If anything, that suggests an indifferent voter should be counted as a “no” vote. Since the amendment seeks to limit individual rights, and a sizable portion of the population evidently don’t care about the issue, why let those rights be abridged?
Of course, consitutional amendments that seek to restrict individual freedom, be they state or federal, tend to fail anyway. A consititutional crisis might be forced if a gay couple, legally married in another state, visit Lousiana and one of them is seriously injured. The spouse, naturally, will consider himself or herself as legal next of kin and empowered to make certain decisions. A hospital administrator will either end up listening to the spouse (rendering the amendment meaningless) or bar the spouse from decision-making and hold the entire state up to ridicule.
And is that the fault of these “rabid gay activists?”
I could claim that the best way to ensure civil union status for the people who really need it right now, would be for all currently-married heterosexual couples to renounce their married status and settle for a civil union. They would henceforth be required to refer to their spouses as “partner.” Society would be entitled to treat them as nothing more than a domestic partnership or a relationship of convenience. It would be acceptable for people to question the morality of their union. Their children would be bastards.
Wouldn’t they be selfish and unreasonable for refusing to do that? After all, it’s for the good of the people who really need it right now. Even if it is a lie.
As we’ve seen for generations, for two consenting adults in love to want to be married is a completely unreasonable, fanciful request. They might as well ask for the moon.
Come now, SolGrundy. Your post veers off from the road of political possibility into the realm of pure fantasy.
There is no way gay marriage can be enacted nationwide right now. There is already a huge backlash against it.
Every single state that puts anti-gay marriage on the ballot sees it pass by huge majorities. The Commonwealth of Virginia recently passed breathtakingly strict legislation that bans not only gay marriage, but civil unions as well. The statute could even threaten POA contracts between cohabitating gay partners.
Given all this, wouldn’t pressing for civil unions instead be the politically wise course? They are seen as less threatening, especially if they are opened to other folks who need to set up a household but aren’t married. The discussion about incest makes this point clear.
If an elderly brother and sister want to set up a household and share benefits, there are huge legal impediments in their way. Identical, in fact, to those faced by cohabitating gay partners. And marriage isn’t an option for reasons enumerated nicely above. Besides, who would want to marry their sibling, if they only wanted to set up a household and not screw each other?
There are people who need some sort of legal remedy right now, and they are being forgotten in the shouting match between absolutists on both sides.
So, does the government (as an extension of “the people”) have a legitimate, over-arching, public interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage? Isn’t that a sort of bright-line test that can be applied?
If so, what’s the legitimate, over-arching, public interest?
Mr. Moto: The one bright, shiny problem with allowing civil unions is as I already pointed out. The fundamentalists will soil themselves with fury the first time two homosexuals apply for and receive one.
Doesn’t matter one bit that it might (and I think I’m being generous when I say, “might”) be used by heterosexuals. After all, as you say:
Of course, just because most people vote for something doesn’t make it right in either a moral or legal sense.
As to VA passing legislation that could threaten POA contracts between gay partners, does it threaten POA between anyone else? If not, we might be looking at yet another case that will make it before the Supremes. And will be shot down. A good thing for all.
Sure, possibly, Waste. In several years, perhaps. Keep in mind that Virginia is so conservative, laws against cohabitation are still on the books.
It’s own sodomy statute stood until the Supreme Court decision.
Meanwhile, there are gay folks in Virginia that are suffering through this backlash.
Politics has been described as the art of the possible. I don’t believe gay marriage is possible right now. In that environment, alternatives must be sought. Perhaps down the line, gay marriage won’t seem so threatening.
As of right now, it is seen as such. This must be seen as an improvement over the situation just a few short years ago, when it was seen as a ludicrous joke, or not considered at all.
Perhaps in this environment, civil unions can pass, especially if they are seen by many as heading off true gay marriage. Gay marriage, however, has a much harder fight.
I don’t consider “social harm” to be a valid argument, precisely because it lends itself to such evidence-free platitudes. Point to an individual person who is harned (being unhappy about something that you can simply ignore if you don’t actively choose to make an issue of something doesn’t count*), and we’ll talk.
