Main > Everything Else
election irony
TA Pilot:
Two lesbians who got married legally in Canada are sueing the Irish government to have their marriage recognised here in Ireland. Irish and EU law does not allow for discrimination by sex or sexual orientation. Although Irish law doesn't allow for gay marriage it will be illegal not to have their Canadian marriage recognised because they are not a hetrosexual couple. Interesting times ahead.
And this is why there is an amendment under consideration - because the exact same thing will happen here.
Because its legal in MA, it must be legal in OH, even though OH law - the OH Constitution -forbids it. The states will not stand for this, and will certainly pass the amendment.
Dexter:
--- Quote from: TA Pilot on November 10, 2004, 07:34:00 am ---Because its legal in MA, it must be legal in OH, even though OH law - the OH Constitution -forbids it. The states will not stand for this, and will certainly pass the amendment.
--- End quote ---
Hmm, I'm always cautious of people amending any part of a constitution, especially when it serves to reinforce discrimination and intolerance. Simply because something does not suit your moral viewpoint does not give you the right to opress another persons rights.
Reminds me of the part in Animal Farm (not the prono guys) when the pigs change the most fundamental law 'all animals are equal' to 'all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others'.
Dexter
locash:
I have very little fear that such an amendment would be ratified. I believe that those in the legislature will remember that the purpose of the Constitution is not to restrict the rights of the people, but rather to restrict the power of the government.
shmokes:
I believe that there is enough support in Congress to pass an amendment. If not in Congress it likely would be ratified by enough state legislatures to push it through. It's sad. I hope I'm wrong.
locash:
An amendment to the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority in both houses to pass and then requires a 3/4 majority of the states to be ratified. Maybe I am overly optimistic, but I don't think this has much more than simple majority support in Congress. It has been a long time since they tried to amend the constitution to restrict rights (1919 if I remember correctly) and I think the lesson may have been learned.
Without the 2/3 house majority, a Constitutional Convention would be required for an amendment. This has never been done and there would be a lot of procedural questions that would need to be addressed before it could even be attempted.