U4Prez User Bills
Title: The Marriage Indivisibility Amendment
Created: 1/30/2010

Locking a Bill submits it to the U4Prez community and enables candidates to support your Bill.  After you have locked the Bill you can no longer edit it. 

Locked:
(report as inappropriate)

C-Mach (R)

8.0668 
Congress

Description:

Sponsored and Authored by:  C-Mach

Sec. 1._ All states within this Union shall recognize matrimonial unions between one man and one man or one woman and one woman performed outside of any subject state.

Sec. 2._ All states within this Union shall recognize separations and divorces of matrimonial unions between one man and one man or one woman and one woman.

Sec. 3._ No state shall be forced to administer or preside over any matrimonial union between one man and one man or one woman and one woman.

Sec. 4._ This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

Sec. 5._ If rendered operative, this article of amendment to the United States Constitution shall be effective immediately after this article of amendment to the United States Constitution is rendered operative.


Support This Bill
Please Login to support this Bill
Bill Comments
Please Login  to add comments for this bill
FromComment
Learning Conformity (MR)

7.9096 
Cabinet
Posted: 2/13/2010 7:08:02 AM


BD, what is your stance on the federal level ("Defense of Marriage Act")?
Learning Conformity (MR)

7.9096 
Cabinet
Posted: 2/13/2010 7:06:28 AM


Any state that does not recognize marriage between two consenting adults shall be taken on par with any that do not recognize interracial marriage - funny how its the same poeple/states as 40 years ago. I adcocate for all states to reciprocrate - if one state doesnt recognize all, the state where the marriage is legal does not recognize those in the biased state. This is something I am working hard for, and will happen. Welcom to 50 years ago. Thanks dumbass for setting the nation back again, and trying to sever the nation (which is what I think a lot of you people want, but the states will remain united whether you like it or not).
Big Daddy (R)

6.4203 
Senator
Posted: 2/1/2010 10:23:30 PM


ty elijah (a much better fake profile) you are right, this violates the states rights.
Elijah (R)

6.9401 
School Board
Posted: 2/1/2010 8:07:43 PM


Funny thing this. If it is an amendment by Congress, it is in violation of the 10th Amendment. If the Supreme Court states this in their judgment, it will become the law of the land. I believe the courts will be the ones to decide this issue once and for all.
Big Daddy (R)

6.4203 
Senator
Posted: 2/1/2010 6:53:34 PM


whats that i smell, oh, you burning the tenth amendment....
C-Mach (R)

8.0668 
Congress
Posted: 1/31/2010 1:58:25 PM


Really? No.
Big Daddy (R)

6.4203 
Senator
Posted: 1/31/2010 11:58:00 AM


yes hub because cMock wants to supercede the rights of the states to decide what they want to recognize as a legal marraige and thumb his nose to the tenth amendment.
C-Mach (R)

8.0668 
Congress
Posted: 1/31/2010 11:02:08 AM


Hub City Progressive, I actually support THAT instead. However, most of the states do not support that, so I crafted an amendment that makes a compromise and is a sensible replacement to the Defense of Marriage Act.
Hub City Progressive (D)

7.9611 
Mayor
Posted: 1/31/2010 2:19:41 AM


I do not support this bill. I support divorcing the government from marriage completely and establishing civil partnerships for tax and legal purposes without respect to race, creed, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.
Big Daddy (R)

6.4203 
Senator
Posted: 1/30/2010 10:44:23 PM


it is written as a bill. and no where is marriage a rite. so while you are superceding the states rite to decide morality in thier own way, it does violate the 10th amendment you liberal pinko,,,
C-Mach (R)

8.0668 
Congress
Posted: 1/30/2010 4:13:40 PM


This is an amendment. It does not violate the Tenth Amendment.
Big Daddy (R)

6.4203 
Senator
Posted: 1/30/2010 2:12:30 PM


only a liberal would propose a bill that violated the 10th amendment and can't even come close to falling under the commerce clause. fuckin pinko.