Subject:
|
Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Mar 2004 22:29:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
231 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
I submit that the DOMA is unconstitutional as written, so it’s hardly
“activist” for a judge to rule against it.
|
Well, it is if the law hasn’t even been contested before them yet! There is
a process with which they apparently cannot be bothered.
|
I’m a little lost on the pronouns here--does “they” refer to the people getting
married and/or the people performing/solemnizing those marriages?
My understanding is that the DOMA frees states from the obligation to recognize
same-sex marriages performed in other states, but it doesn’t expressly forbid
such marriages from occurring. If I’m incorrect, I would appreciate
clarification.
Anyway, since the DOMA therefore denies same-sex couples a right afforded to
opposite-sex couples, then the DOMA denies the civil right to marry to a portion
of the population based solely on the choice of spouse.
If a law’s unconstitutional, it’s unconstitutional from inception.
| |
| |
The question remains: why did
Dubya identify this as a state’s rights issue during his 2000 campaign, but
now it’s a Federal issue?
|
Good question. I think he believed that judges would actually uphold the
law of the land rather than capriciously ignoring it. Federal action is the
only check available in our system of checks and balances to combant this
type of unprecedented action.
|
In this regard I would caution that Dubya himself has little regard for the
system of checks & balances. For example, consider his interim appointment of
Pickering, thereby circumventing the Constitutionally-enshrined right of the
legislature to reject appointment of unsuitable judges. Dubya has also resisted
(and Cheney has flat-out refused) bipartisan and/or independent investigative
efforts by the legislature into such matters as pre-9/11 intelligence, energy
policy, and pre-Iraq-war intelligence. The powers of investigation are tools by
which checks and balances are maintained, but Dubya has found it expedient
simply to ignore those balances (while hiding behind the catch-all curtain of
“national security).
| |
| |
| |
It should be a state issue in theory, but it can’t be a state issue in
practice because of Article IV of the Constitution. Too many states won’t
tolerate the recognition of any other union besides 1 man and 1 woman as
they would be forced to do. The issue has been forced to a head by
activist judiciaries and the only solution is an Amendment to the
Constitution. What other recourse do you see for opponents of changing
the definition of marriage?
|
Well, if such opponents wish to change the sectarian definition of marriage,
then I support their efforts absolutely.
|
Why? I thought you preferred that the government simply not recognize any
marriages at all?
|
Maybe I misunderstood you (and maybe sectarian was poor word choice). What
I meant was that I wholly support any faith’s right to acknowledge or disavow
marriages within that faith, but I abhor efforts by any religious group to
enshrine their definition of marriage in the Constitution.
| |
| |
However, if they seek to deny
marital rights by altering the Constitution, then I oppose them absolutely.
|
No one is denying any rights to anyone. Everyone is free to marry 1 member
of the opposite sex.
|
But that very formulation is the part that denies civil rights! I would suggest
that the proper phrasing might be this: Congress shall make no law abridging
the rights of citizens to enter into the legal contract of marriage. If you
want to restrict that to non-minors, I would agree that such a restriction is
consistent with the general non-eligibility of minors to enter into legal
contracts.
| |
If you expand the numbers or the gender, you have
changed the very essence of what marriage is by definition. And even if
you do that, by what logic do you prevent 2 brothers from marrying, or 2
sisters, or 2 guys and 3 gals. I don’t think you can.
|
I’m on record saying that I
don’t object to polygamous marriage, and
elsewhere I’ve asserted that
I don’t see why siblings should not be allowed to wed. Admittedly, I wouldn’t
choose to enter into either such marriage, but that doesn’t give me any right or
reason to forbid others from doing so.
| |
| |
Regardless, the question isn’t about what recourse I can suggest; the
question is why did Dubya in 2000 think this was a states’ rights issue, but
now he thinks it’s a Federal issue? I mean, the 14th Amendment wasn’t
ratified in the interim...
|
True, but legislation through judical fiat is rather a new twist...
|
Is it? I’ll need to research it, but I have the sense that judicial annulment
of laws has been going on for many years.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) Sorry. I was referring to those performing the marriages. California's Prop 22 specifically bans same-sex marriage! I mean, what the hey? (...) This is the problem. Nothing seems to matter-- federal law or state law. Both are in effect and yet (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) Fair enough. (...) Well, it is if the law hasn't even been contested before them yet! There is a process with which they apparently cannot be bothered. (...) Good question. I think he believed that judges would actually uphold the law of the (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