*I recall an joke about somebody who complained about kids skinny-dipping in the nearby river. The police told the kids to move on. Another complaint call came in the next day. The police checked and found that the kids had obeyed their instructions to move a half-mile downstream. Puzzled, they stopped by the complainer’s house to ask why there was still a problem – surely, nobody could see anything objectionable at that range.
But, Mr. Moto, if Virginia is as conservative as you say (I honestly don’t know, to my detriment), then there is quite simply no way in hell that civil unions have a chance of passing. Because if they do, then homosexuals will use them to set up housekeeping. And when that happens, the referendum making them illegal will blow by you so fast that it’ll bowl you over in it’s slipstream. Therefore, they are seen as at least as threatening as SSM, and an attempt to gain something through less than honest means. Besides, I don’t see civil unions being used widely by just folks. There are damned few instances of siblings wanting to set up housekeeping and marriage remains an option for most.
And once again, just because something passes with a majority vote in no way, shape or form makes it right. Too, I’m genuinely curious as to whether or not the legislation makes POA contracts null and void only for homosexuals or for everyone. Because while cohabitation remains illegal, it happens with startling regularity. And we’ve seen what happened to those sodomy statutes that you mentioned.
As to “the art of the possible” - sometimes possibilities have to be created. I think that this is one of those times.
[hijack] Just to keep the thicket of laws under control, I’m in favor of 1) passage of a law requiring a majority of the total eligible voters, not just a majority of the ones who show up (for both legislative bodies and referenda) and 2) laws expiring twenty years (give or take a factor of two) after enactment (the same law could be passed again before the old one expired if it’s still wanted) [/hijack]
I’m not sure the sample size is big enough (for federal Constitutional amendments) to draw that conclusion.
I am waiting to hear of some legal weasel finding a way to use the VA statue as a way of evading some perfectly ordinary contractual obligation to someone who happens to be of the same sex (yes, it’s written that broadly).
Given that marriage impacts on so many federal benefits and entitlements, what I envision is a federal civil union benefit. Various states could add benefits as they see fit. I believe most would make them equivalent with marriage, so long as only one or the other is entered into at any given time by a participant.
Even if it has to be a state-by-state passage of law, civil unions have a much greater chance of going through. THe only way any state could legalize gay marriage is through judicial action. Left to normal lawmaking, it will fail everywhere.
The votes in Missouri and Louisiana should prove cautionary. Likewise, Hawaii, a socially liberal state, banned gay marriage by a huge margin. I’m sorry, but this should serve to illustrate how difficult the proposition is.
Mr. Moto: Except that you claim that you want a federal civil union benefit. Then you go on to say:
So, which is it? Federal or state? Because if it’s federal, then states don’t have to pass it. And if that’s the case, the number of fundamentalists and wignuts in my own neck of the woods are gonna come crawling out from under their rocks screeching about the evil gummint forcing them to recognize what is essentially a marriage between homosexuals. So why not just do it right, rather than dealing with it in such a half-assed fashion?
Conversely, if it’s a state law, then it’s gonna run up against other states refusing to recognize it if it’s a union between homosexuals. So, would heterosexual people who have applied for and been granted a civil union in, say, Virginia have to apply for a whole new civil union if they move to South Carolina? What if the civil union offered in SC doesn’t carry the same package of benefits that the one they’ve lived under in VA? Are they just screwed?
The votes in MO and LA prove that bigots vote. Nothing new about that.
Which is why it needs to go before the Supremes. Establish marriage as a right that is available to anyone, their genders be damned. Stop dicking around with this civil union bullshit once and for all.
And what happens in any of my hypotheticals? Besides, you’re wanting to create a new federal benefit which would create more than a couple of layers of bureaucracy atop those which already exist. Seems like a helluva lot of effort to go to when the answer is staring everyone right in the face.
And I apologize, Steve MB, for missing your post. It appears that the latest and greatest from VA is destined to go down in flames. Deservedly so, to my way of thinking.