Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Hooray for codifying discrimination into the US Constitution!

Oh, in case you were keeping score, if made into law, this would be the 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

By the way, Constitutional Amendments require 2/3 majorities in the House and the Senate and then support from 3/4 of state legislatures to be passed.

I am so tired of the Republicans led by (?) G.W. Bush dropping the current controversy surrounding same-sex marriages at the judicial branches’ doorstep. Bush stated that,

“[a]fter more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization…[t]heir action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.”

It is not the job of judges to write law that is the legislative branches responsibility; judges only interpret the laws that are currently on the books. And, like it or not, the courts are charged with the responsibly of holding the law before the spotlight of Constitutional scrutiny. If that law falls short of Constitutional equity, it is the judge’s responsibility to the citizens of this great nation, to strike said law down as unconstitutional. This is what happened in Massachusetts; the laws governing marriage were found in violation of the state constitution. Should the judges of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts have ignored the state constitution and its promise of equality and due process before the law for all citizens for the sake of religious dogma and political expediency? There is a reason the courts are constructed the way they are; they are supposed to be immune from the surging tide of politics, and the canons of religion should hold no sway in its rulings.

No, this is not an issue of judges over-stepping the bounds of their constitutional authority, this is an issue of the rights of all citizens to due process and equality before the law. Because, the institution of marriage as regulated by the many states is a civil institution, not religious and religion has no place in the discussion.

Bush does the nation in general, and the judicial branch in particular, a disservice by placing the blame for this current round of the culture wars on judges shoulders. This continued accusation points to a pitiful lack of understanding about how our government works; might I suggest Bush attend a Civics and or American Government class or two; no books just pictures please.

I think what this country needs is a Queer Eye for the President Guy. Can I get an amen?

I’m not gay, but I do have friends who are gay (and one who is Republican, woo boy). I’m going to go out on the cynical branch here and start a top ten list for why we absolutely cannot allow gay marraiges. Here’s my starters (please mind this is tongue in cheek, duh):

10. Homosexuals need to get out of chapels and back into hair salons where they help stimulate the economy.
9. Bush is just trying to curb the obvious argument over floral arraingements.
8. Bush thinks if gays can marry, they will then try to push churches to include the YMCA song in church, and he doesn’t know the words.

Edward, there is nothing in the constitution that says that the courts are the last authority on the constitution. While this is one view of what Marbury v. Madison said, another view is that all the decision said is that when a case comes before the court, the court has to rule on it in light of the constitution (Read the actual decision carefully, thats all it really holds- PLUS its just one decision and not in the constitution either). In massachusetts, the court did a lot more than that, buy ordering a particular system to be put in place. I urge you to go look at Lincoln’s opposition to the Dredd Scott decision, in which he said while the decision was binding on Scott, the other branches were CO-EQUAL and thus did not have to abide by the principle in the ruling. It was on this principle that he was able to give travel visas to black americans.

You happen to agree with the court in this case, and I do as well, but what about times when you do not agree with the court. For example, for me, Roe v. Wade is the supreme court making stuff up, and writing law nowhere in the constitution- the consitution is not simply what the supreme court says it is at any particular time and I would support any constitutional ammendment overturning Roe as soon as possible. Or lets take another example that you might find easier- in dred scott the supreme court said that a black man could not be a citizen of the united states- would you have been with Stephen Douglass sayin “oh well, i guess thats just the way it is”, or with Lincoln, saying “while the Court has the power to rule on that case, it does not have the power to make unjust rules while purporting to interpret the constitution” and then supported the 14th ammendment overturning Scott?

So you see, my friend, this is much more complicated that you want to make it seem. If you START with the assumption that the Massachusetts court is right, you get your outcome; if you start with the assumption that they are wrong, you get Bush’s.

Bush is being a crafty devil here. He knows that the amendment probably won’t pass, but he can trap Edwards and Kerry into voting.

Here is my position as someone who would vote against same sex marriage(CF I owe you this anyway!).

Politically, I am for the repeal of the DOMA, and would like to see the Federal Government recognize any marriage that is sanctioned by a State. States should be allowed to come to different conclusions on the subject (paraphrasing VP Cheney). I do not subscribe to the “Full Faith and Credit” argument, and my example is my Concealed Weapons Permit. It is recognized in some States, but not in others. Same with Real Estate licenses, BAR, etc. I also do not buy the “Equal Protection” argument either. All licenses have requirements which have to be met in order to obtain them. If a State says that the requirement for a marriage license is that it must be between one man and one woman, then an individual is not necessarily barred unless they choose not to meet the requirement. O.k., but what if the requirement discriminates a particular group of the society? You could make that argument if the requirement was that you must be straight to get married, but that is not happening here. And classes of people are discriminated against for the overall benefit of the community already. Eighteen to twenty year olds come to mind as they are discriminated against from drinking alcohol in an effort to reduce DUI related deaths. People without an MD can’t practice medicine. I’m sure there are more.

