Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
The first route entails that the House and the Senate must each ratify the proposed Amendment by a two-thirds majority. Then the bill must be ratified by three-fourths of the states' legislatures within a reasonable time period. The second method would be for the creation of a Constitutional Convention to hear and propose the amendment to the states; this method also requires three-fourths of the state legislatures to approve the amendment. This second procedure has never before been used to amend the U.S. Constitution. In either case, however, it would take a number of years before the Amendment for Total Equality would become law. Furthermore, consitutional amendments are historically rare, and the proposals signficantly outnumbers the legal amendments. Several steps can be taken to ensure the timely implementation of this much-needed constitutional amendment.
Proponents of the proposed Amendment for Total Equality have a steep uphill battle to climb. The tide of the nation's moral and political philosophies currently supports a restriction of the rights of homosexuals. With a Republican majority in both houses of Congress as well as in the Executive branch of government, the Amendment for Total Equality will suffer major political blows. The main opponents of the Amendment for Total Equality include Christian groups whose lobbying force has become politically powerful in recent years.
However, proponents of the Amendment for Total Equality include civil rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which also constitutes a powerful lobbying force. Gay rights groups will generally support the Amendment for Total Equality, as will...
This support must also be grounded in already established laws that protect the rights of all citizens. If the Amendment for Total Equality is presented as an inevitablity rather than a rogue proposal, then politicians, lawmakers, and judges will be able to view it in light of previous constitutional amendments like XIII and XIX, which abolished slavery and gave women the right to vote, respectively. However, the Amendment for Total Equality best reflects the tenets already set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States constitution, which reads in part: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Works Cited
The Constitution of the United States. U.S. Constitution Online. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article5.
Federal Marriage Amendment." Wikipedia. 4 Dec 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment.
Longley, Robert (2004). "Federal Marriage Amendment H.J. Res 56." About.com. http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/usconstitution/a/marriage.htm.
Mount, Steve (2003). "Constitutional Amendments." U.S. Constitution Online. http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process.
Works Cited
The Constitution of the United States. U.S. Constitution Online. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article5.
Federal Marriage Amendment." Wikipedia. 4 Dec 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment.
Longley, Robert (2004). "Federal Marriage Amendment H.J. Res 56." About.com. http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/usconstitution/a/marriage.htm.
Mount, Steve (2003). "Constitutional Amendments." U.S. Constitution Online. http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process.
Gay Marriage Many same-sex couples want to be granted the right to legally marry. The reason is simple: They are in love with each other. They want to honor their relationship in the greatest way society has to offer, by making a public commitment to stand together in good times and bad life brings. While they receive some state-level protections, they do not receive most of the federal emotional and economic
..In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife." (Smith, 2004; p.5) Smith relates that a
Homosexual marriage does not pose a threat to me or my manhood therefore I am for it." Although I am heterosexual, I know what it means to long for union with another human being. I will choose a woman for my partner, but if another man desires to choose one of his own sex, there is no harm for me in his choice. In fact, since we are both
Gay Marriage Gaiety is the practice of bossom love for similar sex and especially between two males or females, bisexual exclusive. "Continued engagement into such practices more often than not lead to desire to attain psychosocial satisfaction through intense urge to achieve a feeling of love and sense of belonging" (Abraham Maslow - Hierarchy of Needs). Hence eventually becoming life long partners as depicted in gay marriages, but marriage is defined
771). His arguments center on the public responsibilities of marriage. He writes, "This is true because legal marriage is a public institution, created by law to promote public policy and to further social interests" (Wardle, 2001, p. 771). He goes on to state that traditional marriages foster "childrearing, economic stability, and channel sexual behavior" (Wardle, 2001, p. 771). Unfortunately, these arguments seem outmoded and irrational. If this is the
Some in the gay community itself offer arguments against same-sex marriage. Paula L. Ettelbrick offers a different view from within the gay community as she sees no reason for gays to pursue an institution that denies liberation rather than conferring it: Steeped in a patriarchal system that looks to ownership, property, and dominance of men over women as its basis, the institutions of marriage has long been the focus of radical-feminist