
Journal Planesdragon's Journal: Amending the Constitution 81
Since this is legislative and not really left-wing or right-wing, I'm not considering it a "political" journal
It's my opinion, as an American citizen, that we need to amend the Constitution. Each of the proposed changes is one that I feel would do the country good as a whole; comments are welcome, as always.
Amendment D1: The Equal Rights Act
Save in such cases that basic gender-based characteristics are relevant and crucial to the task, Congress shall make no law that differentiates between persons based on gender.
I don't care if it's moot. I don't care if it would damage special interests; as far as the government cares, except for parts specifically requiring breasts or a sexual organ my wife and I should be identical. (And note that "gender-based characteristics" are cruical to "marriage." If the above language does not seem to read that way, Congress will correct it.)
Amendment D2: Marriages and Civil Unions
Article 1: The word "marriage" shall mean only a union between a man and a woman, and no law shall be construed as to require the states to recognize marriages between couples of the same genderArticle 2: Any relationship between couples of the same gender by any state shall be recognized by all other states as a Civil Union.
Article 3: All marriages and civil unions shall be given the full weight of all endowed rights as determined by the state in which the couple spends the majority or plurality of each year.
Article 4: All Civil Unions shall be accorded full rights of marriage under the laws passed by Congress to apply to the many states, but only those laws within each state that the state itself gives to them.
No "gay marriage", but federal weight to civil unions and an out for states that don't want them.
Amendment D3: Protection of Citizens
In addition to the powers granted it in Article 1, Congress shall make such laws as it deems fit to protect the rights of all persons residing in the United States, as enumerated in this Constitution.
Enough stretching commerce to cover murder. We rely on the Bill of Rights to protect us from even the local town traffic judge -- let's give Congress the teeth to enforce and protect them.
Amendment D4: Abortion
Article 1: Congress shall make no law abriding the right of a competent woman with the consent of the father to prematurely end a pregnancy within the first three months.Article 2: Congress shall make no law abridging the right of an unborn but viable child to be born, nor of fathers to have their children brough to term, save in such cases that are deemed medically necessary to save the life of the mother.
No abortion at all would be bad. No limits on abortion at all is bad. Men being unable to bring legal weight to save their children is bad.
Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:2)
There is nothing inherent in marriage that requires sexual organs or breasts. Child bearing and marriage are not the same thing, so you cannot cross the two as if they were. I am perfectly capable of siring offspring though I am not married, and I work with a married woman who is not capable of bearing children. Adm. D2, Article 1 is hereby stricken because it provides unreasonable restrictions on citizens based on gender. An alternative is also provided: the United States government shall not recognize mar
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:2)
Hence why this and equal protection are both amendments.
I know it's all geeky to say "we should just not have gov't recognized marriages" and all, but it won't happen. You'll sooner see televangical baptists in Texas calling for polyandry.
The Constitution isn't a law passed by Congress -- ergo, anything in the Constitution is set and seperate from the "Congress shall pass no law" rules.
BTW, D2 is the biggest one here IMO. So
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:1)
I could give two shits what those nutjobs think. They're not going to get their agendas shoved through(us yanks won't allow it[and if all of us say no, ammendments aren't possible], our conservatives balk at these guys by and large) and I can wait 'em out.
No government marriage is a compromise, and a constitutionally sound one at that. Doesn't require any amending. They can take it or leave it. I suggest they take it, because insi
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:2)
You like to argue the "it's better than nothing" angle on writing in support for CUs and writing gay marriage off as illegal. That, to me, skirts the real problem here: that marriage in our society is defined around judeo-christian belief even though it's being used to provide secular benefits.
The problem, as I see it, is one of separation of church and state. If churches want to refuse marriages to gay people, that's their right as part of their practice. However, if that's the case, then marriages are st
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:2)
I'm not skirting the issue -- i'm agreeing with it.
Our entire system of law, from our social programs to executive leniency to our system of jury to what we consider crimes, is defined around judeo-christian belief
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:2)
The difference between, for example, enforcing statutes on murder vs. enforcing statutes on marriage is that the murder case can be made without ever making a religious argument. At some point, however, you have to resort to using a religious argument to support the current method of recognizing marriage because there is nothing about marriage that isn't flatly religious. As an example, you can't secularly argue the point in relation to child-bearing because child-bearing and marriage were only superficiall
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:2)
Not true.
