If you were to write an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that recognized the rights ...

[ColbertWatcher]

... of the LGBT community, what would it say?

[BuyingThyme]

1. That we don't need no amendment.

[angstlessk]

2. include sexual orientation and equal pay in the 14th amendment

[jobycom]

6. Seems to me that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th should already do that.

Problem is that our government doesn't follow the Constitution in anything except rhetorical speeches and pay increases.

[angstlessk]

8. I agree...I thought the 14 included gays, but seems I was wrong and DOMA overcame any equality

which is a shame and IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL..equal rights is EQUAL RIGHTS but don't tell on me on the other discussion.

[LooseWilly]

9. Can you amend an amendment?

Heh, sorry... not a real question. I agree completely. Add gender too, just to make that explicit...

[jobycom]

12. No, usually they just ignore them. nt

[JuniperLea]

3. It would recognize all human beings...

And never single any one group of human beings out. It's all about the equality.

[jobycom]

4. Would it matter? They don't follow the darned thing now.

We need an Amendment requiring them to honor the other Amendments.

[David__77]

5. Here...

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, political standpoint, religious views, or marital status.

[ColbertWatcher]

16. Nice, but, what about this ...

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State."

I want to add something about humans and not corporations, but can't figure out how to phrase it.

[NightWatcher]

7. I dont believe they need one, (hear me out on this)

I also dont believe that women needed a special amendment in order to be able to vote, nor did African Americans need an amendment to be given the same rights as white men. I think that the Constitution and Bill of Rights covers all people equally. A proper Supreme Court, US District Court, and even State and Local courts should have recognized that All People Are Created Equal years ago. One Supreme Court ruling should clarify that, of course gay and lesbians have the same rights to everything that straight men and women have. They could call it the Duh Decision, and it should come out NOW.

But if it takes an amendment, I'll support it and volunteer to get the word out, stand on a street corner, go door to door with petitions, or whatever.

as a side note: Can We Get Some Damned Liberal SCOTUS Appointments???

[angstlessk]

14. see, there ya go, making sense..it ain't about sense..it is about political will

and the cowards in congress.

[AntiFascist]

33. DOMA is somewhat similar to (though be no means as extreme)...

as the U.S. Constitution declaring that slaves only have 3/5 representation for tax purposes and enumeration. Nothing prevents discrimination from being written into the law by the majority, and it is only up to those of us fighting for human and civil rights to have it removed.

[ThomCat]

10. It would be an equal rights amendments stating that nobody shall

be discriminated against based on gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation, and that it shall be the presumption in all matters regarding discrimination that such discrimination is prohibited unless the state shall prove that it is necessary.

That way, not only would this add gender, gender expression and sexual orientation as protected classes, it would go further and protect everyone who is not in a protected class. It would mean that even if you are not in a protected class you don't have to prove that the state shouldn't discriminate. They have to prove that they should. That puts the burden on the state, and gives everyone that presumption that discrimination is wrong.

[ColbertWatcher]

17. "They have to prove that they should." This is the language I've been looking for.

It seems people who choose to discriminate always use the excuse that it is allowed because the people who they are discriminating against are not specifically protected.

This is what was behind my "Constitutionally invisible" idea.

Thank you.

[damntexdem]

11. Hey, just follow earlier precendents:

1. The right of citizens of the United States, including marriage rights, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sexual orientation.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[ColbertWatcher]

32. Short and simple. n/t

[cali]

13. uh, why on earth would you do that? Why would anyone do that?

The Constitution already covers GLBT rights. Really, it does.

[ColbertWatcher]

18. I agree, but why would anyone discriminate?

Those kinds of people often use the excuse that the law does not specifically protect the target of their hatred and fears, allowing them to believe they are perfectly in the right to discriminate.

[jody]

15. I would say the 9th Amendment means precisely what it says and We the People don't need

constitutional scholars to debate which model including (1) the state law rights model, (2) the residual rights model, (3) the individual natural rights model, (4) the collective rights model, and (5) the federalism model to help understand what the 9th says.

Amendment IX says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

We can debate which rights pre-existed our Constitution but many of them were acknowledged by states in their constitutions and sometimes described them as "natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable" rights.