Personally, this is where this issue gets a little tricky for me. A Methodist preacher, the Rev. Tex Sample, wrote the following in support of gay marriage:

“The point is that marriage in the Christian tradition serves a number of purposes: procreation, fidelity, sacrament, mutual support and companionship, mutual society and loving companionship. What is striking is that all of these ends can be met by homosexual marriages, even the procreative end when the procreative end is understood as raising children for the Kingdom of God and not primarily as a function of nature. On these grounds, it is appropriate for gay and lesbian Christians to be married in the church, and it is not in violation of Scripture or tradition.”

I generally agree with this statement, yet if given a vote I would vote against same sex marriages for my State or community. My personal reasons are based not in an interest to exclude anyone or in determining that a gay person can’t perform the duties required by marriage (or that I hate gays), but in desiring my community to reflect the ideals that I hold dear. One of those is that the nuclear, traditional family is the best environment for a child to be raised, and I would vote based upon “putting families first” instead of what is best for any individual (including myself). And that is where I start to question the objectives of the gay community here, because I think many gay people would agree. If my State (or if any other State) voted for same sex marriage, I would just work harder to instill in my children the idea that a traditional family is the preferred method of raising children.

I hope this adds to the discussion and, provided my boss doesn’t kill me, I’ll try to respond to other positions.

Bush is being a crafty devil here. He knows that the amendment probably won’t pass, but he can trap Edwards and Kerry into voting.

Probably right, and I sure hope they have the balls to vote against it. The media creates a huge problem in regards to promoting good government because of the way that they publicize news and the way that they perform their polling. This created an imperfect picture and I think leads members of Congress and the Senate to vote according to how the media will protray their actions.

For example, even the Democratic candidates for President are vague and wishy-washy regarding the same-sex marriage issue when asked in debates, interviews, etc. because they don’t want the media and their opponents having a field day with it.

They all fear the press hyping that “Candidate A says he favors gay marriage” and their polls showing “50+% of the electorate is against gay marriage.” But this sensationalizes the issues and creates an impression with undecided voters who may choose to back away from a canidate that they see as having lower support. But the media rarely asks or reports how the electorate places the relative importance of one issue into the matrix of issues and their importance to the individual voter. There may be some for whom this is the biggest issue in the election. But there may be others who, while they personally are against the idea, couldn’t care less this election because all they care about right now is finding a job since their plant closed.

While some voters may not agree with Kerry/Edwards if they vote against the Amendment, how many of those voters will change their vote in the election if they agree on the rest of the Democratic platforms? Not very many, I’d guess. Those whose decisions are so heavily faith-based are already voting GOP.

The only trap is that Bush is going to push an amendment that is unconstitutional. Marriage is still a religious institution BEFORE it is a state-sponsored institution, so trying to meddle in it obviously pokes the government’s nose right into the first amendment. Once people realize that the end result is not to strengthen anyone’s religious standing or “save marriage”, but instead to introduce the camel’s nose under the tent, they will realize that this is a political manuever to slice and dice at the first amendment at will in the name of the greater good.

At what point will we say that the greater good demands that we don’t say our political views so loudly, or that my demands for political change are “creat[ing] confusion on an issue that requires clarity.”?

Now that I’ve started giving this some thought, this is indeed a very slippery slope.

“Bush is being a crafty devil here. He knows that the amendment probably won’t pass, but he can trap Edwards and Kerry into voting.”

You are almost for sure right, and I hope that they vote against the amendment, let us imagine a time when it was frowned upon for two people to get marriad if they were of different races. I am sure glad that we never wrote into the constitution, that “only a man can marry a woman of the same race.” Let’s get real folks, this is a black and white case of dicrimanation.

Misha,

True there is nothing in the constitution that specifically states that the courts will be the ultimate authority when it comes to the Constitution. And I agree as well that the Supreme Court took that roll for itself in Marbury v. Madison, but since that seminal case, the other branches of government have not disputed the Courts role. Indeed one of the Court’s most fundamental powers is judicial review–the power to judge the constitutionality of any act or law of the executive or legislative branch.

I would disagree with Lincoln. And I would disagree with you in your assertion that the Court’s role is not in interpreting the Constitution; it is (see above), and has to be, for there has to be a final authority on what the Constitution holds. It is the essence of the checks and balances system. If this were not so, then legislatures could write whatever laws they wished and never fear they did not meet a constitutional test. As it is now all law, state and federal have to have their roots deeply planted in the Constitution. The judicial interprets law, and holds the other two branches accountable and in check by said interpretations. And what of the executive if the judicial did not keep it in check, by applying a constitutional test to its actions?

I understand all too well the nuances of Roe v. Wade, and while some may assert that the court “made stuff up,” its ruling in the case found it judicial footing and 14th Amendment, namely the Due Process clause of same. In Roe, the court ruled:

[s]tate criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.

So am I to conclude from your opposition to Roe, that you disagree with the Court’s finding that Americans have a constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy?

One might argue in the Dred Scott case (Scott vs. Sanford 1856 – 1857), however repugnant the ruling that the Court got it right. At the time of the ruling, the constitution still held Blacks were non-citizens; indeed they were only 3/5ths a person, and mere property to be bought and sold. The 13th and 14th Amendments were not yet written, let alone ratified. The facts are at the time of Dread Scott, Blacks had no “legal” rights a White man was duty bound to honor, so said Chief Justice Taney; God given and human rights are another issue altogether. So in answer to your question, I would have stated that the constitution should be changed to reflect the founding principles of our nation as laid out in the Declaration of Independence.

