Constitutional Amendments

January 23rd, 2008

Looking at this list of 2008 Presidential Candidates it really surprises me that people actually still support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. I mean… really? A constitutional amendment? Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Fair and Speedy Trial, and No Marriage for Fags. A bit of a non sequitur, don’t you think?

Didn’t we learn anything from that dark time in our history when it was illegal for whites and blacks to marry? Oh, but that’s different I suppose… at least they were still opposite genders, right? I mean, the fact that they tried to use the Bible to support their argument then doesn’t mean anything, right? Not like today. Today it’s totally different, and the use of the Bible to try and support the argument is completely valid.

It sure is nice to live in a Theocracy.

Meh.. at this point I’m already blue in the face. What makes scares me more is how States are starting to pick and choose which legal contracts from other states they will honor and which they wont. Same-sex marriage issues aside, I feel this is a dangerous precedent for States to be setting. I wonder if Texas will begin to not recognize marriages between a Republican and a Democrat. Talk about an abomination!

Categories: Gay, News, Rants, Religion & Theology |

Comments

Roy January 23rd, 2008

The reason a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages continues to garner support from certain political camps is the perceived constitutional vulnerability of the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA). DoMA allows states to choose not to recognize same-sex marriages “concluded or recognized” in other states and forbids the Federal government from recognizing same-sex or polygamous marriages; it basically provides states an explicit exception to the Constitution’s “Full Faith and Credit Clause”. Some argue that DoMA is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, among other reasons, which is why others say amending the Constitution is the only way to “preserve the sanctity of marriage” from “activist judges”.

In my lay opinion, DoMA itself was unnecessary because the courts have long recognized a public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, saying it “does not require one state to substitute for its own statute… the conflicting statute of another state”; the so-called “red states” merely needed to pass laws (most of which have since) refusing to recognize same sex marriages recognized in other states. It isn’t that, as you say, “States are *starting* to pick and choose which legal contracts from other states they will honor” [emphasis added] but rather that the courts carved out the exception long ago in order to avoid as much as possible the need for the Federal judiciary to arbitrate every single discrepancy among laws of various states. Regarding marriage, this exception has been used by states in matters relating to polygamy, teen marriage, consanguinity, and (prior to the Loving case) miscegenation. But as the Loving case showed, the 14th Amendment could trump state laws regarding who can marry whom, which is why many conservatives advocate the constitutional amendment. (There is the argument that Congress can strip the courts of jurisdiction in cases regarding same-sex marriage, but even that attempt failed a few years back, in a Republican-controlled Senate no less.)

[As for your "Theocracy" hyperbole, I will direct you to this sentence in the Wikipedia article to which you link: "Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that... are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts...."]

My opinion on the matter as a whole (à la Alan Dershowitz) is that the State should remove itself entirely from the marriage business and only control civil unions, granting them to whatever couples want them, and leave marriages to the churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. of the land.

(Pardon me; I think my Libertarian is showing….)

keaven January 24th, 2008

My opinion on the matter…

Thus my comment on Theocracy. Being influenced by theology is one thing, but saying, “The Bible says so, thus we must amend the constitution” is quite another. Particularly when you don’t even have a consensus on the matter… why does the President’s view of scripture (or lack there of) suddenly trump all others?

But I do agree with you (surprise, surprise). My feelings on this matter since it all began was that “Marriage” as far as the State is concerned is nothing more than a civil contract. As such, there is no legitimate reason to deny the application of said contract by consenting Homosexual adults.

The DoMA, and a proposed Constitutional Amendment trying to outline morality (because it was such a huge success the last time) are insulting to me as an American Citizen. Likewise, are the laws of red-states which refuse to honer a legitimate contract entered into by only SOME consenting adults (by “legitimate” I mean the basis of the contract is legitimate and legal, in principle at least, and said contract doesn’t violate, again in principle, laws governing adults ability to enter into contracts)… the same contract entered into by a man and a woman legally, is suddenly void if entered into by two men. Ridiculous.

Since you brought up Loving v Virginia, on June 12, 2007 (the 40th anniversary of the case) Mildred Loving issued a statement, which included the following comment:

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/images/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf

Chris January 24th, 2008

Supporting such an amendment costs them nothing. While opposing it will cost them in a measurable and real way. They are simply counting votes.

We cant get folks to change their minds till we show the value that affects their pocket or it affects someone they personally care about (although that is iffy). Locke argued that self-interest is a great and valid motivator in a Commonwealth.

Unless we can find a motivator to get more of a buy in, we wont overcome the momentum till enough people have a cultural change (ie the old die off). Same thing happened with integration.