Marriage has three wholly non-religious argumens in its favor -- which, btw, is one more than I can think of against murder.
* Seperation of Specialty -- men and women are different. In study after study, case after case, we find that while any single man or single woman is supurbly capable, the heights
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:2)
men and women are different. In study after study, case after case, we find that while any single man or single woman is supurbly capable, the heights of achievement are found in complimentary couples.
How is this relevant to marriage? In addition, where are the case studies?
while women may bear children out of wedlock, and homosexual couples may easily support children and a stay-at-home parent, humans mature better and quicker when they have both a good female model and a good male model.
I keep see
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:2)
Why?
At the most basic, right now marriage is only a man and a woman. You want to change the meaning of that word -- why?
Kindly skip the "we want equal rights" line. Presume that C.U.s exist and offer all the beneifts of marriage.
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:2)
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:2)
No. Giving C.U.s full federal weight is striking Jim Crow from the books.
Changing the definition of the word marriage is aking to passing a law forbiding the use of the word "nigger".
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:3, Interesting)
Using the same rationale, shouldn't polygamy also be legally recognized?
I agree that the issue needs to be dealt with as a "separation of church and state" thing. The word "marriage" needs to be stricken from the legal lexicon.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting th
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:2)
Polygamy shouldn't be anything. If some dude wants five wives and they all agree, it's there business and it's not harming anything, so yes, why not? Laws should be enacted for the benefit of a society, not to support arbitrary fears and prejudices. There really isn't any logical reason to limit the activities of two or more consenting adults when all of their actions are self-contained and don't endanger/impede anyone else.
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:2)
Even viewed from the standpoint of evolution of the species (and societies) the marriage of men and women is a valuable and natural thing. Societies with no christian tradition of 'God gave Eve to Adam in marriage' have marriage. You could make a case that it is purely a religious ceremony and should not be mana
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:2)
To preface the following, I'd like point out that if we were entirely consistent- we'd also be denying benefits to infertile heterosexual marriage couples.
Having said that- the ideal isn't based on judeo-christian belief. Marriage being a part of childbearing predates both Judaism and Christianity, nor is it limited to those cultures. I
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:2)
No, you're forgetting keeping the current generation of well educated laborers happy and content. Benefits to unions go a long way to doing that.
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:2)
I'd argue that they've got a negative side as well on that angle- by making the single well educated laborers less content, and thus, less productive. It would be interesting to see what would happen to the productivity differences between singles and married couples if you took away the extra incentive for being married.
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:2)
I have a hard time believing that marriage predates religion. In fact, I'm having a hard time buying that anything approaching what we know as marriage today predates even just Judaism. We've been bopping about this planet for about a million years in our current, general form. I'm willing to bet that wherever marriage started, it started with religion. Even failing that, I can guarantee you that our current views on marriage came straight out of the Roman Catholic church of the middle ages.
Barring all tha
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:2)
That's because you're largely stuck in the taker meme of marriage being granted by religion or by government, as opposed to merely recognized by religion and government.
In fact, I'm having a hard time buying that anything approaching what we know as marriage today predates even just Judaism.
Hindu's marriage rituals are a specific example- though still in religion. The Indus Valley was settled and farmed for 4000 years before Moses came along
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:2)
Regarding all of your other points about the origin of marriage, I'll take the point about Hindu rituals into consideration and still note that is a religious tenet.
Re:Two Adms Hereby Stricken (Score:2)
If you don't want to hear scripture, then don't try to explain things from a religious point of view.
That is not evidence to support your position anymore than me pointing to Aesop's Fables would be evidence for me.
The scripture presented was not evidence to support my position- it was an explaination of why YOU were wrong specifically about a single Catholic teaching which happens to be taken from scripture- and thus predates the middle ages like you claimed.
You can
Amendment D4 (Score:2)
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
Simple solution, I believe that abortion needs to be a legal option up to the point of viability. If there is any question about whether a fetus is viable or not, C-section it and give it a chance. After the point of viability, abortion should be illegal but c-section be avaliable.