In summation, I start with the assumption that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is right, and that Bush (as always) is wrong.

Sol,

One could argue quite successfully that marriage as regulated by the states is a “Civil” not religious institution. State government issued marriage licenses not churches of clergyman, nor would they be allowed to. Indeed without state sanction a man and a woman are not legally married.

Sure couples usually get married by the clergy, but they do not have to be, they can very well get married at City Hall. So an Amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman would not violate the 1st Amendment, but could very well run afoul of the 14th.

Does anyone know whether same-sex couples, being denied access to marriage, have ever tried incorporating or setting up as an LLC? A legal way for people, even of the same sex, to be unified in a partnership. Plus they could then deduct some of their expenses pre-tax, giving them additional tax benefits over tradionally married couples.

My understanding is that a constitutional amendment is constitutional almost by definition. The new supercedes the old.

One explicit exception is that an amendment can’t change the composition of the Senate. (No kidding. It’s in there…)

lets shoot this down:

1. nothing in the constitution gives the supreme court the right to define a group of human beings out of the law. (which unborn children, just scientifically- the question is whether they are human beign deserving of legal protection). Roe v. Wade was basically a determination by the court, without any constitutional authorization, that unborn children COULD NOT be protected by the laws of the states (at least at some stages of pregancy). It is interesting to note that almost everyone on the supreme court today agrees with this- if you read the Casey decision upholding Roe, they basically admited that it was wrongly decided by said it would cause too many problems with stare decisis to get rid of it now. I am not disputing that the 14th ammendment has a role in protecting people from arbitrary government action- but there is nothing arbitrary about a state wanting to protect an unborn child. Basically blackkkmun’s BS logic was because we cannot know what an unborn child is, we cannot stop a woman from killing it. Thats just makign stuff up- in the very least, if we cannot know if the unborn child is a full human being deserving of legal protection or not, the final decision should be left up to the people. Where in the constitution does it give the supreme court the right to say that someone is not in the class of human beings that the law can protect? The answer is, again, NOWHERE- the 14th ammendment enhanses protections for the weak, and does not give the court the power to remove the weak from the list of those who are protected by the states. Let me give you a parallel example- say the supreme court tomorow declared that based upon the “privacy” rights of a woman, a state could not protect a child from killing by his mother until the child was 6 month old (as abortion advocates like Peter Singer have suggested, due to the low brain development of new borns), what would you think of that? My guess is that you would be as outraged as this judicial usurption as I am about Roe v. Wade. You would say “how dare the supreme court say newborn children are not human beings that the state cant protect them!”

2. your reading of marbury is based upon civics class and not upon an actual examination of the text- ALL the decision says is that the supreme court has to rule in light of the constitution when it hears a case under it authority. it never ever says the supreme court is the final authority on what the constitution means. So the court can order one gay marriage, but it cannot require the legislature to adopt gay marriage across the board. I suggest you go read Taking the Constitution Away From the Courts- by one of the most famous LIBERAL con law profs in the country, Mark Tushnet. You are relying on what you have been told in your civic courses, but once you study con law seriously, you can see these issues are a lot more detailed than you want them to be.

3. your understanding of dred scott is also mis-informed. While scott was a slave, blacks were not 3/5s of a person in the united states- SLAVES were. there were many free blacks in the north, and until dred scott they had the rights of citizens. scott’s ruling was that blacks, NOT JUST SLAVES, could NOT be citizens of the United States, which is what Lincoln was opposing.

As someone who tends to vote rationally and not along party lines… I can no longer consider voting for G.W. Bush in November.

I had considered voting for him, personally more concerned about defense than anything else these last few years, but now I can not.

This country was founded on freedom, and he has done his share of damage to that concept already. Desiring to stick his homophobia into the constitution is just too much.

It’s too bad… I probably won’t be able to vote for anyone at all.

hey Number 1- join me in considering voting for a libertarian candidate. While it wont make any difference, at least you will be doing your civic duty. A lot of us who would never vote for a dem. are getting more more mad at Bush on domestic policy- but we shouldnt let the fact that the two major parties are leaving us no real option basically take away our vote.

Edward wrote (i fixed typos):
> State governments issue marriage licenses not
> churches or clergyman, nor would they be
> allowed to. Indeed without state sanction a
> man and a woman are not legally married.

This is *partially true*. Where the line is blurred is that in most states (including New York, where I live and where I was recently married) only three types of people are permitted to actually sign the marriage certificate:

1) A judge
2) An elected official
3) A member of the clergy

Yes, that’s right. The government gives governmental power to religious figures.

Honestly, when my wife and I were planning our wedding and read this, we were both disgusted. We had always thought that the clergyman and ceremony was a private, personal, non-governmental part of the wedding, and that the legal marriage itself was entirely and exclusively government sanctioned.

