Skip to main content

View Diary: Bill Clinton, signer of DOMA, says it's 'incompatible with our Constitution' (127 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Minor point, SD (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CajunBoyLgb

    The 27th Amendment was indeed, finally ratified in 1992 after being under consideration by the states for 203 years: but A27 had originally been submitted and passed (in 1789), without a specified time-limit for its ratification. Which was normal in times past: but nowadays, (as with the late lamented ERA of the 1970's) , I believe it is has been usual to put a "sunset" date on proposed Amendments.

     I'm not sure (i.e., don't remember) what may have been proposed for the putative Marriage Amendment in the mid-90s, but I think that you are quite right to point out that the last thing the country needed/needs is a still-"live" discriminatory Constitutional Amendment floating around state legislatures. Would you trust your State Lege to adequately safeguard LGBT citizens' basic rights? On their own?

    DOMA is a Federal law: it can be modified or repealed as times/opinions change, or knocked down by the courts: a Constitutional Amendment - not so much...

    •  It's not at all settled that such a time limit (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jay C

      would have effect.  (The same is true of whether repeal of a state's former approval would have effect.)  This has come up in the context of the Equal Rights Amendment.  And no, I would not trust any state's legislature to be eternally vigilant against a Federal Marriage Amendment.  Weird wave elections happen.

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 10:26:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site