Louisiana Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

[WorldWatcher]

yes, I have already said that you are technically correct. But a constitutional amendment on gay marriage would not be passed without such a referendum------------thats my opinion. you are free to differ.

You are fee to believe Amendments to the United States Constitutional are passed by referendum vote.

This is the United States people are allowed to be wrong.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

False.

There Constitution does not call for a voter referendum or "popular vote" for amendments. As a matter of fact it is not one of the methods described:

"Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;"​

The Constitution calls for a representative vote either in the Legislature or in State Convention - not a "popular vote" and requires 3/4th's of the State ratifications to pass.

Calls for a Constitutional amendment have numerously been proposed and never reached the super majority required.



>>>>

Sure, but three fourths of the states would have to have a state referendum. Yes, you are correct 38 could do it and 12 could do nothing------------------how likely is that?

No Article V does not call for a state referendum on an amendment. It says that proposed amendments are approved by the legislature of the state or the state can call a Constitutional Convention for that state for passage. A Constitutional Convention is not a referendum. Delegates are elected and then they attend the Convention. Again a representative process and not a referendum process.

BTW - I don't think, you can correct me if I'm wrong by showing the Amendment, where any Amendment has been passed by a State Constitutional Convention process. IIRC they've all been passed by State Legislature action.


>>>>

are state legislators elected by majority vote? Do they serve at the will of their constituents? On a sensitive issue like this, do you think any state legislature would ignore the will of a majority of the residents of that state? of course not, they would insist on a referendum in order to protect their jobs.

Irrelevant to what you said about amendments being passed by popular vote or referendum vote.

There are no, none, zippo, zero provisions to amend the constitution through any type of national vote.



>>>>

yes, I have already said that you are technically correct. But a constitutional amendment on gay marriage would not be passed without such a referendum------------thats my opinion. you are free to differ.

A Constitutional Amendment prohibiting same sex marriage was floated before was it not? It went where? Oh yeah...no where.

 

[frigidweirdo]

OK, technically you are correct. So what? do you think the other 12 would do nothing?

Well, this isn't the point. The point is, you're trying to make an argument that is leaking water all over the place.

 

[frigidweirdo]

“As I've said numerous times before, The issue of interracial marriage was in effect decided by the large majority opinnon expressed in the 13th and 15th amendments.”

And has been proven to you numerous times before, this is ridiculous and as a fact of law wrong.

The 13A and 15A were made by the majority and the 14A wasn't?

The 14th actually failed before it was "reconsidered" under coercive threat.

And no one has bothered to get rid of it for what, 150 years?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah, me too. I agree that being gay or lesbian is a human right. I have friends and relatives who are gay. I want them to have the same rights that everyone else has-----and they do.

The gays that I know think this gay marriage debate is foolish and actually is hurting them.

Just like blacks saw how foolish the civil rights movement was, huh?

Come off it, people want to be considered equal under the law, 150 years of an amendment which "guarantees" this, and it hasn't happened yet.

You do realise, there are 6 English Speaking countries in the world, three of them have Gay marriage as law. One, the US is almost there.

 

[Skylar]

nice try, but to summarize your position. You don't want a vote on a constitutional amendment because you fear that it would not pass. We get it. You favor societal acceptance by government mandate rather than the will of the people.

And this is about societal rules-----------------that is all it is about.

Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, try reading what I said. YOU have called for some kind of national vote to put an end to the issue. There are no provisions for any kind of national vote to approve or reject laws. If you think there is please site the Article and Section of the United States Constitution that provides this.

And FYI and no I don't think there should be national votes to amend laws like they have in California. If we did that we'd have national gun control votes and the liberals would make it illegal for me to own guns. If we did that the 47% who don't pay taxes along with the liberal elite would vote to take more money out of my pocket.

No thanks, I prefer what the founder setup which is a Constitutional Republic and not a direct democracy like you are calling for.


>>>>

a constitutional amendment could be passed by 38 states. Lets do it.


Let the people decide like they did on the original wording of the founding documents.

