Supreme Court Appoints Bush for Second Term

[Chris Alger]

The Massachusetts Supreme Court. The language going to marriage as such makes this a much bigger case than the one in Vermont.

Campaigns used to be over "swing voters," those that waited until the last minute (after a two-year campaign) to figure out where they stand. But advances by campaign scientists and the inexorable toward mediocrity in all things that could protect us from them -- education, media, discourse --has allowed candidates to befuddle this group to the point where they vote, if at all, randomly.

So now the trend is to ensure the die-hards are sufficiently motivated. Won't be hard now. A legislative "repeal" of the Court's decision might not be in the offing, as it was in Alaska and Hawaii. Democratic presidential candidates can't back down form supporting for the gay/lesbian/biexual/transexual community. And there can't be many GLBT's or their supporters willing to abandon the GOP that haven't left a long time ago.

Which makes the decision a dunker for Bush, especially on the heels of Lawrence v. Texas, the Episcopalian schism threat and the possibility that the Supremes might well trike down the "Family Protection" thing as violative of the full faith and credit clause. If they do, I think it means that if you want the same rights as straight married couples in Virginia or Idaho and you're gay, just go to Massachusetts and get married.

Think of the commercials: voting Democratic means an abosolute right of homosexual access to children's bathrooms; if you and your wife die the government might force your kids to be raised by pedophiles. This is just off the top of my head. I'm sure Delay and co. will come up with much worse.

Other than that it's a great decision, and I don't mean this sarcastically.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Chris, you and I have had some, shall we say, "sprited" disagreements on this board.

This topic won't be one of them.

[Utah]

I have noticed in many of your posts that you think those who don't agree with you are stupid, uneducated, right wing zealots, or zombie watchers of Fox news.

Campaigns used to be over "swing voters," those that waited until the last minute (after a two-year campaign) to figure out where they stand. But advances by campaign scientists and the inexorable toward mediocrity in all things that could protect us from them -- education, media, discourse --has allowed candidates to befuddle this group to the point where they vote, if at all, randomly.
The reality is that a big majority of this group is uneducated and probably pretty left on the bell curve of intelligence. They have always been befuddled. It is amazing that people in this group can't name a single member of the supreme court, leaders in the house and senate, or even the vice president. What has changed is that the Internet and advances in technology has drastically shortened news cycles.

Democratic presidential candidates can't back down form supporting for the gay/lesbian/biexual/transexual community.
Nor can the Republicans. This is good as it will force open discussion. Bush has avoided this issue like the plague. Fred Barnes speculated last night that Bush is not against gay marriage but he can't come out and say it.

If they do, I think it means that if you want the same rights as straight married couples in Virginia or Idaho and you're gay I am for gay marriage. However, the legal arguments used by pro gay marriage forces are slim to non-existent. Gays in Virginia and Idaho currently have the exact same rights as straight people - how are their rights different? They both can marry someone of the opposite sex.

I think you are wrong on the Republican approach to this thing. The Republicans have been opening a huge can of whoop ass on the Democrats over the last couple of years. The Republicans need to tread very carefully so that they don't come off as far right religious nuts. There is even rumors that the Republicans are moving away from the support of the religous zealots as they are now seen as a liability to the party and they are no longer needed. If you read the National Review (very conservative), you would see that there is support by some conservative columnists for gay marriage. Additionally, those who are against have done so on grounds relating to legal justification, damage to stability in society (i.e., marriage was only meant as a vehicle to provide stability to child rearing), etc. I have yet to see a conservative article that attacks gay marriage as a violation of God's law or any crap like that. Therefore, I believe your Pedophilia comment is way off base on majority Republican thinking (although there are certainly the religious nuts who will attack gay marriage from a religious standpoint. However, I believe they as far right of the Republican mainstream as you are left of the democratic mainstream).

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Gays in Virginia and Idaho currently have the exact same rights as straight people - how are their rights different? They both can marry someone of the opposite sex.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your analysis is slightly off. When the US Supreme Court decided the Loving case, the issue was whether it was Constitutional to ban inter-racial marriages. The Court concluded that it was a violation of the Constitution to disallow inter-racial marriages. Under your analysis, there would be no discrimination because Whites were treated the same as Blacks (the could marry someone of the same race). The analytical test that the court employed was closer to the following:

Woman X can marry Man A.
Man B cannot marry Man A.
Man B is discriminated against based on Sex/Gender (not sexuality) because Woman X can marry Man A and the only reason he can't marry Man A is because of his gender.

