[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

You know, things aren’t going that poorly. I was listening to Dennis and Callahan on WEEI this morning on my way into work; unsurprisingly, they did an hour or so on the gay marriage issues. Dennis was sympathetic, by which I mean he told Callahan that he was a closed-minded idiot for yelling at pro-gay marriage callers, and by which I mean that he said he thought the term “marriage” was important and would strengthen gay couples.

That’s not why I felt all uplifted, though. What I liked was hearing the middle-class Boston accent working class guys call in and say “Yeah, you know, it’s no skin off my back. Let ‘em be married if they wanna.” I liked the guy who called in and said “Look, I was raised by two guys who didn’t happen to be gay, and I came out just fine. What’s wrong with having two father figures in the house?” I liked the guy who called in and said “I’m a conservative Republican, but my son came out to me a couple of years ago and I think he’s right; he should be able to marry another guy if he wants to.”

Go ahead, Finneran. Get a constitutional amendment out in front of people. I don’t think they’ll ratify it.

Comments

[head58.livejournal.com]

Out of curiosity, Mr. state AG office guy, what happens if the State constitution is amended in a way that doesn't jibe with Federal law/COnstitutional interpretation? I'm thinking about the proposed civil unions "compromise" and whether it would stand against the separate-but-equal test. Can the Federal govt/Supreme Court trump a State Constitution?

Re:

[marphod.livejournal.com]

States can provide more liberties than the federal, but not less.

To wit: States can make the voting age less than 18, but they cannot make it older. The younger age would not have federal protection, but would have state protection. If a state made the age older, the federal law would trump it and make the law/amendment unenforceable.

Re:

[that-cad.livejournal.com]

The compromise amendment couldn't be overturned by anything federal, and it would survive through any federal amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage (unless said amendment also explicitly banned civil unions, which is [ahem] inconceivable).

But, if the Supreme Court established a ruling that either intentionally or unintentionally invalidated an amendment like the one they're attempting to pass here in Massachusetts, our amendment would be "trumped," for the same reasons that marphod listed above. The federal government / Constitution establishes the absolute "bottom line" for civil rights; the states cannot sink below that bottom line.

Re:

[bryant]

What they said. There's also an article here which discusses the potential legal pitfalls.