Subject:
|
Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Mar 2004 06:13:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
215 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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?
|
Sorry. I was referring to those performing the marriages. California’s Prop 22
specifically bans same-sex marriage! I mean, what the hey?
| |
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.
|
This is the problem. Nothing seems to matter-- federal law or state law.
Both are in effect and yet gay marriages are being performed regardless.
| |
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.
|
I disagree that there exists a civil right to marriage (feel free to cite the
Constitution to prove me wrong). Having said that, I tend to agree with you
that DOMA wouldn’t hold up under Article 14. This is why the only resort is to
actually amend the Constitution (as generally unpleasant that is).
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
“Unsuitable judges”?? Look at the unprecedented Democratic blocking of Bush’s
judicial nominations such as Miguel Estrada! It is disgusting partisanship and
bigotted litmus tests (which are illegal IMO) that has forced Bush to play
hardball.
| |
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 is so hard to argue about such issues when many if not most of the facts are
unavailable, justifiably or not. What it really boils down to is an issue of
trust of Bush’s character which I have and you don’t.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Regardless of where the concept of marriage originated, I think that the model
of 1 father and 1 mother is the ideal situation in which to raise the next
generation. This model has worked fairly well over the centuries and I and most
other Americans aren’t willing to risk an entire generation on some Liberal
social experiment. Those who propose changing the definition of marriage
haven’t really thought through the monumental consequences to our society. This
really isn’t an issue of bigotry against gays. It goes way beyond that.
| |
| |
| |
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!
|
Again, I see no provision in the Constitution stating marriage is a civil
right. Citing “Equal Protection under the law” isn’t germane, since all are
free to enter into a 1 man 1 woman marriage. That someone doesn’t like the
numbers or sexes of that equation is a
mute point:-)
| |
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.
|
I remember you saying so. And I applaud your consistency. Trouble is, you are
so in the minority that the overwhelming will of the people cannot be ignored.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Explain how California can have a law like Prop 22, how the US can have a
federal law like DOMA and yet some quack in San Francisco decides to recognize
and perform gay marriages anyway. Seems to me laws, whether they be state or
federal are meaningless on this issue.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) Oh. Yeah, I guess it's pretty clear: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Well, in that case, I applaud Mayor Newsom for defying a bogus, descriminatory law! (...) Hmm. "Civil Right to marry" might have (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) Which doesn't mean a thing if they are in violation of the constition. That's the whole point in doing this kind of thing - to test the law. Gotta admire their courage. (...) What a frivilous and idiotic misuse of the amendment process - just (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
