Constitutional ban on same sex marriages?

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The arguments that try to make it a religious or family-values type issue are just concealing this core reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sam I do believe you are delusional.


[/ QUOTE ]

It seems pretty clear to me that he is right. In fact, I'd love to hear any other rational explaination.

[Mano]

He is a strong advocate of the Nucular family.

[MMMMMM]

Well, Andy, if marriage isn't the most fundamental institution of civilization, I'm rather curious to know what is.

[ACPlayer]

I will give GWB some credit, atleast he is trying to "solve" this "problem" democratlly via congress, rather then an executive order, which essentially the mayor of SF is doing.

\During the last election GWBs position on this subject was that this is a states right issue. Add that to his list of flip flops. The man is less reliable than Clinton on maintaining his pre and post election positions.

[John Cole]

What do you mean by "anymore"?

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, Andy, if marriage isn't the most fundamental institution of civilization, I'm rather curious to know what is.

[/ QUOTE ]

marriage is merely an institutionalised form of relationship - i dont wish to be trite though - how about parenthood ?

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[ComedyLimp]

"but must he therefore discriminate against gay people because christian dogma is anti gay"

That's ok as long as he is consistent -- and since the bit of Leviticus that goes on about "Man shall not lie with man" also outlaws the wearing of mixed fibres Dubya should, if Christian teaching really is his argument, amend the constition to outlaw polycotton shirts as well.

(Although come to think about it short-sleeved polycotton shirts are an abomination before God and anyone caught wearing one should quite rightly burn in hell forever).

On the point that is often raised about that same-sex couples should be allowed civil unions equal in law with traditional marriages but shuold not be allowed to call this marriage as this is resevered for unions between a man and a woman, I would refer the reader to the recent Massachusetts ruling which pointed out that "the history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal" in a clear reference to Brown Vs Board of Education.

Finally, I note that the term "same-sex marriage" is perhaps more accurate than "gay marriage". Not only does the later exclude lesbian realtionships but often a traditional union of a man and woman can be exceptionally gay as this picture shows:



Matthew

[elwoodblues]

Which part of the actions of those in favor of gay marriage has been following the law? People's biggest complaint seems to be that the Mass. Supreme Court was "legislating from the bench" in that the told the legislature to enact a law (which is seen as legislating from the bench) instead of striking a law down as unconstitutional (which has been a legitimate tool of courts since Marbury v. Madison.)

While this argument makes some sense, it doesn't make sense if you think about the consequences of the two possible actions that the court could have taken. It might not seem so, but the court's decision to require the legislature to enact a law was a practical solution in a difficult situation.

The Mass. Supreme Court was placed in a difficult position. They essentially found that the state's marriage laws were unconstitutional. That left them in a difficult position of either striking down the existing marriage laws (and, thus, nobody in the state could get married) or they could tell the legislature to fix the law (thus, leaving people to freely marry until the legislature chooses to do so). While many might not think so, judges have to use some common sense in their rulings and striking down the marriage law wasn't a common sense solution.

What should the court have done? They had a law which they determined to be unconstitutional (based on the state's constitution) not because of what it did, but because of what it didn't do. The import of the law to the state was enormous (in that without it, nobody in the state could get legally married) yet it was unconstitutional. What they did was, in my mind, the best solution. To illustrate my point, consider the following hypothetical law.

Law: Police services shall be available only to Class A individuals within the state.

Class A individuals is defined to mean black women, white women, and black men between the ages of 4 and 19.


A court looking at the law would find it unconstitutional. They would find the definition of Class A individuals to violate Due Process and Equal Protection in that it exclude many. However, the value of the law on the whole is very high (it is the only law authorizing a police force in the state.) Finding the law unconstitutional, they have two options -- strike it down (and, thus, there will be police service for nobody until the legislature acts) or tell the legislature that it is unconstitutional, tell them why it is unconstitutional, and require that they fix the law so that it passes constitutional muster.

I know that "law" that I suggested is ridiculous, but I think it illustrates the position in which the Mass. Supreme Court found itself.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know or have heard a singel person who opposes civil unions for gays, IMO civil unions solve all legal aspects associated w/ marriage, or atleast they should.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree with this with one gigantic caveat --- that the state ONLY has civil unions (i.e. that there aren't two tracks.) Let churches do "marriages" (that have NO legal significance) and the state do "civil unions" (that do not require a "marriage.") That would solve the issues.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that the people no longer get to determine what discrimination is?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not how it works (and we don't live in a true democracy.) Our legal system is not a simple "majority rules." There are checks on the will of the majority found riddled throughout the Constitution. The Constitutional protections against discrimination (found in the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments) are there to protect minority interests against the tyranny of the majority.

[ QUOTE ]
A small group now gets to decide that against the will of the majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

You act as though this is a new thing. I don't think I'm really going out on a limb when I say that, for example, literally EVERY First Amendment free speech case has the subtext of the minority being able to do something that the majority doesn't like.

[ QUOTE ]
Why have a democracy under your logic?

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have a democracy. We have a Constitutional Republic in which many of the decisions we make (though not all) are made through a democratic process carried on by our elected officials.