The pro-life/anti-abortion groups should be climbing all over eachother to provide support for these babies right?
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
If you're against abortion, have a house, and you don't have a foster child, you had better not tell me that you're "pro-life." That's right up there with "start fathering children" after "get a house" on my lifetime to-do list.
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
Tried it- there are extenuating reasons not to have a foster child due to significant paperwork problems with the current system. It badly needs reforming.
Having said that- I choose to go another way- instead of giving my money and time to quasi-life groups like Right to Life, I volunteer and give my money to BIRTHRIGHT instead. Their homes for unwed mothers are much more in keeping with my beliefs about abortion- and insure a healthy start and better well being for a number of
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
Cool. I can mail you a "MH42 is not a hypocrite" certificate if you want.
I could have given more qualifiers, but no good rallying cry sounds like a contract.
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:1)
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
Sure, but the burden of pregnancy will always be on the woman for obvious reasons. An unwilling father bears no burden except a financial responsibility, if he's identified and ordered to pay that is. A big If. The unwilling mother is always the one stuck with the hardships and tough choices. I don't think there'll ever be a way to lift those burdens off her.
Because this unfair burden is placed on women, they need to take the responsibility in preventing an unwanted pregnancy. The point isn't that the woma
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed by UN Resolution in 1948, states in part:
Special economic circumstances should be provided for the conditions of motherhood and childhood
Financial responsibility is a part of economics, and econoics is a human invention. How those hardships and tough choices are given to her are a human invention. When a hu
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
I think that there are some important things that would need to be added, but I'm not able to word them well, so instead pretend I am a superstar author and read the following:
Congress shall make no law preventing abortion in the event of rape, incest, or endangerment of the life of the mother regardless of viability of fetus or paternal consent.
The reason I think those are important is that it doesn't make sense to make a 13 year old girl who didn't realize she was pregnant until six months who was
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
On the one hand, you're exactly right that the mother's life should trump the infant's at any time. D4:A2 covers that.
On the other, while I want to say "yeah, 13-year old rape victims should be able to get abortions", incorporating a rule like that is too wide IMO. Better to, if the girl can bear the child, bear the child -- and then investigate and lock her father up.
In the case of incest, the child "may" be non-viable -- do an ultrasound or DNA test and find out. In the case of rape, three-s
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
That's why the exception for the doctor to make a unilateral decision is needed.
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but the worth and dignity of human life has nothing to do whether it may or may not survive a C-Section. You are effectively saying, "If it dies, no problem, it wasn't viable, so it wasn't person after all. It it s
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
Note the edit: let's compare apples to pears, not salmon.
The start of why I think a non-viable fetus is worth less than an infant is contraception / birth control. A woman who may have sex should be allowed to take action to not concieve a child in the first place -- hence, a zygote that could mature to an adult given the right "artificial wo
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
What does contraception or birth control have to do with the intrinisic worth have a human fetus? The existance of such things has no bearing a discussion that asks "what make a fetus differen
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
Yes. And a child born with a genetic defect that will keep it from living out the year is less deserving than a child that is in perfect health, and a soldier who is beyond help is less deserving than one who can be healed.
For the sake of argument, can you, without referring to the mother, tell me why destroying the infant is murder an
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
You are confusing intrinsic worth with, well, something else. I'm pretty sure you are not saying that some people are just worth more than other people, which is pretty much the justifications for racism and eugenics. The life of a child with a genetic defect is precious. The life o
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
I specfically did not mention what help, if any, the child would recieve. Quite obvisouly, any child born prematurely requires medical attention -- but enumarating that is not necessarily part of law.
If sometime in the future a "miracle child" is born at 20 weeks, or someone performs a fetal transplant at 8 or 12 weeks, does this mean that the age of "viability" ha
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
The issue you are skirting is if you consider a 23-week fetus a "person" or not - or for that matter, a 22-week fetus, 21-week fetus, 24-week fetus, 25-week fetus, etc. I don't believe you have directly answered this particular question. Nor have you answered what specifically what bearing being able to survive outside the
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
Let me spell it out for you then:
Q: What makes an X-week fetus a person and a X-1 week fetus not?
