posted
Senate wastes time voting on whether or not to vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between A man and A woman.
Please tell me no-one here believes that this would be a good thing (the Constitutional amendment, I mean).
Also, please, please, please tell me that even if you do support it, that you see through the silly tactic/maneuvering show that was put on today.
Come election time (and in the pre-election build up), the GOP is going to make a lot of noise about who voted FOR this thing and who voted AGAINST it. But the fact is that it was a bad idea from the outset.
They knew they didn't have enough votes, so today's effort was really just a collossal waste of time and money.
We still don't have budgets in key agencies. It's going on a year late! The business of Congress is primarily to establish budgets and define priorities for the Federal government. They haven't done it. They should all be fired.
But no, we get this silly spectacle. A cynical push to define the GOP as the guardians of morality.
I'm sick of all of them.
We should dock their pay and lock them in the chambers until they complete all the mandatory business they've left undone.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Right now, the Governor and Legislature can't agree on a budget. They voted an emergency one-month extension of the budget.
In the meantime, the governor calls a special session of the legislature each day. They meet - for 20 minutes - and the House Speaker lets them go.
This game costs us 17,000 dollars a day.
And both the House Speaker and the Gov are Democrats.
There is good news, though - Mike Ditka just announced he will not run for the Senate here.
Edit to add: I share your analysis of why Bush and the Republicans tried to force the cloture vote on the Gay Marriage Amendment. I'm not as angry, simply because it's what I expect in politics.
posted
The problem is currently people are trying to use the current constitution to support gay marriage...which I don't think it does.
IF an ammendment had to be made I would say make it say "The US constitution does not have a stance on gay marriage...it cannot be used to support or prevent any such rights"
or even better have an ammendment that says
"The 10th ammendment was not a figmant of your imagination. The states really do have rights. If something is not clearly violating the constitution, the 10th amendment trumps any moron judge that tries to twist the wording of the constitution to protect whatever imaginary rights he/she wants to invent"
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think what the whole maneuver was really for was to get Kerry and Edwards on record as voting against an amendment, so that the Bush campaign could then go out and make like this means they are foresquare for gay marriage. This, even though I believe I heard both Kerry and Edwards say during the primaries that they are not personally in favor of gay marriage.
As you say, just political maneuvering. It makes me sick. And it makes me even sicker that some people are going to fall for it.
And, sndrake...you all back there in Illinois are going through the Budget Dance, too? Happens here in California every single blessed year. I can't remember the last time a budget came in on time. Here, it doesn't matter whether the governor in office is Democrat or Republican. It's pathetic.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Politicians fight over these "hot button" issues all the time because these are the issues that voters remember and get or cost votes.
I live in Georgia and people are still dickering over the flag - although for the most part, that's no longer a hot political issue and more of a chance to watch idiots march around in wool uniforms during Georgia heat and humidity.
As for my position on Gay Marriage - hell, let them get married. Divorce attornies need the work and homosexuals have every right to be as miserable as their heterosexual counterparts.
posted
Bob, I am totally with you. I saw bits of Santorum's speechifying today (on The Daily Show, natch....I have no time for "real news" shows when the fake ones do it so much better) and was taken aback by the reasoning put forward for such an amendment.
"More out of wedlock babies."
"Broken families."
"Must protect the family."
Sheesh. The Constitution doesn't say ANYTHING about Marriage, does it? Simply making it a State's rights issue dosen't mean that gay marriage still should be banned. And even if one gets a marjority to support it (and honestly, they never will) that still doesn't make it a just or moral law...the tyranny of the majority is always a risk in a Democracy. In this case, it is the tyranny of the minority, but tyrannical is still tyrannical.
I have yet to see any valid or reasonable or logical discussions on this issue that don't come back to religious reasoning. Any decent argument against gay marriage without the benefit of the Bible falls apart when it begins to effect non-gay marriages. For example, Santorum talked about marriage being the only way to create a child...which would imply that marriages should only be for folks who want babies. Well, all you older folks who are being child bearing years...too bad, how about being just friends?
