At 12:50 PM 3/27/2004 -0500 Tom Beck wrote:
>> Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man
>> and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any
>> state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal
>> incidents
>> thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and
>> woman.
>
>Doesn't specify living man or woman. So I guess it will be
>constitutional to marry a corpse. Doesn't say man or woman over a
>certain age, either, so I guess it will be constitutional to marry a
>newborn (the way they used to betroth certain people essentially at
>birth - in fact, the way they still do in some countries. So much for
>marriage always and everywhere resembling exactly and only what the
>pinhead rightwing fanatics in this country want to delude themselves
>into believing it looks like.)
Neither of these are changes from the status quo. States may
currentlyimplement either of the above laws. (Although, since the above
amendment says "man and woman" as opposed to "male and female" - I think
that the above would constitutionally prohibit child marriage.... but
anyhow, I am not going to worry about that point, Tom, unless you want to
propose an amendment to correct the current status quo on those points.)
>Also, if a state is not required to confer marriage on anyone else,
>does that mean that a state MAY do so if its people want to? In which
>case, following the full faith and credit clause of the constitution,
>will other states be required to recognize this?
No, that would violate the first sentence of the Amendment.
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