1. Mathematically yes it takes 3/4's of the states to approve an amendment.

2. The people did decide (using your logic) when they said that all citizens (which includes homosexuals) have a right to due process and equal treatment.

3. The founding document of government (the Constitution) does not have provisions for people to vote to Amend the Constitution, the process uses a representative process.

4. At the height of the anti-gay movement there were numerous attempts to write such an amendment into the Constitution, they already failed.



>>>>


C

what you are missing is that nowhere is marriage defined as a civil right.

Never said it was.

Equal treatment under the law, barring a compelling government interest to the contrary though - is a restriction on government and that IS in the Constitution.

Under your logic then States were free to bar interracial marriage because no where in the Constitution is interracial marriage was defined - how'd that work out?


>>>>

This is exactly why so many of the founders opposed a bill of rights: they were afraid that enumerating some rights would lead some ignorant soul to conclude that only those rights that were enumerated actually existed. To alleviate their justifiable fears, the 9th amendment was added which specifically says that other rights are held by the people. And still, to this day, many folks argue that unless a right is already enumerated, it doesn't exist.

You can't fix stupid.

 

[dcraelin]

“As I've said numerous times before, The issue of interracial marriage was in effect decided by the large majority opinnon expressed in the 13th and 15th amendments.”
And has been proven to you numerous times before, this is ridiculous and as a fact of law wrong.

The 13A and 15A were made by the majority and the 14A wasn't?

The 14th actually failed before it was "reconsidered" under coercive threat.

And no one has bothered to get rid of it for what, 150 years?

Well things get kind of put on auto-pilot. It shouldn't be given the place it has been in "jurisprudence" given it sordid history.

 

[Mr. H.]

posting to change the views #

 

[Samson]

posting to change the views #

posting to change the views #

 

[Mr. H.]

But, it was that EVIL number!

 

[Redfish]

posting to change the views #

good point, everyone already knows where they stand on this. arguing about it will not change anyone's opinion and will make some more adamant about theirs.

Its a sensitive issue. That is proven by the number of threads and posts on gay marriage, gay rights, etc.

People on both sides have strong views. My only point is that we all have the right to believe what we believe and the government should not dictate what we are allowed to believe.

 

[Seawytch]

posting to change the views #

good point, everyone already knows where they stand on this. arguing about it will not change anyone's opinion and will make some more adamant about theirs.

Its a sensitive issue. That is proven by the number of threads and posts on gay marriage, gay rights, etc.

People on both sides have strong views. My only point is that we all have the right to believe what we believe and the government should not dictate what we are allowed to believe.

The government doesn't dictate what you believe. Your "beliefs" are safe. What you cannot do is discriminate based on your "beliefs".

 

[Skylar]

yes, I have already said that you are technically correct. But a constitutional amendment on gay marriage would not be passed without such a referendum------------thats my opinion. you are free to differ.

You are fee to believe Amendments to the United States Constitutional are passed by referendum vote.

This is the United States people are allowed to be wrong.


>>>>

I suppose the people could be involved if the State legislatures allowed it. But its not the people who vote. Its the State legislatures who vote. Very much like the electoral college, the state legislatures can choose a method of deciding the issue that involves the people. But they don't have to.

 

[Skylar]

posting to change the views #

good point, everyone already knows where they stand on this. arguing about it will not change anyone's opinion and will make some more adamant about theirs.

Its a sensitive issue. That is proven by the number of threads and posts on gay marriage, gay rights, etc.

People on both sides have strong views. My only point is that we all have the right to believe what we believe and the government should not dictate what we are allowed to believe.

I've changed my opinion on it. Originally, I was anti-gay marriage. But I kept finding enormous holes in the arguments I had to make to maintain the position. Holes that I just couldn't resolve. The longer I defended the bans, the more holes appeared and the weaker my position was.