And so on. I can't believe the Republican Party, always pounding the pulpit for less government intrusion, would be supporting this mess.
If anyone can honestly tell me how two men getting married will in any direct way effect their own marriages I would love to hear it.
posted
Fire them. If they REALLY wanted to protect the family they'd support things like workers being able to get off of work when their children are sick without hassle and other measures to make things easier for the working family...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps we really, really should looking at voting out incumbents. Since they won't do term limits, we could, by the power of our votes, turn out the Congressional society that allows this sort of waste to happen.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:...says Aravosis, a 40-year-old political consultant. "A line has been crossed. When you talk about amending the Constitution to make me a second-class citizen based on my personal relationship, then you've crossed a line of decency."
quote:I share your analysis of why Bush and the Republicans tried to force the cloture vote on the Gay Marriage Amendment. I'm not as angry, simply because it's what I expect in politics.
For christ's sake. This is EVERYTHING that is wrong with American politics.
You have a RIGHT to expect things of your politicians. You also have a RESPONSIBILITY to make sure that they are meeting your expectations.
Don't just roll over and sigh and say 'Oh, woe is me, it's politics -- I can't do anything about it.'
posted
I've got to disagree with most of this thread. I'm against the amendment, but I'm also against this trend of NOT voting on important issues. I'm against filibusters, even when used to accomplish a policy goal I agree with. Cloture is a vote to end debate on a bill. There's no debate happening on this bill, so cloture shouldn't be required. At the least, filibusters should come at a cost. Remember when filibusters brought the whole Senate to a halt? That might be extreme. Maybe the filibustering Senator should be precluded from voting or participating in the Senate. After all, technically he's up in front of the Senate speaking, right? That would preserve the supposed goal of cloture to make sure everyone is heard, but put an end to this ridiculous system of lawmaking.
There's too much casual acceptance that the system is broken, and therefore actions that further disrupt the system are OK to accomplish desired goals. Both parties do it, and it sucks.
A constitutional amendment is an exercise in democracy. I hope this fails. But I want it to fail because people voted against the substance of the measure, not in favor of some mythical debate which isn't actually happening.
posted
I'm not going to state my opinion here on whether or not I support the gay marriage amendment.
But I WILL say that I think their timing on this was bad, and deliberate. I wish they would have waited until after the election, so as to not use this as a political beach ball to bounce around all day for months to come. Obviously they already knew going into it that is wasn't going to pass, and who would vote for and against. They said all that on the radio before it came to a vote.
So while I don't have a problem with it going to a vote -- I think the timing sucks and was very political.
quote:The problem is currently people are trying to use the current constitution to support gay marriage...which I don't think it does.
Because gays aren't supposed to have the same coverage by the Constitution that everyone else is supposed to have? Are you talking about a specific amendment? Are you just making this up or saying it because Hatch said so?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its worth pointing out to possible supporters that the measure as voted on almost certainly forbade civil unions as well (its not certainly until its interpreted by the courts).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Edit: This was inspired by Justa's post, it's not really a refutation of anything.)
Under contemporary constitutional analysis, it would be very surprising and "innovative" for the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment to be interpreted by SCOTUS as requiring gay marriage. It wouldn't be as big a stretch as Griswald and Roe were, but it would be a stretch. The facts of reproductive biology have been used to uphold unequal underage sex prohibitions; the court explicitly acknowledged that reproduction did not enter into every instance of underage sex in upholding the difference.
State Constitutions are another matter - some of the language does seem to provide a stronger case for it. I haven't studied them, so won't comment.
The other federal issue is the Full Faith and Credit clause, which could easily be construed to require Virginia to recognize Massachusett's gay marriages. Congress has discretion there, so the Defense of Marriage Act may be upheld. But it might not be. Very close call, I think, with O'Connor being the swing vote based on her concurrence in Lawrence.
posted
fugu, you're right, but I think it would be unlikely to be interpreted that way, because the legislative history is pretty clear that it's supposed goal is to leave civil unions to the states.