~Elwood

[HDPM]

It is not clear at all that gays in Idaho have the same rights. Until the recent US Supreme Court case, homosexual sex in Idaho was a life sentence felony. Admittedly, it was never prosecuted except in cases involving children or other unusual circumstances in the context of a rape or something. The statute prohibiting it applied to all people engaging in anal or oral sex or bestiality. But the Idaho Supreme Court carved out an exception based on marital privacy so that married couples could have oral or anal sex and not be felons. That exception depended on marriage, and gays couldn't marry. So they did not have the right to have sex with the consenting adult of their choice. Gays still can't marry here, and thus do not get the benefits from marriage provided by law. I really do not understand people's hang ups about marriage. I think the government should stop doling out benefits on the basis of marriage or having kids. If the feds want to give subsidies to married people with kids, they should word the tax code in such a way that non-traditional relationships qualify for the subsidy. Better to get rid of the kid subsidy, etc..., but that is unlikely. Some states will allow gay marriage, and I think those should be recognized by other states. Having the "right" to marry somebody you don't want to is not a right at all.

When it comes right down to it, the idea that the government needs to regulate marriage at all is stupid. The arguments that "society" benefits from it are all based on tradition and emotion. Better to let people sort out their relationships themselves. To the extent the courts will be called upon to divide property and children up, that could be done without regard to the current definitions, etc...

[elwoodblues]

This is a tricky one for state's rights folks who are also socially conservative. They don't like the idea of gay marriage because it violates their moral beliefs. They also don't like the Federal Government stepping into issues that are not expressly noted in the Constitution (Marital status is one area that the Federal Courts have routinely avoided absent extraordinary circumstances). So, then they fall back on their old position of "let the states decide." Now, crap, one of the states decided against what I would want...oh well, it's just one state, right? Not really, once one state allows for gay marriage, all other states would have to recognize that marriage under the Constitution which reads: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

There's the problem, one state can change it's laws and all other states would have to recognize the marriage...what is a social conservative who favors smaller federal government to do???

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Now, crap, one of the states decided against what I would want...oh well, it's just one state, right? Not really, once one state allows for gay marriage, all other states would have to recognize that marriage under the Constitution which reads: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

This is why this opens such a can of worms. The Defense of Marriage Act allows individual states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. If Mass. issues a valid marriage license, and another state doesn't recognize that marriage, then we have a court challenge to the DOMA.

As a libertarian, my belief is that from the state's perspective (removing religion from the equation), marriage is simply a contract. Thus the state cannot deny two individuals the freedom to enter into a contract based solely on the gender of those individuals. It is also my belief that the government has no business pro-actively redefining social institutions. Thus, I tend to favor the Vermont solution as a reasonable compromise.

Of course, expecting politicians to be reasonable is, well, unreasonable.

[elwoodblues]

Could someone tell me how convervatives (small federal government, state's rights, strict construction of the Constitution, etc.) support the Defense of Marriage Act? Doesn't the statute, by its very terms, violate the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Constitution? Under what theory did the Federal Government have the power to enact DOMA???

[adios]

"This is a tricky one for state's rights folks who are also socially conservative. They don't like the idea of gay marriage because it violates their moral beliefs."

I'll let others elaborate if they so choose why this highly revealing statement about your prejudices and biases is illogical and lacking in substantiation on your part.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Under what theory did the Federal Government have the power to enact DOMA???

Under what theory did the fed Govt and the courts absolutely rape the constitution for the last 100 years?

Easy. The electorate doesn't understand the Constitution. People want instant gratification, so they like court decisions gradually changing the rules of governance.

The Constitution is supposed to be a "living document." Fine, I agree it's supposed to change with the times, but the means for doing that, the Amendment process, has been rejected because it's too hard and takes too long.

That's the whole idea. Changes to how we govern should be hard to make.