I attended a gay commitment ceremony (marriages weren't legal in that day) and was surprised at how....normal it all was. Everyone was smiling, both moms of the couple were crying they were so happy, the couple getting married clearly loved each other very much, there was lots of food, lots of dancing, and we all drank a little too much. It dawned on me that love is love. And family is family. How you get your nut really doesn't matter all that much.

Soon afterward, I had a bit of an epiphany: if the gay marriage ban argument was so difficult to maintain, had so many holes, required so much defending, then it might just be an awful argument. And under the weight of personal experience and some very strong arguments in favor of gay marriage, I changed my position. Its one of the reasons I know how to exploit the weakness in the gay marriage opponent's arguments. I've made them all. And frankly, I did a much better job advocating gay marriage bans than anyone I've seen here.

 

[Skylar]

People on both sides have strong views. My only point is that we all have the right to believe what we believe and the government should not dictate what we are allowed to believe.

There are legions of holes in that sentiment. First, having a 'strong view' doesn't mean that you have a particularly well thought out position. Or that your position is valid. Just ask a 911 truther. They definitely have strong views. But their reasoning is blithering nonsense. In the case of gay marriage, the weight of reason falls pretty firmly on one side of the argument: that of gay marriage advocacy. Its why so many courts have overruled gay marriage bans.

Second, recognition of gay marriages has nothing to do with telling you what you can believe. Your beliefs are yours to cherish, nurture and occasionally polish. But they have nothing to do with the law. Especially a law that has nothing to do with you. If you don't believe in same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. The idea that someone *else's* marriage somehow interferes with your ability to believe something is plain nonsense.

 

[WorldWatcher]

yes, I have already said that you are technically correct. But a constitutional amendment on gay marriage would not be passed without such a referendum------------thats my opinion. you are free to differ.

You are fee to believe Amendments to the United States Constitutional are passed by referendum vote.

This is the United States people are allowed to be wrong.


>>>>

I suppose the people could be involved if the State legislatures allowed it. But its not the people who vote. Its the State legislatures who vote. Very much like the electoral college, the state legislatures can choose a method of deciding the issue that involves the people. But they don't have to.

Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.​

1. They could put an advisory referendum on the ballot, but it would have no legal weight. The requirement is that those that vote in the State be either the Legislature or a Constitutional Convention (a method never used).

2. You may also note that the method of ratification (Legislature or Constitutional Convention) may be directed by Congress. They can mandate that the Legislature must be the method of ratification.



>>>>

 

[Skylar]

The people alone couldn't vote through an amendment. But the state legislatures could allow popular vote to determine if a given state legislature will support ratification in a manner similar to the assignment of electoral voters.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The people alone couldn't vote through an amendment. But the state legislatures could allow popular vote to determine if a given state legislature will support ratification in a manner similar to the assignment of electoral voters.

I said I agree that the State could hold and advisory referendum. But it would have no legal weight, it would still take a vote of the State Legislature, those elected individuals would have to cast their ballot (vote) on the proposed amendment.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

The people alone couldn't vote through an amendment. But the state legislatures could allow popular vote to determine if a given state legislature will support ratification in a manner similar to the assignment of electoral voters.

I said I agree that the State could hold and advisory referendum. But it would have no legal weight, it would still take a vote of the State Legislature, those elected individuals would have to cast their ballot (vote) on the proposed amendment.


>>>>

It would have as much legal weight as the popular vote does on a presidential election.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The people alone couldn't vote through an amendment. But the state legislatures could allow popular vote to determine if a given state legislature will support ratification in a manner similar to the assignment of electoral voters.

I said I agree that the State could hold and advisory referendum. But it would have no legal weight, it would still take a vote of the State Legislature, those elected individuals would have to cast their ballot (vote) on the proposed amendment.


>>>>

It would have as much legal weight as the popular vote does on a presidential election.

Less, as Electoral College Electors are required by law in most states to cast their votes based on the general election - they don't have a choice. Failure to vote in accordance with the results can result in disqualification as an Elector and fines. In those states with no legal requirement it is still the votes of the Electors that are counted as part of the College, not the popular vote.


>>>>