of amendments varied from the original intent of those who adopted it. The 1919 amendment prohibiting all commerce in alcoholic beverages provides the clearest example that a constitutional amendment can have profoundly important unintended consequences. Though outvoted by temperance proponents, a significant minority of Americans saw nothing wrong with drinking alcohol. After ratification, many citizens imbibed homemade concoctions or illegally purchased beverages. Bootleggers, indifferent to the dry law, seized the opportunity to profit by satisfying the nation's thirst. The amendment failed in spectacular fashion to achieve the temperance movement's desired result, as is also likely to happen with a gay marriage amendment.

Organizations quickly arose to seek prohibition's repeal. They argued that the law simultaneously deprived the government of substantial tax revenue and created enforcement costs. They concluded that prohibition undermined general respect for law as well as the Constitution. Still, despite the widespread displeasure with its unanticipated results, repeal became possible only in 1933 through the extraordinary circumstances of the Great Depression and the momentary discrediting of the Republican Party that had sought to enforce the dry law.

Earlier, even the Bill of Rights and the Reconstruction amendments of the 1860s evolved in ways that their drafters could scarcely have imagined. So too did the seemingly simple 12th Amendment adopted in 1804 to remedy flaws in the presidential election system. It inadvertently reduced the vice presidency from a position held by the leader of the country's second most powerful political party to one occupied by a secondary figure in the most powerful party. One of the nation's two nationally elected officials thus became far less influential in policy decisions, which marked a setback for the democratic nature of the republic. The three most recent amendments, dealing with presidential succession, voting by 18-year-olds and congressional pay, have produced unexpected results as well.

[b]An anti-gay marriage amendment is likely to generate many unintended consequences. ]Refusing gay unions legal sanction will certainly not prevent the formation of loving and enduring gay and lesbian relationships. As with prohibition, an amendment would not end the dispute over cultural values, but it would erode the always fragile sense that laws deserve respect and obedience regardless of personal preference.
In addition, regard for the Constitution as a protector of the inherent equal rights of all citizens would be weakened, at least among a significant portion of the American public. Some people will realize that other minority practices could face similar threats from a majority indifferent to the principle of equal protection for all.

Marriage itself could also be an unexpected victim of the anti-gay amendment. A declaration that government, not the individuals involved, has the authority to determine which couples may wed could well lead to a general questioning of the merits of obtaining state sanction for a personal relationship. Denial of spousal benefits to same-sex couples could stir a powerful argument that a wide range of matters from health care to hospital visitation rights to joint filing of income taxes ought to be fundamentally reconsidered if some couples were to be excluded from fair and equal protection of law. In the past Americans have displayed remarkable inventiveness in response to constitutional amendments, and there is every reason to expect they would do so again.

The record of attempts to amend the Constitution suggests that the odds against any proposal being adopted are very long. Of some 14,000 amendments offered in Congress, only 33 achieved the necessary two-thirds approval by both House and Senate, and a mere 27 have been ratified by three-fourths of the states. Enough of that handful have produced unforeseen results to justify caution in approaching constitutional reform.

In the end, those who oppose a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, even when they personally oppose the practice, are prudent protectors of the Constitution. Those who call for the amendment without a thorough investigation of potential effects irresponsibly jeopardize faith in the U.S. constitutional system.

[Ardhanariswar]

yes, people should be careful for what they are voting for...but gay marriage is not bad.

anyone have ideas what can go wrong? and incest couples wont get married either. that applies to both homo and hetero. and animal/human wont get married.

there has to be mutual consent.

[trishtrish10]

gay marriage is ridiculous and uncouth. how would u like someone of the same sex proposing to u and u aren''t gay. i love both man and woman. the only natural sex is heterosexual, all other is deceitful. people marry to get a blessing from God in most casses. sex is sacred only in a heterosexual marriage.

just like artificial birth control leading to abortion and now partial-birth abortions or infanticide, gay marriages would require the legalization of polygamy, arkansas marriages, animal husbandry, and even plants. some say we come from amoebas---would u propose to an amoeba?

[civilcynic]

Originally Posted by trishtrish10

gay marriage is ridiculous and uncouth. how would u like someone of the same sex proposing to u and u aren''t gay. i love both man and woman. the only natural sex is heterosexual, all other is deceitful. people marry to get a blessing from God in most casses. sex is sacred only in a heterosexual marriage.

just like artificial birth control leading to abortion and now partial-birth abortions or infanticide, gay marriages would require the legalization of polygamy, arkansas marriages, animal husbandry, and even plants. some say we come from amoebas---would u propose to an amoeba?

Do you actually realize how hateful your opposition to homosexuality sounds?
Again, why not let God judge these people....or did God appoint you as his judge and avenger on earth?

