From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 09:46 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: > >> A US Constitutional Amendment can, from time to time, move more quickly > >> than that. > > > >Examples, please. Show me that a US Amendment can pass faster than 2 years. > > Kevin Tarr posted the relevant excerpts from the US Constitution. That > process can theoretically be completed within a year. Ok, theoretically, if everyone cooperated, that might be possible. But, from what I understand, how long it takes depends entirely on the states. They have up to seven years to cast their vote on the issue, and that is not something that George W. Bush can rush. A single state holding out can drag out the process to 7 years. Besides, the FMA has little chance of passing even in the House and Senate. Moreover, the republicans in the senate have already made it clear that the FMA is not something they will rush through. You would be lucky if it even passed both the Senate and the House within 2 years, if it passes at all. > >> In addition, if federal judges are anything like those in Massachusetts, > >> they will likely in short order find the Defense of Marriage Act > >> unconstitutional, thus necessitating a Federal Marriage Amendment. > > > >Now this is just paranoia. You are already assuming a bad outcome if it > >goes to the Supreme Court. > > You mean, the same Supreme Court that decided Roe vs. Wade and Casey vs. > Pennsylvania? No, it is not the same supreme court that issued Roe v. Wade. As for Casey v. Pennsylvania, I am simply unfamiliar with it. There are many judges on the court now that were not there for Roe v. Wade. That is why I chose the example of the ballots in Florida. It's the same judges then that would rule if the case were to go to the Supreme Court now. If they issued what I would dare say that you considered a fair ruling in the Florida Ballots case, why would they suddenly lend themselves to liberal judicial activism now? > Sorry Michael, but if the Supreme Court rules against us, as Massachusetts > has learned, it is already too late. How is it too late in Massachusetts? There is still the possiblity of a state amendment. I dare say, that has a far better chance of passing than a federal amendment. > I have no problem with amending the Constitution to handle situations - > much like the present one - which the framers never envisioned. And I > honestly don't think that you seriously that the FMA is redundant..... I don't think it's redundant. I never said it was. I think it's like using a bazooka to kill flies. If same sex marriages bother you that much, then use the right tool to address it. Marriage is a state issue, and as such, shouldn't the situation be handled on the state level? Really, John, why does same sex marriage bother you so much? If homosexuals marry each other, that won't affect you or your life in the slightest. What about gay marriage is so disturbing to you that you can only think of forbidding it rather than having a "live and let live" attitude about it? Don't give me that "cornerstone of society" and "radical redefinition" BS you have been dishing out, what really bothers you about it so much? This is asking for a personal opinion, not neccessarily something based in sound argument. If you want to discuss that off list so you won't get flamed on-list for your personal opinions, I will gladly discuss it off-list and keep everything you say off-list private. I just think there is more too this reaction of yours than simple disagreement with gay marriage if you want to make gay marriage banned in the whole USA and by means of the most powerful tool available. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