Not worth the risk to a civil union supporter/gay marriage opponent, though.
quote: Because gays aren't supposed to have the same coverage by the Constitution that everyone else is supposed to have?
If being gay changed your rights then YES equal protection would prevent that. However, banning the marriage of two people of the same sex does not give gay people fewer rights than straight people.
Why?
Because the current laws prohibit both heterosexuals AND homosexuals from getting married to someone of the same sex. If a single heterosexual decided to get married to a same sex roommate of his to get the tax/legal benefits he could not do that. It would be just as illegal as if a homosexual person tried to marry someone of the same sex. Both types of people have the same sets of rights. They can marry someone of the opposite sex.
Laws like the Texas law making sodomy legal for heterosexuals but illegal for homosexuals are unconstitutional (which is why it was struck down). In that case heterosexuals could participate in sodomy, but a homosexual could not. This specifically gives two different sets of rights to different groups of people. This does violate equal protection.
Dag, I really think when it gets down to it Full Faith and Credit clause will knock out the Defense of Marriage act. I guess it could go either way as said...but I really would be surprised to see the Defense of Marriage act surviving under the current justices. They would really have to take a very narrow interpretation of the FF&C clause, and I would be surprised to see that happen, though it would be a close vote.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Laws like the Texas law making sodomy legal for heterosexuals but illegal for homosexuals are unconstitutional (which is why it was struck down).
Well, that's true and not true. The plurality (4 justices, Kennedy, Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg) held that banning sodomy violated substantive due process and was unconstitutional whether it discriminated or not. O'Conner's swing decision used the equal protection clause, but she was fuzzy in her reasoning; it's possible to interpret what she said to mean that sodomy laws in general targeted homosexuals and would violate equal protection. So it's hard to say.
Thomas's dissent said something like, "This is a silly law, and if I were a legislator I would vote to repeal it. As a judge, I am forced to conclude the Constitution does not prohibit silly laws."
As for FF&C, Congress has the power to pass enabling legislation. There's also some precedents that seem to say that even though state A must recognize an adoption from state B, it can treat the adoption in state B differently in probate laws. So I don't know. It's a near coin flip either way.
Striking the DMA down would give new energy to the calls for an amendment. Not a reason not to do it, but a result to expect if it happens.
quote:Because the current laws prohibit both heterosexuals AND homosexuals from getting married to someone of the same sex.
But heterosexuals are permitted to marry the people they love. Homosexuals are not. Where are the equal rights?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Please tell me no-one here believes that this would be a good thing (the Constitutional amendment, I mean).
Depending on how it was done, I would support such a constitutional amendment.
quote: Also, please, please, please tell me that even if you do support it, that you see through the silly tactic/maneuvering show that was put on today.
I recognize it, but I don't think it's silly. What I think is sillly is congressment not wanting to vote on something important.
I'm not going to argue my point, but Bob did solicit opinions, so I'm just sharing my view.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lupus... well, I think it would just be best to not bother. I would like to point out that "gay marriage" that people are fighting over is not the marriage of a gay man and a gay woman. It is two people in a gay relationship being allowed the same rights and privileges that current heterosexual married couples are allowed to enjoy. So yeah, this is a matter of them being afforded the same rights under the constitution.
Dagonee, I appreciate the explanation. However, shouldn't equal protection cover someone no matter what their sexual orientation? Also, I can hardly see the reproductive issue coming into play on the issue of marriage again, or else I can see plenty of people taking great offense and filing official complaints to the SCOTUS.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just reporting my understanding based on 1L constitutional law and giving my best guess on the outcome, not arguing whether it's the right or wrong decision. Anyone who tells you for sure they know how SCOTUS will vote is kidding themselves.