Again, another post about the abortion issue...can't stop perseverating on that, can you? Can you sight your evidence regarding how abortion and birth control or homosexuality will a person down the dark immoral tunnel towards polygamy and wanting to have a relationship with amoebas??? I thought people in Arkansas were able to legally marry and what's wrong with that? what does animal husbandry have to do with abortions/birth control or homosexuality? Or did you mean that birth control/abortion/homosexuality will cause one to want to have sex with animals? Lastly, please enlighten me on the connection of birth control/abortion/homosexuality has to do with plant life.....Do those who have abortions or use birth control or are homosexuals do something to or with plants?

I know both homosexuals and heterosexuals and any unwanted advances I ever got were from heterosexuals. Furthermore, although limited to my own personal experiences, I have never know anyone who used birth control, had an abortion or was homosexual that led them to kill an infant (a not a pre-born), led them to polygamy, a career in animal husbandry or farming, sex with animals or who had any type of relationship with an amoeba. Don't know anyone from Arkansas so can't really comment there and am truly clueless about the 'plant' relationship.

Despite my ragging on these issue, I must admit I've enjoyed your posts...You mentioned I didn't understand in one your responses to my posts and, you're right, I don't!

[linwood]

"the only natural sex is heterosexual "

Could you prove this on an evolutionary or physiological level?

"all other is deceitful"

Decietful to whom?
Please explain.

"people marry to get a blessing from God in most casses"

I don`t think this is true either as most people are non-religious and god is the last thing on their minds when planning to marry.

"sex is sacred only in a heterosexual marriage."

What makes sex sacred?
I don`t believe the act of sex is naturally sacred, why do you think it is?

"gay marriages would require the legalization of polygamy, arkansas marriages, animal husbandry, and even plants. "

Please explain this too...how would a federal recognition of gay marraige make all this a requirement?

"some say we come from amoebas---would u propose to an amoeba? "

That depends on what my options were

[trishtrish10]

i thought u might have a sense of humor, but was wrong. i'm hererosexual and don't like homosexual advances on me, which i have experienced. it's not natural, it's rude, and it is insane. maybe u all did come from the same ape. i didn't. (ha)

[Green Gaia]

Originally Posted by trishtrish10

i'm hererosexual and don't like homosexual advances on me, which i have experienced. it's not natural, it's rude, and it is insane. ha)

I am homosexual and I don't like heterosexual advances on me, which I have experienced. It's not natural for me, and it's rude, it is insane that any man would think I would want to be with them.

[Phoenix]

gay marriage is ridiculous and uncouth. how would u like someone of the same sex proposing to u and u aren''t gay.

That's not an argument, it's a personal preference. Try again.

the only natural sex is heterosexual, all other is deceitful.

Actually, homosexual sex has been observed in animals for centuries.

people marry to get a blessing from God in most casses.

Not everyone is religious. Try and be more considerate.

just like artificial birth control leading to abortion and now partial-birth abortions or infanticide, gay marriages would require the legalization of polygamy, arkansas marriages, animal husbandry, and even plants. some say we come from amoebas---would u propose to an amoeba?

If it doesn't affect me in any way, then by all means, people can marry whatever, whoever they want. I don't see how it affects you if a brother and sister in a hill somewhere decide to have sex. Other then it being gross... which is a completely stupid reason to ban something.

i thought u might have a sense of humor, but was wrong.

I thought you might have had a shred of intelligence, but I was wrong.

i'm hererosexual and don't like homosexual advances on me, which i have experienced.

Too bad. Just because you find something disgusting, that's not grounds to ban it. Try again. Again.

it's not natural, it's rude, and it is insane. maybe u all did come from the same ape. i didn't. (ha)

I didn't find that funny. I guess I'm a baby-eating liberal who has sex with plants and amoebas now. And I meant I didn't find the entire quote funny, although I knew you were joking around in all three sentences. Right?

[Mr Spinkles]

I am homosexual and I don't like heterosexual advances on me, which I have experienced. It's not natural for me, and it's rude, it is insane that any man would think I would want to be with them.

Sorry about that Maize, I had no idea at the time. At least you didn't say "especially Spinkles LOL" at the end there.

Hey Phoenix-- Please don't make rude comments and personal attacks...let's keep the discussion lively but civil. I would really appreciate it if you tried to be respectful to others, even if you disagree with them. Thanks.

[trishtrish10]

no matter how u try to ratioalize homosexuality, it's not normal and is disgusting. i have several friends who are homosexual and i love them, but even they know they are wrong in their beliefs and struggle with acceptance by others. it's like rationalizing any form of sex is ok, because it gives me pleasure. it warps the mind and lowers self-esteem. sex is sacred only in marriage. it is for recreation and procreation. i don't believe homosexual couples should be able to adopt children. that's bizarre. the kid/s wouldn't experience both maternal and paternal guidance. the family structure is under attack and needs to be protected by law. here in missouri we voted for marriage only between a man and woman, it passed. pray the same for other states.