What makes a clergy person better qualified to sign a marriage certificate than anyone else? I suppose in “the old days” a clergyman would be able to advise and provide wisdom to the betrothed and the congregants because he would know them all personally as members of his flock. But this seems silly, because at almost every church wedding I’ve ever been to the clergyman didn’t know the couple or the congregants *at all*, or at least only barely.

All the more reason to simply ban marriage, period.

-Cf

As a Libertarian, I don’t really think the Federal government has any business getting involved in marriage at all. It’s a religious matter. States have the right to define marriage the way they want. But just because California decides “gay” marriage is OK, doesn’t mean that South Carolina has to honor marriages performed there.

I know, I know — full faith and credit clause of the Constitution and all that. I don’t think the U.S. Constitution applies to religious matters like marriage. The only way it would apply to marriage is if this Constitutional amendment passes.

Glad to see Bush has finally spoken out, even though I don’t think it’s his job to defend the religious institution of marriage.

While I’m not to thrilled with gay marriage, I know that it will be a reality for a while, if not forever due to the specifically slow process that takes place to get an amendment added to the constitution.

Bush/Rove are brilliant in pushing this now, seeing as how a vote will need to come up soon in the Senate to pass this on to the states. My guess is that Kerry will vote for the ban since 60% of America is against gay marriage. Remember, it’s all numbers people… ;-)

I should point out Bush’s hypocrisy in his speech today: He claims that he supports individual states’ rights to adopt (I forget his exact words) non-marriage family arrangements, but most legal scholars agree that the amendment in question, the Federal Marriage Amendment, would most likely outlaw even Vermont-style civil unions.

Here is the text:
“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

This amendment really makes it difficult for socially conservative libertarians (like many people on this blog) or “flexible” Democrats (like Clinton and Kerry) to either support or oppose it. Clearly, many people would be a lot happier if it simply limited the definition of the word marriage to “man+woman” and clearly left rooms to create civil union-like contracts to permit gay couples to get all of the rights of marriage.

Bush doesn’t care either way. He’s willing to brazenly discriminate against gays, foment nationwide homophobia and division, and to defile the Constitution over this, just to win some votes.

It’s disgusting and saddening and totally discouraging to imagine that, for the very first time ever in our country’s great history, that a shrinkage of civil rights could be put into our Constitution.

-Cf

Christopher- we did have the prohibition ammendment, which was a big limit on civil rights, and luckly the people came to their sences on that one. Anyway, I think there is no way in the world this is going to pass- its a political ploy to appeal to his conservative base. he has become as cynical a politican as our previous president- how sad.

Whats sad is that instead of tackling a real issue like abortion, he goes after this ridiculous marriage thing. he could appeal to his base and save some unborn children’s lives, but instead he proposes an ammendment whose only REAL effect is to make a good portion of our population feel like second class citizens. errrr….

Initially, I thought the final goal should be for gay couples to strive for a civil union that grants them the same rights as any married couple and to leave semantics alone. Keep the term “marriage” as it is, for a man and woman – and award the same exact rights to those who are willing to enter into a contract born of a love for another person of the same sex. I remain skeptical of the motivations of the militant gays who demand that semantics are important and argue vehemently that anything other than calling a gay union “marriage” is tantamount to bigotry of the worst kind. I feel such an approach hurts the cause for gay rights. Instead, by striving for rights versus semantics, the gay community can out flank their opponents. Such an approach will force any remaining opponents of the civil union concept to reveal their pure hatred of homosexuality.

Reduce this argument to the premise of marriage, particularly as a contract. When a couple decides to get married, they are not thinking in terms of a contract, say between business partners, but in reality, it is no different. The contract of marriage is a promise between to individuals to be faithful, to support and love one another forever, and to legally share possessions. If one or both parties break the contract, there are then grounds for a divorce. My question is why does the state have any say in whom is married at all? Perhaps it is the market liberal in me speaking, but I see no reason for the state to be involved in shaping the content of a marriage contract at all. Shouldn’t the state simply enforce the marriage/civil union contract as they would for any other legal and binding contract?

George, thanks for remembering me! And thanks for your detailed distillation of a conscientious, non-hate-based opposition to gay marriage.

Your explanation is quite detailed, especially from a legal point of view. But it seems to distill down to: gay couples aren’t as good for society as straight couples are.

You never explain, however, why this is true. It’s as if you think it’s just common sense for a person to think that gay parents aren’t as good as straight parents. But why? What is the negative result of the proliferation of gay couples? What societal ill results from gay marriage and gay parenting?

Let’s take this to an extreme example, the “Conservative Nightmare”: Gay marriage becomes 100% legal. Gay people start wearing wedding rings to work, forcing other people to realize that their colleagues might be gay. Gay couples start holding hands in the mall, forcing parents to tell their children about the existence of gay people. Gay people appear on TV (whoops, too late for that). Gay people are accepted by society as equals in every way. We become a gay-permissive society.

But still, this isn’t the real conservative nightmare… I suspect that the real, underlying nightmare that is driving this whole debate is “IF GAY PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO ACT LIKE THEY ARE NORMAL, THEN MY KIDS MIGHT BECOME GAY!”

