[extropy-chat] Re: White House To Seek Ban On Gay Sex On The Moon

[Stephen J. Van Sickle]

On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 09:38, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> The federal government has no constitutional authority in this, even to
> the point of saying that our republican form of government would be
> seriously corrupted by an amendment to the constitution which actually
> limits individual liberties (this would be the first such limitation on
> individual liberties in this document).

The first such limitation?  Depending on how you define "limitation", I
suppose.  It seems to me that:

Article II limits my right to vote for someone who is not yet 35 years
of age, or not a natural born citizen, for president

Amendment XIII removes my right to hold in captivity bound labor, a
right specifically (though indirectly) granted in Article IV, Section 2.

Article XVI deprived me of a portion of the results of my labor

Article XVII deprived me of the right to alcoholic beverages

I could go on, but you get the idea.  I see nothing unprecedented about
a constitution amendment on marriage.  Indeed, it seems to me that it
would limit the power of the various States, rather than infringe on
individual liberties.  Gay people have been getting married for
years...the amendment would limit the States from recognizing the fact.

However, I think such an amendment is ill-advised.  No, I think such and
amendment is stupid, wrong, and ultimately destructive of marriage.  But
to say that it would corrupt republican government more than any other
part of the Constitution?  I don't think so.