Comments on: Gettin’ hitched, Massachusetts style

By: debby

debby — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:32:09 +0000

Kerrigan and I have decided to go get hitched in every state as it becomes legal. Wadda ya think?

Yay! Brown vs. Board of Education 1954 and 1955. “Separate but equal” is a big ol’ stupid fallacy. This sets legal precedent, people. If the ERA and flag burning couldn’t become amendments, I doubt the marriage one ever will. There are a lot of gay people in congress and in the various state governments. And amendments can be repealed (think prohibition).

I am a big fan of judicial review! Yippee, yay!

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:57:03 +0000

I’m stil not sure about constitutional amendments. I seem to remember that the amendment has to specifically strike out conflicting phrases in the rest of the Constitution in order to prevent Supreme Court challenges. It’s been a while since my last US History class, though…

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:45:00 +0000

Done. The Office of Historical Revision aims to please!

By: Deana

Deana — Thu, 05 Feb 2004 14:18:14 +0000

Ack, I didn’t mean to post twice, I just noticed a typo in my first post and went back to edit it… Chris, could you make the first post go bye-bye?

By: Deana

Deana — Thu, 05 Feb 2004 14:17:23 +0000

From what I understand, a constitutional amendment cannot be ruled unconstitutional. It basically says, “Ah, so what we want to do goes against the rules? Well, then, let’s just change those rules.” I’m a bit worried about Massachusetts’ decision, actually, because although I agree with it and think the legal reasoning is absolutely sound, there is a split between folks in favor of gay marriage and those okay with civil unions as long as you don’t CALL them marriages, and this may compel folks in that latter camp to join the far rightists and vote for legislators who will pass a marriage-limiting constitutional amendment.

I’m a little scared that the Mass decision is winning a battle that may lead to losing the war.