To that I say several things:

1) It is unlikely that your kid will become gay as a result of a gay-permissive culture. Study after study concludes that no more than 10-15% of humans have strong homosexual inclinations. If your kid is in that 10-15% (for whatever reason, nature or nurture) you should be glad that he/she doesn’t live his/her life tragically pretending to be straight.

2) Even if #1 is wrong and a gay-permissive society results in a huge spike in homosexuality, and our culture becomes majority-gay (you can see already how absurd this is), how is that bad for us? We really don’t need to procreate so much anymore, neither as Americans nor as a species. As long as there is love between people, and enough people to do the work to maintain our society, who cares who we’re sleeping with?

3) If your kid does become gay, for whatever reason, so what? What’s wrong with that?

There is nothing inherently wrong with being gay, so therefore there is nothing inherently wrong with any influence homosexuality has on our society, family, law, or culture.

George, I do appreciate your effort to demonstrate how people in our society can be against gay marriage but not hate gay people, but in the end your arguments are not convincing to me. While the opposition you describe is clearly NOT rooted in hatred of gays, it does clearly seem rooted in an “irrational fear of gayness”. Which is, of course, the definition of the word “homophobia”.

-Cf

A previous poster was right in pointing out the hoops that the proposed amendment would have to go through in Congress. The proposed amendment won’t pass, but the effects of it’s proposal only helps to polarize the voters. Some democrats and undecideds that feel there ought to be such an amendment will turn away from the democratic nominee, who will be forced to take an opposing stance on the issue. It’s a lose-lose situation for the democratic party. Smart thinking on republican strategists’ part.

To those of you who argue that this amendment won’t pass: If Kerry or Edwards knuckles under and supports the amendment, then Democrats in state legislatures around the country will also feel comfortable supporting it - and they will be more afraid to oppose it.

For Kerry and Edwards, this will be a defining moment. If they support it, God help our sad backward country. If they oppose it, then I can only hope that they and others who oppose it don’t pay a price at the polls for their bravery.

Either way, Bush has managed to, yet again, needlessly drive a wedge right through the middle of our country.

-Cf

Bush has been successful in diverting the attention of the American public from our real problems, and his real problems to this fluff. I didn’t think it would work but look at the comments on this one article. He could actually care less what gays do, or don’t do, or want to do.

Brian, your point that Kerry will vote for the Amendment because 60% of people are against gay marriage is taking a very simplistic look at rationale. First off, most of those 40% who favor gey marriage will be voting for him. Of the 60% who oppose gay marriage, there are bigger issues which will take precedence in determining their vote come November. If I’m an unemployed mill worker in Ohio, I’m more concerned with the economy and jobs creation than I am about 2 men marrying in California. If I’m a mother with 2 school-age children and I see the nation’s education system going down the tubes, I’m more concerned with fixing education than two women in Florida wanting to file joint taxes.

Happily, Kerry and Edwards have got it exactly right:

(from MSNBC)

Kerry earlier issued a more detailed statement saying that Bush was injecting gay marriage into the national debate as a “wedge issue to divide the American people” and draw attention away from issues such as job losses and foreign policy.

“All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign,” he said.

“While I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for 200 years, this has been a state issue. I oppose this election-year effort to amend the Constitution in an area that each state can adequately address, and I will vote against such an amendment if it comes to the Senate floor,” stated the Massachusetts Democrat, who has said he opposes any federal or state legislation that could be used to eliminate equal protections for homosexuals or other forms of recognition like civil unions.

Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, Kerry’s main challenger for the Democratic nomination, took a similar line in a statement, saying, “I oppose gay marriage. I also oppose President Bush’s attempt to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Washington has no business playing politics with this issue. Marriage is left to the states today, and should remain with the states.”

I very much hope that this, like most of Bush’s recent “initiatives”, backfires on him.

-Cf

CF- Thanks for the reply. In my post I said:

I’ll take some more time tonight, but…..

1. I’m not worried whether my children are gay or straight. And gay or straight, I would again counsel them that a traditional family is the best way to raise children. I think time bears me out on that one, and my prejudice would be against single parenting as well as gay.

2. As far as the huge spike in society, I don’t think the numbers in our society make that likely. And your comment, “We really don’t need to procreate so much anymore, neither as Americans nor as a species” shows where that our opinions are coming from completely opposite directions. To me my family, my wife, my children, my nine generations of southern white trash heritage, are the most important part of my life. Protecting the rights of my family is far more important to me than protecting my rights as an individual.

3. If any of my children become gay I will give them a big hug and tell them that I love them. But I would also tell them that they should leave the procreation business to the traditional families.

Hope that helps, and I’ll I check back in the a.m. And Christopher, for all of my blogging all I ask of you is to click my name….

Sadly we are a country of extremes…

The marriages taking place in San Francisco were an extreme measure to push people a certain way….and now the other side is pushing back.

It’s the old “well if you do that we are gonna make a law forbidding it!” trick….and it worked.

What better way for the right to get what they want by making the left break out the big guns?

I believe that civil unions were a positive step towards full and equal rights toward gay couples…however with the push for full marriage rights, and the demand that the public accept those marriages, we have entered into a bit of a quagmire.

