Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Jul 2004 16:31:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1379 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
The amendment, as proposed, would have stripped
individual states of their right to define marriage. If the amendment had
forbidden the Federal government from creating a nationwide definition of
marriage, then it would have been on much stronger footing, historically
speaking.
|
But don’t you see that that is the crux of the matter. The Left has forced
the issue-- now the only solution is an “all or nothing” one. The activists
couldn’t just leave well enough alone.
|
Let’s establish henceforth that any time a debater uses “activist judges” as a
means to trump an argument, then the debater has forfeited the argument.
The Left has *not* forced the issue. One state’s judiciary has rightly
identified the laws of that state to be contrary to the Constitution, and that
judiciary has removed an impediment to equal protection under the law. The
Right has forced this issue to waste 3+ legislative days, apparently with the
intent (failed) of creating a wedge issue.
The removal of a faulty law is not activism but wisdom.
| |
| |
| |
The real perversion is the attempts by the Left to redefine marriage.
|
Actually, the real perversion is the attempt by the Right to redefine
Campaign 2004 as a crusade for the soul of America.
|
Really now. You know that’s not what it’s about. But I do think it is about
protecting the future of America as we know it.
|
How so? Explain to me in very precise terms how homosexual marriage threatens
the future of America. If you’d claim that it will change the fundamental
structure of our culture, then you’ve opened up the argument to include women’s
suffrage and the abolition of slavery, both of which changed the fundamental
structure of our culture.
| |
| |
If we’re really interested in protecting marriage by Constitutional
amendment, then why was no mention made of the penalties for heterosexual
infidelity or spousal abuse?
|
Irrelevant.
|
Why? Where is the defense of marriage, if the essence of marriage is not being
defended? If you claim that it is irrelevant. then you must demonstrate the
reasons that it is irrelevant. How does this amendment differ from
anti-miscegenation laws?
| |
| |
Don’t these present a much greater danger to
Our Oldest Institution than homosexuals?
|
Of course not. These have always existed. They are not even in the same
ballpark as a destructive result of a total redefinition.
|
So, the willful disregard for one’s marital vows, coupled with the subsequent
harm to the marriage, the partners in that marriage, and any children of that
marriage, are not destructive to the institution?
And it’s not a total redefinition; it’s the existing definition minus a biogoted
restriction against a certain subset of the population.
| |
| |
And it’s not an “apples and
oranges” issue; either we intend the amendment to protect marriage, or we do
not.
|
Protect the definition of marriage, not the quality of the institution.
Let me ask you, Dave! If you are against defining marriage as the union of 1
man and 1 woman, how would you specifically define it?
|
For the moment, let’s leave aside issues of polygamy, which I’ll address
shortly.
I find the
definition provided by NOLO to be quite useful:
The legal union of two people. Once a couple is married, their rights and
responsibilities toward one another concerning property and support are defined
by the laws of the state in which they live. A marriage can only be terminated
by a court granting a divorce or annulment. Compare common law marriage.
Note that this definition makes no mention of gender, no appeals to
centuries-old tradition, nor invocation of any “union before God.” It’s
identified as a purely legal contract which, in terms of secular law, is all
that marriage is or should be.
Now, re: polygamy. The NOLO definition identifies marriage as a two-party
union, but the two-party limit seems basically arbitrary to me (as I’ve argued
before). Alarmists claim that the acceptance of gay marriage will lead to all
kinds of abominable unions, but I’ve never seen a convincing argument that this
is truly the case or why, exactly, polygamy should be disallowed.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
