Comments on: State marriage amendments: thumbs down

By: Election observations

Election observations — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:32:30 +0000

[...] in California and elsewhere ignored the urgings of this site and wrote anti-same-sex-marriage provisions into their constitutions. There are many possible [...]

By: Twitter for 2008-09-20

Twitter for 2008-09-20 — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:00:16 +0000

[...] editorialize against state (anti-gay) marriage amendments [Overlawyered] [...]

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:45:48 +0000

I would agree with SmokeVanThorn, in that amending the constitution is certainly a democratic process.

I would also, in some sense, agree with Walter that a “nothing in this constitution shall be construed” amendment could achieve the IMMEDIATE result (no judicially mandated SSM) more easily.

Unfortunately, I just don’t think people think that way – if we are enacting this to prevent SSM (and that’s the way people usually think), then let’s just prevent SSM, eh?

Actually, I think there are several sex/gender issues that could use some clarification, and that SSM issues could be a byproduct of doing that, but none of that stokes people’s emotions (one way or the other) enough to actually get anything done.

It’s similar to abortion – the abortion procedure is what gets people fired up (for or against), but the real problem and point of disagreement is defining when “personhood” begins, we just can’t get people fired up about that enough to really deal with it.

By: SmokeVanThorn

SmokeVanThorn — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:28:57 +0000

There is nothing “undemocratic” about the people of a state VOTING to change their constitution.

If times change, the people can vote again.