In big society dealiings….its all about baby steps. I am a supporter of the right to marry as long as it’s between two consenting adults. (ie no i’m not for incest or polygamy, which the right would love to have you think.)

However, the Christian Right has God, Money and Bush on their side…and that is downright scary. The one thing you don’t want to do in the midst of an election year is challenge them to a duel when you have a BB Gun and they have a Howitzer.

I think Kerry and Edwards sense there will be no political damage by voting aganist the amendment. Why? Because, regardless of the poll numbers, the majority of Americans feel this is NOT AN IMPORTANT ISSUE facing this country!

If a ‘NASCAR Dad’, who has friends and family out of work, a retired father having his pension taken away or a young son/daughter eligible to be drafted, decides to vote for Bush just on this issue…&#$& him!

To the Libertarians Jason and Misha, I have heard your argument for taking the govt out of marriage being increasingly made…and I agree! Now, come join the Democratic Party and let’s make it a reality in our lifetime!

Lastly, take note of the complete lack of outrage and hue/cry from the citzentry of California over the San Francisco law breaking. This controversy only exists in the vaccum of the media and will pit the lobbying efforts of the Dems, the Human Rights campaign aganist the likes of Jerry Falwell, Gary Bauer, a reluctant Republican rank and file and even scarrier right-wing hate groups.

Which group do you feel more comfortable?

Just a Dr. Laura pontificating on this matter on Larry King. My take — she talk about the holy union between God, man, and woman all she wants, but we still know what she looks like naked. ;)

To those who have stated here that they feel homosexual couples should be satisfied with civil unions and not push for an equal claim to the term marriage:

If semantics are not important, why is there so much opposition (including your own mild form of it) towards the term marriage being extended to include unions between those of the same gender as well as those of the opposite gender? Why is it so important that the word marriage maintain exactly the same meaning, and a different word be found to describe gay union?

Speaking for myself, as a gay man, I think a large part of the position we are taking on this matter comes down to the simple fact that for hundreds of years now there has been a different set of terms applied to gay union than to straight union. Terms codified into law, in many cases. What for straight individuals was lovemaking became sodomy when practiced by homosexual couples. What for straight couples was called romantic, for homosexuals was called perverse or deviant. The only reason to name homosexual union something different from the same act when performed by heterosexuals is to allow it to be framed in a different and less kind light. If there is truly meant to be no difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual civil union, then why on earth would there be a need to make our legal system increasingly complex by using two separate terms and constructing two separate institutions with identical rights and privileges?

And, personally, I find it an insult to the love and commitment between two homosexual individuals who wish to marry to insist that we use a different term for our union, to distinguish ourselves from straight individuals who wish to do the same. It is a form of literal segregation through semantics, and is as distasteful as demanding that someone of another color or religion drink from a separate water fountain. Or, to return to the most popular analogy made in recent weeks, ride at the back of the bus.

Misha,

The constitution is the framework for our laws, not the bible in which all laws are found. I believe it to be a living document that can and must change within the spirit of its creation, as society changes. In every decision the Supreme Court hands down, it defines a rational basis for it rooted in constitution script and the doctrine of “stare decsis.” However, if the Court feels the cause of justice is better served by laying aside “stare decsis,” it will do so as it did in Brown vs. The Topeka Board of Education, which set aside its ruling in Plessey vs. Ferguson. Again the 14th Amendment provided the rationale for the Courts decision in Roe vs. Wade. How do you balance the rights of a citizen against those of the unborn? I’ll come down on the rights of the citizen.

My reading of Marbury is informed by the DePaul College of Law, which I attended, and history. I state again and many a Constitutional Law (ConLaw) Professor would agree that the critical importance of Marbury is the assumption of several powers by the Supreme Court, irrespective of the wording of the constitution. One was the authority to declare acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution. But even more important, the Court became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant. As such, the Supreme Court became in fact as well as in theory an equal partner in government, and it has played that role ever since. What is important about Marbury is not much the wording of the decision, but the impact the ruling has (and continues to have) on the American system of government and jurisprudence. Like it or not, the Supreme Court IS the final arbiter of the constitution.

My understanding and reading of Scott is right on. While I will concede the wording of the 3/5’s clause, I would dispute your assertion that all freed Blacks had the right of citizenship in the North. To whit: many prominent abolitionists believed in Anglo-Saxon racial superiority; they were willing to grant freedom to the slaves, but usually that did not mean that blacks should be admitted as citizens with equal rights; indeed several Northern states denied free Blacks the right of citizenship and to vote; e,g,

1802-1805: Ohio constitution abolishes slavery, then prohibits free blacks from voting and passes the first Black Laws, restricting rights of blacks in North.

1821: Missouri law disenfranchises blacks—takes away voting rights; New York restricts black male voting.

1838: Pennsylvania takes away voting rights of blacks.
1847: New Jersey revoked the rights of freed Blacks to vote.

jarin:

let me clarify my previous statement as it seems to have influenced your reaction….

i am for gay marriage….i think if two people love eachother, then who am i to tell them how to live. i certainly don’t think anyone has the right to tell me how to live with my wife…(although sometimes i could use the advice)

however, you must admit that something is better than nothing…and although it means choking back on what is right and should be legal for a while…i think it is a good step towards full and equal rights.

my concern is that with this push for marriage now….you may have it blow up in your face, and you’ll see everything that you want slip away through a constitutional amendment.

but it’s just an opinion.

