Marriage Amendment?

POSTED BY: Connorflynn
UPDATED: Thursday, August 12, 2004 20:33
VIEWED: 10254
PAGE 4 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
Perhaps the judge saw past the inflamatory and inaccurate terminology and decided that the right to privacy outweighed the need for elected officials to kiss the asses of the far right types?
Loud support doesn't equal huge support.

The moral majority is neither. They're just the ones with the greatest desire to control others.

So we dismiss the democratic process based on your assessment of what constitutes support? Actually polls indicated that a majority of people in the nation supported the legislated law to outlaw Partial Birth Abortions.

But regardless of your assessment of this law, we are not a nation ruled by Knibblet or Me or any one person. We are a nation ruled by elected legislated bodies. And judges do not have the right to dictate law to the people. Their job is to interpret the law, not to create it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Beowulf:
Considering that that is the situation right now, what purpose would the ammendment serve? I don't think more federal legislation is what we need to protect the power of the states.

Because it is not the situation right now. If it were, I would not support the amendment. The Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution could provide an autocratic judge the avenue to impose the will of one state on all the others.

MILORADELL

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:50 PM

Quote:
Of course, that is the fundamental difference between those who oppose and those who support the right to abortion in general.

You say the issue involves only one woman.

Some folks think there's at least one other person affected.

Well, when that one other "person" can breathe for themselves, then they can have an opinion. If you're refering to a man - when he's birthing it, then it's his decision.

I recognize that I am a strident militant on this issue, therefore I will excuse myself from any further discussions in this vein.

My one parting point - nobody's "pro-abortion." Nobody's saying person X should have an abortion, has to have an abortion, etc. What's being said is - person X should be able to make that CHOICE for herself.

****
Noah's Ark is a problem.

SLOWSMURF

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:10 PM

By the way, in reference to legal/social rights they have. One example of a BIG thing they can miss out on, they can't be put on their companions heatlh insurance. So if they don't personally work, they're pretty much screwed for getting health insurance.

There are MANY such things that are simply taken for granted that non married couples simply cannot get.

TIMBEISHIR

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:42 PM

Let me say that last Wednesday morning, when I saw the headlines I was embarrassed to live in Missouri. Now, not only do we have a law denying a certain group certain civil rights, we have an amendment saying the same damn thing.

GEEZER

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 12:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:

I agree with everything you said. It's basically what I was suggesting with my version of the amendment hehe. It just makes it a federal law versus leaving it to individual states to hash out and leave open th possibility for each state's law to be declared unconstitutional ina litigious situation. I'd rather see it handled in an amendment fashion.

There is already Federal law that effectively removes any benefit from same-sex marriage. The Defense of Marriage act, which became Public Law 104-199, apparently without much notice, back in 1996. Hmmm. Wonder who was President then? (sorry, couldn't resist

)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act' .

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act , record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:

`1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.'.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE .

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

`7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.'.
Passed the House of Representatives July 12, 1996.

Many civil benefits accrue to a couple from the legally recognized state of marriage. Tax breaks, joint ownership of property, inheritance, ability to make medical decisions for, or even visit, a partner in hospital, etc. PL104-199 says Federal benefits only apply to marriage between a man and a woman, and that no state has to allow any benefits to a same-sex couple married under another state's laws.

The only reason for the "Marriage Amendment" is to effectively keep the courts from declaring the "Defense or Marriage Act" unconstitutional.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

LTNOWIS

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 4:26 AM

Now for my signature responding to every post in the board.
Posted by knibblet

Quote:
Marriage is personal. Marriage is private. Marriage is NOT the business of government or church busybodies.

It's not really private. Someone's got to perform the ceremony for you. Likewise, you gotta tell your family if you expect any gifts. The government has to say who can marry and who can't because they're the ones who give you the tax modifications. A government-sanctioned marriage or civil union, affects child custody, inheritance, hospital visits, and some other important stuff, as has been stated. The government is the thing keeping us from being able to marry a minor or a sibling or a sheep. That's why I really don't buy the "government should stay out of marriage" argument. On NPR they suggested the "civil unions for everyone" solution, but I remember there was a key flaw in that plan. I forget what it was, but it was really big. The church has a say in weddings because they're the ones letting you use the church. And if you get married in a courthouse, they can excommunicate you and ban you from entering.

Posted by Beowulf:

Quote:

Quote:
Our laws are governed by our constitution, thus I agree there is a need for an amendment to prevent discrimination in this regard.

More laws are rarely the best path to more freedom.

If state laws governing marraige are the issue, wouldn't the solution be to have the state legislatures strike those laws?

I disagree with the first sentence. How else could we have banned slavery without an amendment banning it? Likewise, women couldn't vote without another law. Neither could we have done anything about workplace discrimination. And while state laws could be individually repealed, it'd take a heck of a long time. Missouri certainly won't legalize gay marriage anytime soon. Not that I have a problem with this state's rights approach. "Oh no, gay couples have to drive to get married! Soon we'll be building death camps!"

Posted by embers:

Quote:
and putting homophobia into the constitution...
yes, that is a way to make future generations proud.

See, I really don't think this argument makes sense. You don't know if future generations will be more socially conservative or liberal than you. In ancient Sparta, it used to be commonplace for 14-year-old boys to have sex with older me. Nowadays it's not. When they wrote the law banning gay sex with minors, a few people probably said the government had to right to legislate consensual sex, and that future generations would be ashamed of such a hateful law. Are modern Greeks? I'm no expert, but I'd have to say no. Look at Roe vs. Wade. Some people today are proud of that ruling, others not so much.

Posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:

Quote:
First I believe the United States is a federal republic. We are a union of independent states united under a federal government... If the original thirteen colonies had wanted a single nation and a single set of laws they would have united under a single government, but they did not. They united under a series of governments each holding power over a certain jurisdiction.

While I agree with your assertation that this should be the decision of individual states, I'm not so sure about your "federal republic" argument. I mean, we're ONE NATION. Each state is by no means independent. We tried that for a while, under the Articles of Confederation, and it didn't work, so we wrote the Constitution.

Quote:
Judges creating instead of interpreting law is probably the most dangerous threat to our freedom that this country has ever seen.

I dunno, the Nazis and Commies were pretty dangerous.

I really don't see the threat of judges making their rulings. It's not like we couldn't make a law or constituional amendment to smite anything they've ever said. So why did the judge overturn the partial birth abortion plan? I don't remember, and I'd like to know.

Anyways, my take on all this is that no one's

TERAPH

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 6:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Second, there has been an increasing number of Left-wing judges opting to legislative law from the bench.

I suspect many of the people claiming that judges are legislating from the bench would not say that if a judge overturned a law they didn't like.

Quote:
Already it is possible for a single judge to autocratically dictate law powerful enough to overturn law legislated in congress.

That's the job of judges. Congress has the power to pass laws, but those laws cannot violate the Constitution. If they do, then it is the job of the judge to overturn that law.

Quote:
This means that in our “free” nation we have appointed dictators who are able to overturn the will of elected representatives of the people on specific issues.

Dictators? Their role is defined by Constitution and law. The fact that people don't like the results of that role doesn't make them dictators.

Quote:
I have not read any proposed amendment for the Defense of Marriage Act, so I do not know what is currently in the works. After I have had an opportunity to read a proposition on the issue, I may decide whether I will continue to support this act.

Here's the text of the Constitutional Amendment that actually had a Senate vote in July:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

The "legal incidents thereof" sentence was heavily debated, since it means gays couldn't have civil unions either.

(A tangent: Virginia has gone a step further, and their law can be interpreted in such a way to deny gays not only marriage, but also contract rights, as this American Bar Association article notes:

http://www.abanet.org/journal/redesign/jy16nonmarry.html

The fact that the Attorney General says it won't be used in that fashion, really just means they don't intend to do so. Someone else may come along and decide it should be used in that fashion.)

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 6:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by teraph:
I suspect many of the people claiming that judges are legislating from the bench would not say that if a judge overturned a law they didn't like.

I suspect, you may be right. That does not however, justify, judges dictating law. This problem seems to reside primarily with Left-Wing judges particularly in the 9th circuit, which is why many Liberals seem to have no problem with it. I suspect that if a Right-Wing judge decides to autocratically deny the will of the people, many Liberals will suddenly become very aware of autocratic judges.

Quote:
Originally posted by teraph:
That's the job of judges. Congress has the power to pass laws, but those laws cannot violate the Constitution. If they do, then it is the job of the judge to overturn that law.

It is not, however, the job of judges to overturn a law based on that judges ideology.

Quote:
Originally posted by teraph:
Dictators? Their role is defined by Constitution and law. The fact that people don't like the results of that role doesn't make them dictators.

True. It is the fact that they autocratically impose their ideology on the people, by overturning laws based, not on legal merit, but on their ideological views, that makes them dictators.

BEOWULF

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 1:08 PM

Quote:
I recognize that I am a strident militant on this issue, therefore I will excuse myself from any further discussions in this vein.

You're committed to your position, but you seem too rational to qualify as a "strident militant". I tend to stay out of such discussions myself for reasons noted at the end of this post (especially when they are this tangential to the topic), but it's hard to let statements like that just slip by.

Quote:
Well, when that one other "person" can breathe for themselves, then they can have an opinion.

Can or does? Just out of curiosity.

Quote:
If you're refering to a man - when he's birthing it, then it's his decision.

Although it disturbs me to see procreation regarded as labor that's being divvied up unfairly, I was referring the the child - I'd consider his or her stake more pressing.

Quote:
My one parting point - nobody's "pro-abortion."

Very few people anyway. Hey, every side of every issue has its kooks and they rarely do either side any good.

Quote:
What's being said is - person X should be able to make that CHOICE for herself.

That is what you're saying. I'm saying I'm not sure she has the moral right to make that choice for her baby. Frankly, I'm a bit iffy on whether I think she should have the legal right in all cases. The problem isn't that we disagree on an issue - but that we don't agree on what the issue is. Both sides try to shoehorn the other into thier way of seeing things (pro-abortion vs anti-choice), but it just isn't reality.

Let's just say that it's too easy for me to imagine that, had my mother been a different person in her same situation, I might not be here. I'll admit that I'm not the the most brilliant, lovable guy most folks will ever meet. But I am kinda glad I wasn't "terminated" before my lungs had an opportunity to develop. I think there might be at least one or two other folks out there who share that opinion.

EMBERS

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Quote:
Originally posted by embers:

no true conservative would want to rewrite the constitution....

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.
Sometimes, there are good reasons to Amend the Constitution.

Lincoln was a Republican, he was not a conservative, the conservatives of that era were in favor of state's rights...and against Lincoln's amendment to the constitution...

in fact until the advent of the Religious Right one of the halmarks of all conservatives was the resistance to change and upholding the status quo.

Personally I do agree that there are occassions when amendments to the constitution ARE a good thing. I don't agree with trying to institute religion into the constitution, and I don't agree with trying to further marginalize gays... but I agree that there have been many times when amendments were good (but I don't pretend to be a conservative).

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE