Bush, Senators Renew Fight Against Gay Marriage...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jun 6 2006, 09:25 PM) [snapback]267011[/snapback]</div>

Funny thing about the Supreme Court, they have ABSOLUTELY no power to enforce their decisions. They can't force a state, congress, or President to do anything. Their authority is derived from the respect they're given, and our need to have a final authority to maintain a stable government. While you may not like their decisions, the Constitution gives them the power to interpret laws and the Constitution itself. Congress can impeach judges or even begin to change the Constitution through amendment. While Congress and the President could even ignore the decisions of the court, it doesn't happen due to our respect for the rule of law.

EDIT: I should have mentioned Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court when the Cherokee amazingly won their case against resettlement from Georgia. He said "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." He ignored the court and forcibily moved the Cherokee anyway, the infamous "Trail of Tears", one of the low points in our nation's history. He also defied Congress about the central bank, and was the only President censured.

 

This issue is being raised only to "embarrass" certain Senators and energize the base. The mid-term elections are just a few months away, and traditionally the President's party doesn't do well in mid-terms. So, the "get out the vote" efforts will be better if there's an issue important to the people being discussed.

While I don't believe the courts should decide this issue, state legislatures are the ones to make the rules regarding how the government recognizes marriage, and they should be the ones deciding the issue. To date, I think only MA has legislated a marriage law that includes same sex marriage. The courts in MA have cleared that decision, I think.

What is the marriage amendment? Does it really ban gay marriage?

The first sentence is considered the "ban" sentence. Seems to me it pretty much excludes the states from deciding the issue. While the federal constitution can certainly limit something like federal recognition of gay marriage, I think its a violation of the traditional role of the states to determine marriage policy to prevent them from recognizing it on their own. I would support an amendment that said something like this:

That removes the problem of the Fed over-riding the traditional role of the states in regulating marriage, and prevents the fear some states have that legalized gay marriage in MA would force them to recognize the marriage due to the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. The Defense of Marriage Act already does that, so my amendment is unnecessary (unless a court strikes down the DOMA, which I think is unlikely).

California and several other states have a domestic partnership law, but that arrangement still falls short of the goal of encouraging monogamous behaviour and stable home lives for children because it doesn't address the very real problem of punitive taxation of "single" people and things like inheritance law, etc.

I do like the traditional view of marriage as between a man and a woman, but I think a good compromise can be had. States should elevate "domestic partnership" to be the primary category, with "gay marriage", "long term cohabitation" and "traditional marriage" as partnerships under Domestic Partnerships. Tax policy, inheritance laws and other benefits of traditional marriage should be extended to all domestic partnerships, as they all confer the rewards on society we are seeking (better public health through encouraging monogamy, more stable home lives, etc.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 10 2006, 02:37 AM) [snapback]269091[/snapback]</div>

I appreciate that you have a reasonable stance on this issue; while you obviously have a tradional view of marriage, you respect the concerns of same-sex couples.
One question about the proposed marriage amendment is whether it would also prohibit states from allowing civil unions. I'm not a lawyer, but some people suggest that the "legal incidents thereof " clause would do just that.
The problem with the institution of marriage in this country is that it is both a legal and a religious institution, the same ceremony serving to commemorate both. It would be better if we had a system such as they have in France, where everyone has a civil union that is the legal component (that could be open to both hetero and same-sex couples), and then what they call marriage is strictly a religious ceremony. Of course, that would require a major overhaul of our system and is probably not feasible.
Most polls show that while the majority of Americans aren't ready to accept same-sex marriage, the are willing to accept same-sex civil unions. The problem with civil unions is that, no matter how the laws are written, they do not offer all of the legal protections as marriage. Soperhaps this will necesitate educating people as to the difference between civil marriage (what we actaully get a marriage license for) and relgious marriage. Even when same-sex marriages are recognized by law, no church will ever have to (nor should they be, separation of church and state works both ways) will have to conduct them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 10 2006, 08:31 AM) [snapback]269134[/snapback]</div>

This is what I've been advocating all along. I think from a governmental position, there should be civil unions only. Marriage should be a religious union and nothing else. Then, since legal protections are issues of state and not religion, same sex couples will have equal protection. Likewise, since this couple (same sex) are not married in any religious sense, there should be no objection there as well. This of course is IMO, and I would be more than welcome to listen to anyone who can explain in a calm rational way their objections.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Jun 10 2006, 11:46 AM) [snapback]269236[/snapback]</div>

I know in California a marriage is only recognized by the state when a state certificate is obtained (marriage license). Otherwise, it is not a valid marriage for the purposes of legal procedures and things like income taxes, property rights, etc. A minister or other person licensed by the state can conduct the necessary ceremony, and it can be in whatever form the people desire. But there are two parts to it; the state license and the ceremony performed by someone licensed by the state. (Interestingly, you can obtain a limited license to perform the ceremony for a single couple ... as long as they have obtained the marriage license from the state).

A couple married in Las Vegas are considered married in California ... so if they move here, the state will honor the marriage license of Nevada for resolving various issues. In fact, if there is a difference between the two states in something like community property settlements, the state of residence takes precedence. So even if Nevada were not a community property state, when the couple moves to California, the community property laws would be in force (that's an example only ... I think Nevada is a community property state).

The fear among conservatives is that while a single state may decide something "crazy" like gay marriage or other non-traditional structure like polygamous marriage, inter-species marriage, etc., they don't want to be forced to recognize that marriage like they "have to" with traditional marriage.

I actually don't mind the idea of same-sex marriages from a civil standpoint, because I think its better for couples to commit to each other, remain monogamous, and work toward common goals. But I would resist polygamous marriages and inter-species marriages due to the greater chance of exploitation those arrangements have.

The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, I think, already protects states on that front. If that falls to judicial review, then an amendment might be called for to limit the range of marriage. I would support limiting it to two people, both above the age of consent.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 10 2006, 12:01 PM) [snapback]269242[/snapback]</div>

Why, oh why, do people insist on bringing up the idea "inter-species" marriages when same-sex marriages are being discussed?

Has it ever occurred to anyone that animals cannot give consent and cannot enter into legal arrangements of any kind? To suggest "inter-species" marriage is as silly as suggesting "inter-species corporations". Just can't happen in any legal context. Sure, sometimes people set up trusts for their pets, but these arrangements are operated by humans, at the behest of humans. The animal has no real legal involvement.

Constantly raising the "inter-species" argument tends to reveal how the person feels about gay people (less than human, like animals), IMHO.

But what really angers me about this tired refrain of the threat "inter-species" marriages is that, in some ways, PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE MORE RIGHTS WITH REGARD TO THEIR PETS THAN DO SAME-SEX COUPLES WITH EACH OTHER! I can automatically make medical decisions for my pet, but not for my husband. If my pet dies, I automatically have the right to arrange for and attend the funeral. If someone negligently harms or kills my pet, I automatically have a right to sue for damages. When my pet gives birth, I automatically "adopt" the children, not so for same-sex couples.

These are NOT rights that same-sex couples have automatically... Some of these rights can be partially implemented through complex and expensive contracts, but are not necessarily recognized by all institutions (hospitals, insurance companies, probate courts) and many of the legal arrangements simply vanish as soon as you cross state lines.

- Bob R.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bobr1 @ Jun 10 2006, 01:08 PM) [snapback]269263[/snapback]</div>

It is the "slippery slope" or "domino effect" argument you have to overcome to win the argument. Instead of insulting the people you want to convince ... "Constantly raising the "inter-species" argument tends to reveal how the person feels about gay people (less than human, like animals), IMHO." ... you might try saying that you agree that inter-species marriages should not be allowed.

Interesting that you did not object to polygamy. Are you in favor of limiting marraige to two people, or am I reading too much into the omission?

I think my view is reasoned, fair, and considers the feelings of everyone in this debate. There is certainly a concern about both polygamous and inter-species marriage, as well as child-adult unions, by people opposed to any form of civil union or gay marriage. So let's deal with their concerns by recognizing them without insulting them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 10 2006, 11:06 PM) [snapback]269428[/snapback]</div>

Oh, so now it's "insulting" to gay-marriage opponents to reveal the stupidity the inter-species argument... but NOT insulting to gay people for you to constantly bring up inter-species marriage every time same-sex marriage is mentioned? Nice try, cast yourself as the victim.

You're reading way too much. But I thought polygamy was "traditional" marriage... it is only in recent generations that it is outlawed/rare, and it is sanctioned in the Bible and other popular religious texts.

Just to play devil's advocate, since you seem to be a fan of "slippery slope" arguments, can one not argue that if you outlaw polygamy, then what is to stop someone from outlawing other Biblical unions like monogamy?

Now, since you asked, I will tell you my precise views on polygamy... I do not believe there is a "slippery slope" that leads to marriage laws being changed to accommodate polygamy. Unlike monogamous marriage (opposite sex or same sex), polygamy is a different _structure_ of relationship. There are multiple complex issues that would have to be worked out including inheritance, right to make medical decisions, parental rights, property and power of attorney, divorce, etc. All of these rules work neatly in a two-person marriage, but do not work neatly and automatically in a polygamous situation. Therefore, whatever your views on the morality of polygamy, the very structure and laws (and years of case law) regarding marriage would have to undergo dramatic changes and enhancements.

To allow same-sex monogamous marriage requires no changes to the underlying structure of marriage laws. Any of the other things previously mentioned would require big changes to marriage law, or a complete overhaul of the entire legal system (for example, by allowing animals to enter into contracts!) There is no "slippery slope" to same-sex marriage. None at all.

Their "concerns" are about as valid as "concerns" about mixed-race marriages, and about as worthy of not being "insulted". Give me a break.

- Bob R.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bobr1 @ Jun 11 2006, 11:26 AM) [snapback]269519[/snapback]</div>

But Bob, what if,say, a guy wants to marry his toaster? I mean, if it's gays, then next it will be animals, then appliances, and God knows what next! You have to admit that slope is mighty slippery!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 11 2006, 09:05 AM) [snapback]269537[/snapback]</div>

Actually, I'm OK with that one... I think the problem of human-toaster relations is self-correcting, as long as the coitus is performed with the appliance "turned on".

- Bob R.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bobr1 @ Jun 11 2006, 09:13 AM) [snapback]269542[/snapback]</div>

LOL!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Jun 9 2006, 07:59 AM) [snapback]268526[/snapback]</div>

I told you so !!! :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bobr1 @ Jun 11 2006, 08:26 AM) [snapback]269519[/snapback]</div>

You can continue to attack any objection to your position by bristling at the person, but as long as you hold a minority position, you are not doing yourself any favors. It certainly doesn't get them to consider your views. It would be better to acknowledge someone's concern and then explain, as you so eloquently did regarding the difference between polygamous and monogamous marraige, how you would rationally define what is and is not a sanctioned marriage.

Know the positions of those who oppose you. Deal with those rationally, and you may convince them. Dismiss them, and no one changes their mind.

What strikes me most is that you picked up on what is evidently a pet peeve of yours, and completely missed that my position is much more towards the libertarian/liberal side than would be expected of a conservative, evangelical Christian. Ah well.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 11 2006, 12:05 PM) [snapback]269537[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, next thing you know, a divine savior will want to "marry" their entire church.... What a mockery of marriage that would be!!