As pre-existing rights, they do not depend upon a piece of paper for legitimacy nor can a simple majority of voters take away one of those rights.

IMO Jerry Brown was correct in arguing that CA's constitution protected same-sex marriage as an inalienable right with the words:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

[ColbertWatcher]

19. I agree, but ...

... whose laws are Obama, Holder, etc. following when they consider that it is perfectly legal for one portion of the population to be discriminated against?

[jody]

21. I support GL rights completely but IMO those rights should not depend upon a simple majority. If so,

them someone like Brown has to develop an argument that rights like same-sex marriage are pre-existing rights aka inalienable/unalienable rights.

CA's Supremes said they could find no precedent supporting Brown's argument and I say BS.

It's the unique job of a state supreme court to MAKE PRECEDENT where one does not exist.

[ColbertWatcher]

22. So, help me understand ...

... the state Supreme Courts set the precedent saying when it's acceptable to discriminate?

What does a state base their opinion on?

[jody]

27. Didn't CA Supremes set a precedent by rejecting Brown's argument and saying a simple majority of the

voters could take away an inalienable right?

See Brown's brief at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/agresponse.pdf and CA Supremes at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF

The CA Supremes say that the CA Constitution does not protect any "inalienable rights" in spite of the fact the Constitutions says "SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

In addition, no authority supports the Attorney General’s claim that a constitutional amendment adopted through the constitutionally prescribed procedure is invalid simply because the amendment affects a prior judicial interpretation of a right that the Constitution denominates “inalienable.” The natural-law jurisprudence reflected in passages from the few early judicial opinions relied upon by the Attorney General has been discredited for many years, and, in any event, no decision suggests that when a constitution has been explicitly amended to modify a constitutional right (including a right identified in the Constitution as “inalienable”), the amendment may be found unconstitutional on the ground that it conflicts with some implicit or extraconstitutional limitation that is to be framed and enforced by the judiciary. Although the amending provisions of a constitution can expressly place some subjects or portions of the constitution off-limits to the amending process — as already noted, some state constitutions contain just such explicit limits — the California Constitution contains no such restraints. This court would radically depart from the well-established limits of the judicial function were it to engraft such a restriction onto the Constitution in the absence of an explicit constitutional provision limiting the amendment power.

[ColbertWatcher]

28. "... voters could take away an inalienable right?" Well, not exactly.

But the unwashed and uninvolved non-voting majority won't give a flying fuck.

They'll believe that's what happened, then throw a fit until the law conforms to their superstitions.

[jody]

29. What is your interpretation of the following CA Supremes statement "Although the amending provisions

of a constitution can expressly place some subjects or portions of the constitution off-limits to the amending process — as already noted, some state constitutions contain just such explicit limits — the California Constitution contains no such restraints."

Thanks for engaging in a discussion of the CA decision.

[ColbertWatcher]

30. It means I don't know that much about the CA Constitution much less any other state's.

I'm sure the person who wrote that knows what they're talking about, but I cannot verify that with anything I know.

:(

[jody]

31. I'm with you on all your points. That's why I am delighted that Brown is opening the argument that

same-sex marriage is an "inalienable right" and as such cannot be taken away by a simple majority of the voters.

CA Supremes say there is no precedent for Brown's line of argument.

So what!

I hope more constitutional scholars discuss Brown's opinion and add legal flesh to his skeleton argument re "inalienable rights" for gays and lesbians.

Inalienable rights for all or none at all.{/b]

[Mike 03]

20. "There shall be no ammendment other than this one that differentiates between

those who wish to marry those of the same sex and those who are attracted to the opposite sex. There shall be no difference."

[mmonk]

23. Actually I would cite the 14th amendment and the 1st amendment.

[ColbertWatcher]

24. But, apparently the President and the Attorney General believe ...

... certain types of discrimination are legal.

[mmonk]

25. I know and of course do not agree.

[ColbertWatcher]

26. Me neither, which is why I asked.

Apparently, they believe we need a new law o define the laws that already exist.

[readmoreoften]

34. It would start from the perspective of the state having no right to define gender identity

and the freedom of association, etc.