A: Nothing. There's no way to tell. BUT, for the purposes of law, we need to point to something and say "this is a reproductive rights issue" and "that is a case of infantcide."
Not true - the justices on Roe vs Wade simply summarily declared that a fetus is not a person,
Nope. The justicies didn't even have to consider the issue -- th
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
So let us not consider the eyes of the law, let us consider the eyes of God. Is the destruction of a fetus an act of murder? Is it a violation of the 6th commandment? Does God really care about the viability of the fetus and the
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
Not so long as it's performed according to the law of the land. If the law is ungodly, God is perfectly capable of inspiring us to change it. But unless we are going to throw off the government, we should obey the laws and that means that we use our current country's judgement for what is and isn't murder. (Now, He may very well be working
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
Temporal bits about Abortion (Score:2)
You continue to ask "where is the cut-off". Why must there be a cut-off? Who said there must be one? All medical evidence suggests human life begins at conception. The only reason to search for a "cut-off" is so abortion can be phrased as "the termination of a human organism without the taking of a human life". Again, legalism at its worst. Consider the fact that it is so difficult to find a moral "cut-off" that that "cut-
Religious bits about Abortion (Score:2)
In three very specific cases, it does. Namely, Murder, Theft, and Adultury. Goodly Governments -- those that Christians or Jews or Muslims may submit to the rule of -- designate what is and isn't the permissiable time to kill someone, what is and isn't someone's private property, and who is and isn't married.
Because of that first one--determining what is and isn't an acceptable time to k
Re:Temporal bits about Abortion (Score:2)
Re:Religious bits about Abortion (Score:2)
Re:Temporal bits about Abortion (Score:2)
I stand corrected. Very well stated. I shall adjust my view from now on.
Something is legal today and a first-degree homicide the next?
No. Even at its worst, abortion is a different offense than first-degree homicide. And to be clear, even in lands with unlimited abortion, there's still a point where before to kill the thing is
Re:Religious bits about Abortion (Score:2)
I patently disagree. If the talmudic law were woven into creation, God would have slain Cain as was the punnishment for murder in the nation of Israel. But since God marked Cain and cast him out, Cain must have committed a different Sin -- namely, refutation of his duty to his brother and malacceptance of his lot i
Re:Temporal bits about Abortion (Score:2)
The law must use arbitrary dividing lines on occasion, another example would be
Re:Religious bits about Abortion (Score:2)
Genesis 4:8-11:
Re:Religious bits about Abortion (Score:2)
Not so clear. If God was punnishing Cain for the murder, then why did he ask Cain where Abel was, and why did he not strike Cain down?
There was sin there but, as I pointed out, it wasn't murder.
The prohibition against murder is again made in Genesis 9:5-6:
That's not murder. That's killing. It's a subtle yet important difference. And, even if we ignore that point, the verse you quoted is clearly part of God's covenant with Noah, not the
Re:Religious bits about Abortion (Score:2)
I see no real reason to continue down this path if you cannot see something so obvious that God disapproved of the fact that Cain killed Abel. "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground." Your desire to define "murder" as "whatever society says is murder" simply is not biblical. One man killing another out of cold blood is murder a
Re:Religious bits about Abortion (Score:2)
Cain killed Abel, and then denied any responsibility to watch his brother. God disapproved of this -- but it is not clear from the text precisely WHY. (I'll note that you never bothered to answer why, if Cain was a murderer, God not only did not strike him down, but marked him as one that no man could strike down -- a direct contradiction of the covenant he would make with Noah only four chapters later.)
Much of the Old Testament suffers from the same pr
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
The pro-life/anti-abortion groups should be climbing all over eachother to provide support for these babies right?
Certainly anybody with a "womb to tomb" mentality should- I would point out though that viability is not a bright line- and it's healthier for the fetus to stay in the mother's womb a full 38 weeks. Thus, pro-life people should be wi
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
Definitely. If the pro-life groups would focus less on damning the mothers and more on providing them with viable options and support, I think there would be a real difference and a greater incentive for them to go full term.
But, I'm not sure they're so much pro-life as they are anti-abortion.
