Proposed Constitutional Amendment Passes.
Its second legislative vote in two consecutive years, so it will be put to us the voters this fall. What amendment may you ask?
The proposed amendment to the Wisconsin state constitution to prohibit gay marriage.
My local radio station carried some soundbites from the debate and two that figured prominently were Mark Pocan taking the expected stand against the amendment and con-arguments from Gregg Underheim (R-54th Assembly District).
Mr. Underheim characterized the proposal as unconstitutional which is odd since it is not a law but an amendment to the constitution. How can a constitution be unconstitutional?
Mr. Underheim asked why there is no constitutional prohibition against a whole list of crimes which are much worse than gay marriage. I would argue he is wrong about that the prohibitions are not explicitly stated but are present.
Update:
At Blogger Beer Mr. Gregg Underheim responds to my criticism of his position on the protection of marriage amendment. That criticism is esentially the same as I post above. Mr. Underheim claims he did NOT use the term "unconstitutional" but anticonstitutional. Fine, in the absence of the report I heard (early in the morning) or a transcript I concede the point. I also see little difference between the two terms. Both essentially mean against.
In the end it is the people of the state who have the final say.
The proposed amendment to the Wisconsin state constitution to prohibit gay marriage.
My local radio station carried some soundbites from the debate and two that figured prominently were Mark Pocan taking the expected stand against the amendment and con-arguments from Gregg Underheim (R-54th Assembly District).
Mr. Underheim characterized the proposal as unconstitutional which is odd since it is not a law but an amendment to the constitution. How can a constitution be unconstitutional?
Mr. Underheim asked why there is no constitutional prohibition against a whole list of crimes which are much worse than gay marriage. I would argue he is wrong about that the prohibitions are not explicitly stated but are present.
Update:
At Blogger Beer Mr. Gregg Underheim responds to my criticism of his position on the protection of marriage amendment. That criticism is esentially the same as I post above. Mr. Underheim claims he did NOT use the term "unconstitutional" but anticonstitutional. Fine, in the absence of the report I heard (early in the morning) or a transcript I concede the point. I also see little difference between the two terms. Both essentially mean against.
In the end it is the people of the state who have the final say.
posted by Marcus Aurelius @ 9:27 AM
<< Home