Rob:

I appreciate and respect your opinion, however I cannot agree with it. Unfortunately, in political terms, accepting a half-measure on this issue “for a while” could very well mean letting such rights slip away for the rest of my life. And I am only 23 at present.

By not pushing forward now for full and equal rights, and simply “chocking back on what is right and should be legal” in order to gain limited recognition under the law, several things would happen: First, it would remove a great deal of the impetus and emotion behind the push for gay rights. Would so many straight people be willing to continue to fight an exhausting and uphill battle alongside of us against such discriminatory practices if the half-measure of civil unions was in place? Even many homosexuals, overjoyed at finally receiving more legal recognition under the law than they had ever expected to see in their lifetime, would fall away from supporting true equality.

Secondly, it would be a very bad precedent to set: allowing one group of law-abiding americans to be segregated from another in the very laws that apply to each. Even if the laws started out identically, what is the guarantee that they would remain so? It seems to me that the only reason to codify gay marriage as civil union under the law, rather than including it in the existing institution of civil marriage, would be to allow it to be addressed separately by other laws. Defining something as distinct under the law is only used in order to make further legal distinctions with regard to the laws that apply to it. It would be like defining black citizens under the law separately from white citizens, or republican citizens separately from democrats, or christian citizens from atheists. Even if, in all cases, the differences were in term only and the same rights initially applied to each, the practice itself is to be abhorred and fought against as it can only be used to set the stage for future measures that will bring inequality one way or another.

Finally, in some cases, words are important. Consider the following: “Will you enter into a civil union with me?” “Will you marry me?” Which of these has more emotion, more meaning? For me, the answer is unequivocally the latter. If I accept the former, I might as well be asking my partner to form a limited liability corporation with me for all the romance and cultural significance the question should carry.

For me, and I believe many others like me, the choice is clear: I would rather marry my partner in a private religious (non-christian) ceremony that is not recognized by the government at this time, and continue to fight for full and equal recognition of our marriage by the laws and government, than to accept a half-measure that could only weaken our cause and cheapen our relationship.

Im in 8th grade,and Im writing an article for my school newspaper against gay marriages.I,tho,am not against them,I support them.Why does the government have to get involved?Shouldnt it be the states?If anyone can give me feedback to this,it’d help a lot

Tori, there is a host of information on this topic in the previous comments, above. You should read through them and if any questions remain unanswered you could then then be more specific with your questions.

The two views raised by your question lie at the heart of a centuries old battle of federal government vs. state government rights. The Constitution grants federal laws supremacy over state laws which means federal laws apply equally in all states. That which the Federal Government does not speak to, is left to the states, along with the specific activities in the Constitution which specify that States shall retain authority over, like voting.

Marriage is a state’s right to regulate, since no specific power over marriage is afforded the federal government by the Constitution. That is why a Constitutional Ammendment would be required to grant the federal government enforcement authority over marriage regulations and definitions such as defining whom may participate in a marriage.

The question of whether the definition of marriage should be a state’s right depends upon what one’s values are and how many others who feel as you do can bring pressure to bear on the government. Those opposing Gay Marriage in Oklahoma have no jurisdiction over Gay Marriage in Massachusetts. But if gay marriage is permitted in Massachusetts, marketers and advertisers will use gay marriage in the media to sell their products and folks in Oklahoma opposed will have to watch it or turn the TV to another station.

In order to gain jurisdiction to prevent marriage in Mass. from Oklahoma, folks against gay marriage must take the issue to the federal level by way of a Constitutional Ammendment defining gay marriage for all the states. If their view is shared by the appropriate number of Legislators and 3/4 of the states of the Union ratify it, these folks will have exercised their Constitutional rights to restrict another groups freedoms and it shall become the law of the land. That is democracy in action, and, why our founding fathers made the requirements for ammending the Constitution so very high and difficult, so as to prevent temporary fad sentiments or hotly debated but temporary issues from becoming law.

I hope that helps Tori.

From what I understand, amendments are created to fix injustices not create them. Marriage nowadays is nothing more than a check-box on a tax form. I live in Vegas and when “John Drunk” can get married to “Susie Stripper” in 30 minutes, there are some major issues in our country involving straight people. Let’s fix those first. Personally, I don’t think the term “marriage” is important, it’s the rights that married people possess that I’m concerned with.
Using God is a great excuse, especially for women. I mean, if God lets your husband beat on you it’s okay. We’ve still got troops in Iraq and a large deficit to worry about, but I suppose that can wait. If we let gay people marry what are we going to do next, help the homeless in our country?
Many people argue that gay marriages should be a state issue this is not a very good idea. Many states have laws banning gay marriages, Nevada has a state constitution doing so. And less than two years ago a law permitting gay marriages in “the City of Sin” was voted against. Please if anyone can give me a logical explanation for this, do tell.

Just to inform everyone, christians are not mean, hating people. Just because we’re trying to warn people that gay marriages are against the bible doesn’t mean that we’re haters. Quite the opposite actually… Real christians show love to others… It’s called the Golden Rule in case you didn’t know. I’m only thirteen and I know this stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, I’m a republican…. Elephant, not donkey

Meghan-
Just so you know, this is coming from a straight, white, middle-class 12-year old boy who is neither Democrat nor Republican. However, I am pro gay marriage.

I don’t believe that Christians are inherently mean, hateful people. In fact, I don’t believe that a truly bad person exists. People are inherently good, and as much as I am pro gay marriage, I have to remember that people who are pushing for an amendment banning gay marriage are only defending what they BELIEVE to be right. However, I must make my opinion heard.

Homosexuality does not hurt anyone. It never has, and it never will. Thus, gay marriage does not hurt anyone.

But there is, of course, the Biblical argument. I am familiar with the very, very brief Biblical quote that defines homosexuality as “wrong.” However, there is a little term I like to use to refute this argument. It’s called “separation of church and state.” I am respectful of Christian beliefs, however, if I am to respect others for their religions, others, Christians included, must do the same. We should not create a constitutional amendment that is based in a quote from a book that is exclusively Christian. We must remember that doing so would be almost as much against the rights of Jews and other non-Christians as it would be against the rights of gays. I am Jewish, but I’m not pushing for a constitutional amendment that prevents people from eating dairy with meat in the same meal.

But, if you want to continue with the religion argument, I can continue also. The argument itself is very hypocritical. Homosexuality is mentioned very briefly, and only once is it mentioned directly, in the entire Bible. Also, it is not only the main focus of the sentence it is mentioned in. Yet many people consider this enough ground to create a constitutional amendment that bans gays from marrying. However, there is adultery. Adultery is an issue that the Bible puts great focus on. In fact, there are the words “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.” And most people will argue, adultery IS wrong. And it DOES hurt people. But how many people are pushing for a constitutional amendment against adultery?

Of course, there’s the “against the sanctity of marriage” argument. I don’t understand how two people who love each other so much that they’ll stay together, with no civil benefits, for 40 years, finally getting a chance to get married, is against “the sanctity of marriage,” yet, referencing an earlier post, Joe Drunk and Susie Stripper getting married in Las Vegas ISN’T. I do believe in the sanctity of marriage, I just don’t believe that gay marriage is in any way an insult to it. How many people are pushing for an amendment against Vegas marriages?

But I don’t worry. It’s my belief that, like discrimination against blacks one century ago, it is widely accepted as okay in today’s society, but society will eventually learn to accept gays and treat them for what they are. Thank you.

the constitutional provisions that disallow gay marriages was made for the protection of the american public in general. personally, i dont think that gay people should be able to adopt because it is wrong for a child to grow up in a homosexually biased home. it is traditional and quite normal for a child to be raised in a heterosexually biased home, like i said it has been happening for years so theres really no “but what if raising kids homosexually biased is better for their development” that argument is moot considering that the majority of society is hetero and therefore that wont really be a concern as far as a child rearing approach. but hey all you gay people keep on tryin to get married and ill keep on hopin all you gay people cant ;)

mcallister,

first off, bible: not exclusively christian however good argument that church and state are separated however people will believe that being gay is wrong soley based on religion no matter how long you cry your “favorite saying” so thats all that really matters, when it comes down to it you have to hope that people believe the same as you and you need to hope that there are more of you than me. that is all it comes down to not what is right or wrong but who has how many voting what way. im sorry that it is a messed up system with many flaws such as this one

second, amber quit being a bra burning, hairy bitch! you’re making this something it isn’t! i hate people like you! john drunk can get married to susie stripper in 5 minutes! you wanna know why? because back in the day a law was made saying that because one happens to have a penis and the other a vagina that it is ok! thats it, through a wierd twist of fate two people with a penis and two people with vaginas cant unite under law. it is by many different aspects unconstitutional, unconstitutional means threat to national security for uninformed people like you national security is thought of to be something of the past, before 9/11 but the fact remains we still have a country to protect and if we fuck with the constitution we fuck with the ground we are standing on! oh and as for helping the homeless, youre gonna love this one, we actually have CHRISTIAN establishments doing so! hah! what a wierd twist of fate that was! we have the salvation army, ymca, and pretty much any church where homeless people can go to and have a warm place to stay! hah! hahahahah! unfortunately i cant touch the if god lets your husband beat you because some women are just stupid like that, sux to be a chick, huh amber? it also sux to be a guy because i just entered a battle of wits with an unarmed woman not very gentlemanly of me huh? sorry. another thing its not marriage its the rights they entitle, not true because what is gonna say you have those rights besides the fact that your married. theres not wand to flick and then bam youre a FAIRY princess. we have marriage to distinguish who is entitled to tax cuts and what nots. also, whats with the troops in iraq bit, its people like you keeping this issue alive so were not focusing on the war or whatever you think is a better point of focus. you wanna know what? youre damn right we dont need to be leaving this issue to the states because theyve already proved that theyre gonna screw up, just look at massachussetts! peace out, have fun trying not to look like an ass in the future cuz in the words of the “govenator” “I’ll be back.”