Subject:
|
Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:13:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
307 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
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?
|
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!
| |
| |
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).
|
Hmm. “Civil Right to marry” might have been imprecise on my part. But if it
should happen that Minnesota were to ban heterosexual marriages retroactively,
would you shrug your shoulders and say “oh well, I didn’t have a right to
marry anyway?”
I suppose it could be pursued on the grounds of freedom of religion, but then it
must be accepted that some faiths (Unitarian, for one) will sanctify same-sex
marriages, so a ban on gay marriage can be viewed as a ban on exercise of
religion.
| |
| |
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.
|
Of course, the overwhelming majority of Dubya’s appointees were approved with no
problem. Estrada was blocked not because of his nationality (and, by the way,
it is racist of Republicans to have suggested that this was so) but because he
was evasive and secretive during the interview process. He refused to reveal
his opinions of previous Supreme Court decisions, and he refused to answer
legitmate hypothetical questions about cases he might likely have faced, if he’d
been approved. Such secrecy is unbecoming a Federal Justice, and a similarly
secretive Liberal judge certainly wouldn’t have been tolerated by a Republican
Senate!
Also, Sen. Jeff Sessions artificially inserted a litmus test into the review
process by asking if “Catholics need not apply” to the judiciary. The intent of
such an irresponsible tactic is to make it impossible to reject anyone who
carries a politically-favored trump card. It would be like suggesting, for
example, that Estrada should have been approved because he’s Hispanic, which
I’m sure you’ll recognize to be a racist criterion for selection!
| |
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.
|
Fair enough. I would follow-up by saying that Dubya has done nothing to earn my
trust, but he’s done plenty to prevent me from trusting him.
| |
| |
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
|
I submit that heterosexual divorce and heterosexual adultery are far more
destructive to heterosexual families than homosexuality ever has been (or is
ever likely to be). Do you support a Constitutional Amendment banning divorce
and adultery? If the goal, as stated, is to protect the institution of
marriage, it would seem necessary to outlaw such direct assaults upon it.
| |
and I and most other Americans aren’t willing to risk an entire generation
on some Liberal social experiment.
|
I have to call you on this one: recognizing the full rights and responsibilities
of citizens is not “some Liberal social experiment.”
| |
Those who propose changing the definition of marriage haven’t really thought
through the monumental consequences to our society.
|
Unfortunately, this is the same argument that was used to fight against
abolition of slavery, to deny voting rights to women and minorities, and to deny
the right to interracial marriage.
| |
This really isn’t an issue of bigotry against gays. It goes way beyond
that.
|
**snip**
| |
Citing “Equal Protection under the law” isn’t germane, since all
are free to enter into a 1 man 1 woman marriage.
|
I’ve heard this argument elsewhere, but I don’t find it convincing. It’s rather
like the famous quote by Henry Ford (likely mis-quoted here): “They can have
any color car they want, as long as it’s black.” Why must marital “freedom” be
restricted to this false choice?
| |
That someone doesn’t like the numbers or sexes of that equation is a
mute point:-)
|
Nice!
| |
| |
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.
|
Well, obviously I’m right and everyone else is wrong. The sooner we all
recognize this, the better off we’ll all be.
| |
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.
|
Do you, in principle, object to judges throwing out unjust laws? That is to
say, do you accept that, in some cases, “judicial activism” is appropriate?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) Here is his justification: (URL) I find this so disingenuous! "Pursuant to my sworn duty to uphold the California Constitution, including specifically its equal protection clause..." What about the rest of the CA Constitution? Upholding all of (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 10-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
|
|
|
|