As for official complaints, the only official complaint possible to a SCOTUS decision is agitating for appointment of justices who will overturn the decision or a Constitutional Amendment. Considering the support this amendment has, I'd say reaction would be mixed.
posted
Well, I was just saying that trying to affirm banning any marriage of two adults (21 years of age, by the Amendment's standards) would be met with heavy resistance from even heterosexual couples, from infertile couples to those who don't have kids.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but the legislation in an equal protection case can be both under- and over- inclusive, as long as it's closely related (for gender discrimination) to an important government interest. If providing the benefits of marriage to heterosexual couple serves the interest of ensuring that children can have a stable family unit, they'll allow the law to be extended to couples without children and to exclude couples that can't have children in the biologically "normal" fashion.
It doesn't have to serve it as well as another option, so arguments that allowing homosexuals married couples would serve the needs of children better won't even be considered by the Court. Unless they want to - they can do what they want, after all.
Edit: Which means the Court can allow hetersexual marriage for infertile couples and not trigger the firestorm you mentioned.
Again, usual caveats that I'm extrapolating from 4 cases we studied this year.
posted
I hope no one was in the process of replying to this post, because I just thought better of it. Last time I got involved in this discussion, I just ended up feeling miserable about it for days. Have fun without me
[ July 15, 2004, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I hope no one was in the process of replying to this post, because I just thought better of it. Last time I got involved in this discussion, I just ended up feeling miserable about it for days. Have fun without me [Smile]
aw, come on and join the fun
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Because the current laws prohibit both heterosexuals AND homosexuals from getting married to someone of the same sex. If a single heterosexual decided to get married to a same sex roommate of his to get the tax/legal benefits he could not do that.
Ah, so if the roommates in question were a man and a woman they could get married for tax/legal benefits even if it has nothing to do with love or a long term relationship. Right?
quote: Ah, so if the roommates in question were a man and a woman they could get married for tax/legal benefits even if it has nothing to do with love or a long term relationship. Right?
Yes. LEGALLY, marriage has nothing to do with love, or relationships. Which is why I ignored the post about heterosexuals being married to people they love and homosexuals not being able to marry those they love.
What is love, how can it be measured? It is easy to tell if someone is male or female...it is impossible for a judge to rule on whether two people love each other.
Law does not care about warm and fuzzy feelings like love and such. Legally two people of the opposite sex who want certain advantages can get married and pool their resources regardless of, love, sexuality, race, and so forth.
True, religion makes marriage about love and long term commitment, but that is just a preference of religious people, it does not matter to the law. You can use religion to inspire you to create a law, but you can't use religion to support that law
Hence the government can't prevent people from marrying just because they don't love each other...just as you could not allow two heterosexual men to marry for tax reasons, while preventing two homosexual men from marrying simply because the love each other. The rule has to be the same regardless of orientation or 'love'.
If the constitution says that Marriage is a state attainable only between 1 man and 1 woman, how do we define Man and Woman?
Sounds simple enough.
We can do a quick body check.
Or we can use whatever the doctors put on their birth certificates.
Yet there is a small percentage of people who are born with improper or undeveloped sexual organs. At the moment, when born, the doctor determines which the baby looks closest to being, and snip snip, it is so.
Yet is that person really a boy or a girl?
What about people who have sex-change operations?
Is a boy who becomes physiologically a girl able to marry? If so, is it to another boy or to a girl?
Would you be able to go to court and legally have your sex changed?
Even without the surgery?
Or, since children won't be forthcoming from these unions, should we just ignore these people?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, here's why I'm against a Constitutional Amendment:
The Constitution is all about rights and freedoms. It defines them. It defines responsibilities of the various branches of government. It does all of that really well. What I think we've seen in the past, though, is that the Constitution is a really bad place to edit in RESTRICTIONS to freedom. Prohibition is a great example, I think, of the kind of bad amendment that we'd end up with if we tried to make a restrictive definition of marriage.
I think it makes the Constitution into a dumping ground for affirming the majority opinion, rather than a document that protects the basic rights of minorities.
It's not good at restrictions. And we should be careful and learn from the lessons of the past.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