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
Based on what I've seen, mere application of UDHR Article 25 to our economy would result in a 90-99% decrease in the abortion rate, depending on whose numbers you believe
But, I'm not sure they're so much pro-life as they are anti-abortion.
I personally don't think they're either- a
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
I don't know if inept is the correct word since their view of a proper economy is based on a different set of axioms. Regardless of what you think of the new conservative handling of the economy - the culture wars have a huge number of battles to be fought, even if they were to "win" the war against abortion and gay marriag
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
True enough- I shouldn't have used inept. Should have used selfish instead (since that's the difference between my axioms and theirs- whether the few or the many are allowed to win).
Regardless of what you think of the new conservative handling of the economy - the culture wars have a huge number of battles to be fought, even if they were to "win" the war against abortion and gay marriage
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
Re:Amendment D4 (Score:2)
Rights... (Score:2)
Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, and it needs the same protections as that of heterosexual marriage.
Re:Rights... (Score:2)
If people want benefits from the government, marriages performed by both the church AND the state should be recognized as "civil unions" and that should be the common denominator for privileges.
Re:Rights... (Score:2)
Because a black man cannot decide to be white, nor can a woman decide to be a man. Homosexuals, on the other hand, can enter into loveless sexless marriages just as well as anyone else.
And we *did* give states that didn't want integration an out, for close to a hundred years. Considering that we don't treat homosexuality as a crime or a disease anymore, the next tactical step
ERA (Score:2)
Even if this were to pass I think the DOD would trot out all their old arguments about men and women in combat. Even if the ERA were to pass I think the military would get a blanket exemption.
People are more gun shy of ERA now too. (Score:2)
Re:People are more gun shy of ERA now too. (Score:2)
Also I meant the late 70s (not the 80s) were the last time the national ERA had a real chance - the "flower power" generation had settled into maturity but the "greed decade" had not yet flowered - Reagan was not yet a national candidate and liberalism was still viewed as natural to a
Re:ERA (Score:2)
Based on how female soldiers have performed in recent wars, I wager that a simple "segregation for living arrangements" compromise would do it.
Re:ERA (Score:1)
That alienation, to me, is reason enough to vote for the ERA. As a male who appears white (despite a mixed background of several minorities) and who is NOT from a priviledged family, I often feel that current laws are working against me. The ERA would fix that problem once and for all.
Re:ERA (Score:2)
I hope it won't take an
'Marriage' vs 'Civil Union' (Score:2)
Speaking as a man with a wife, we're not 'married.' We're civilly-unioned. We went up in front of a Justice of the Peace, did a secular ceremony, signed our marriage papers, and done.
'Marriage' is a religious concept; ALL that the Constitution should recognize is a Civil Union. If you want to go up in front of a religious figure and swear to be faithful, fine. You can do that without the State recognizing you as a Union. Or, do what most couples do now, and do both.
Don't fix what ain't broke. (Score:2)
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
Your D3 might be a good idea but I wo
D4, Article 1 (Score:2)
Re:D4, Article 1 (Score:2)
Not to mention that non-viable fetuses -- those that are stilborn, have no brain cavity, etc., etc., -- should be excluded as well.
Re:D4, Article 1 (Score:2)
It helps- but still doesn't get past the requirement in D4:A1 for it to be the MOTHER's decision- if the mother is alreay in shock/coma due to internal bleeding it doesn't help.
Not to mention that non-viable fetuses -- those that are stilborn, have no brain cavity, etc., etc., -- should be excluded as well.
That, on the other hand, would help this rare case- since the fetus is already dead by the time it has
Marriage and Civil Unions (Score:2)
Re:Marriage and Civil Unions (Score:2)
Re:Marriage and Civil Unions (Score:2)
You're forgetting the part about ensuring support for the less-wealthy member of the relationship, any childen born from the relationship, and defining what is and isn't adultury.
The gov't got into the marriage business because the people wanted them to. This happened sometime shortly after the first chief was crowned, several thousand years ago.
Re:Marriage and Civil Unions (Score:2)
Ensuring support for non-wage-earning partners and children are good things for the government to do, and that'd be covered under my civil partnership plan. Determining what is and isn't adultery gets a little sticky, since what I consider adultery is lawful marriage to my Mormom and Muslim friends. I've yet to see a non-r