Federal "Discrimination" Marriage Amendment.

[RedXIII]

They should let the people vote,instead of allowing Bush and Senators to vote on the law,Because America is a Democracy,Because "Democracy" translated from Greek means "Government of the people." "for the people to the people and by the people"

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. Voting is good.

[WindRavenX]

12. except when it's for unconstitutional measures

People need to re-read the federalist papers...

[BlueStorm]

2. I agree

These kinds of policies should be decided by the people. That true sense of democracy.

Blue

[sui generis]

3. unfortunately we'd be voting by Zogby then

and the popular vote sometimes violates the principles of democracy by inhibiting constitution protections. Essentially, a majority can vote away the rights of a minority in a purely general vote.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. You might want to look up the process of passing an amendment

First of all, the President has no say whatsoever in determining whether or not an amendment is passed.

It takes a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate to propose an amendment to the US Constitution. PROPOSE, not pass. There is a way for states to propose an amendment through a convention, but that method has never been tried.

Once an amendment has been proposed, it passes to the states. The Constitution requires the ratification of 3/4ths of the states before an amendment becomes part of the Constitution. That means at least 38 states must vote to approve a proposed amendment. A proposed amendment is automatically dead if 13 states vote against a proposed amendment (whick makes the necessary 38 impossible to get.) In theory, the state legislature makes the decision all by itself, with no need for either governor or the people. In practice, the legislatures call a referendum and abide by the vote of the people.

So even if the Federal Marriage Amendment were approved by the House and Senate, it would still remain merely a proposal until 38 states vote to ratify or 13 states vote against ratification. And proposed amendment don't mean squat (just ask people about the Equal Rights Amendment of the 1970s.)

[China_cat]

5. That's exactly how we lost the ERA

no ratification. Oh, and don't forget that there is usually a time limit set for the ratification of an amendment.

[Ian David]

6. Civil rights are not up to a popular vote by mob rule.

This is a Republic-- a representative Democracy-- and our elected officials (and other civil servants) are sworn to protect the minority from the tyrany of the majority. Especially the courts.

Your Senator and Congress-critters are sworn to protect The Constitution and to protect all the citizens of their district-- whether those citizens they are sworn to protect are popular or not.

Period.

If bigots think gay marriage is yucky, then that's too bad. Avoiding offending someone's sensibilities is a much lower priority than protecting someone's right to health care, hospital visitation, shared custody of their children, and over 1,400 other legal rights and obligations.

Tough shit.

You don't vote on civil rights.

[WindRavenX]

13. you said it better than I did

:thumbsup:

[Siyahamba]

7. Should "the people" have voted on inter-racial marriage in the 1960s?

We all know what the results would have been.

I thought the whole purpose of having elected officials was so they could legislate on the people's behalf.

[election_2004]

8. No they shouldn't

The issue of domestic equity shouldn't be ultimately dictated by voters *OR* politicians.

It should be up to each individual couple to name a mutual beneficiary, and then the government should have to enforce that designation under secular law.

[davidinalameda]

9. America isn't a democracy

it's a republic

and I have to question anyone who wants the public to vote on my civil rights

[Vorta]

10. Any bill designed to discriminate against gay Americans ought to have a rider

.....which repeals the Civil Rights Act. I have a sneaking suspicion it would still pass.

[NMMNG]

11. I disagree

We've seen how well "letting the people vote" has gone for gay marriage in every state it's been on the ballot so far, save for AZ.