Disappointing disconnect
 

No, Art. IV, Sec. 2 doesn't obviate the 14th Amendment, because until the 14th amendment "citizen of each state" wasn't yet constitutionally defined to include all native born. I know I'm missing your point.

The Supremacy Clause only works on matters expressly in the Constitution or on which Congress is authorized to legislate. The need for this Amendment is a concession that there is no constitutional basis for Congress to act here --- yet. But when the "In the United States"* language is enshrined in the Constitution itself, it's the law of the land, and an independent form of legislation. I just don't see the argument that the first sentence of the Amendment could be read to affect only federal law.

*As opposed to "of the United States" or "by the United States," which is the phrasing in the other amendments you cite.

Disappointing disconnect
 

There are wacko judges on other circuits. Including the Eleventh Circuit, thanks to W.

If that was Allard's intent, it could have been translated into language more effectively.

Disappointing disconnect
 

Can't the same be said for state constitutions, recognizing that it can be harder to amend some state constitutions than state laws? We're already in bizarro-federalism-supremacy world here. Why not make sure those walls are high and tight?

Disappointing disconnect
 

Because individual rights, when we take the trouble to enshrine them in constitutions, are supposed to perserve an untouchable space for the minority. Enshrining a purely majoritarian principle in a constitution is redundant.

I recognize this is irrelevant to the decisionmaking that is actually happening here.

Martha Doesn't Testify
 

Martha's defense team rested her case after only one hour. She didn't testify.

She is guilty. Spare me the 5th amendment crap. The only reason an accused doesn't testify in their own defense is if they did it.

Disappointing disconnect
 

Club, You continue to ignore the plain meaning of the legal term of art "incidents" in the phrase "incidents of marriage". Look it up.

You also seem to ignore that the Amendment would apply prospectively as well as retrospectively -- and thus render "unconstitutional" any future federal or state laws permitting civil unions, much less gay marriages.

"Acourt cannot be required to say that . . "" WTF?? Who _requires_ a court to say anything.

You are also engaged in monumental wishful thinking about the intentions of the hard-core social conservatives among the House Republicans who rushed to introduce this bill.

S_A_M

Disappointing disconnect
 

STP, SAM, STP.

But I wouldn't call it a rush. The amendment's text has been kicking around for a while.

Rather than debate the semantics, let me pose this challenge:

Redraft the amendment so that it accomplishes what it purportedly intended to do (by public statements). To wit: 1) Ban marriage other than between a man and a woman; 2) prohibit any state or federal court from requiring a state to offer a marriage equivalent to gay couples; 3) allow state legislatures to enact civil union laws providing the same (or similar) "incidents" of marriage to gay couples, so long as their doing so is not under compulsion of a court ruling.

Disappointing disconnect
 

See challenge above.

Disappointing disconnect
 

Exactly, plus Mr. Allard's supposed meaning would render the term "incidents of marriage" as bereft of any meaning and entirely superfluous. Everyone knows you don't interpret statutes or constitutions that way.

Thus, unless the "freindly amendment" pulls those words -- this Amendment prohibits civil unions no matter what Allard thinks.

S_A_M

Disappointing disconnect
 

To avoid conflict between 2) and 3), you need to have 2) include "absent state law specifically addressing the incidents of marriage being conferred on unmarried persons." That can be phrased way better. I need a snack.

I wonder what the hardcore social conservatives would say if Bush said, "I support the rights of any state to pass laws allowing same-sex unions"? The ambiguous language lets them think "never, nowhere" and lets you and club think "maybe in CA or someplace, if legislation passes."

Edited to add, what SAM said about incidents, unless the VT courts said that because of language in the VT constitution, same-sex couples got all the incidents of marriage but couldn't actually be joined in a marriage.

Also edited to ask what's STP? Motor oil? Stone Temple Pilots?

Disappointing disconnect
 

scroll then post.

VT said our equal protection requires state to offer gay marriage or an equivalent form extending benefits/rights/obligations of marraige to gay couples. Legislature opted for civil unions. If "incidents of marriage" were not included, then this amendment would not prevent another state court from doing teh same thing, and preventing state courts, as opposed to legislatures, to allowing civil unions, is one of the stated goals.

Disappointing disconnect
 

I've already agreed that the drafting is technically deficient - what more do you want me to say. I am in favor of gay marriage (yes, not just civil unions), opposed to the amendment on principal, and equally opposed to court mandated extensions of marriage rights. But from what I've read, the intent is not to prohibit civil unions with express consent of the legislature or amendment to state constitution.

Disappointing disconnect
 

There is nothing between my post and the post I was responding to that would have provided enlightenment. But that's a technicality. I didn't scroll back up to check because I'm lazy.

What's STP? Sickly terrifying putrefecation?

Disappointing disconnect
 

And you are also in favor of polygamous marriages, true?

Disappointing disconnect
 

(a) You know I don't do that. I have no objection to repeating precisely what someone else has already said. It is worth hearing because it comes from me -- raises the credibility.

(b) That would be a whole different ball of wax, and it will not happen.

S_A_M