spectrum
[Moderator Hat ON]
Speculation on other poster’s unusual sexual proclivities should be in the BBQ Pit, not here.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
AFAIK, no state requires a popular vote for ratification. If a popular vote were required, then the legislature wouldn’t be passing the amendment.
The 21st Amendment was ratified using the alternative method, being ratified by special conventions in 3/4 of the states. Presumably if this method were employed, voters would go to the polls and choose a “yes” or “no” candidate for the special convention.
That method was selected by Congress for the 21st Amendment because it was felt that there would be more popular support for the repeal of Prohibition than asking the state legislatures of the day to vote for a repeal. In the 1930s, state legislatures were dominated by rural interests who tended to be proponents of prohibition.
Because the two-party system in America requires that the Republicans must keep the Trogs along for the ride in order to maintain their power base. And don’t forget that they control just about everything now. No doubt we’ll see an anti-gay strategy not unlike the Southern Strategy which still pays dividends to the Republican party, if they don’t go for the whole ball of wax while they can still see the writing on the wall.
But if they don’t, it’s not going to wash. With notable exceptions like the Log Cabins, it’s just not possible to be conservative and gay, or for that matter non-white, or female, or impoverished. Disagree with me if you must, but the statistics show that already one segment of the population knows exactly what’s up. This tactic, while quite possibly personally valuable to the current power holders, will not stand the test of time, because it is mean-spirited and it runs counter to a far larger and growing cultural current which actually appreciates and accepts homosexuality.
Conservatives have their leg wrapped around that collective anchor now. You can’t go after a segment of the populations’ rights–even ones they don’t yet have–and not expect the boat to rock from the splash. Fundamentalist, elitist, geopolitically interventionist radicals now control your party, and their actions speak for you and will for living memory. Living memory will always include the assertion that not only did the conservatives coddle racists, and the wealthy, and their corporate friends, but also those who sought to make the archaic word of God–their God, not ours–the word of law.
In the meantime, divergent peoples proliferate and succeed here in America. The values of tolerance and acceptance are rooted and grow, while Biblical conservatism withers. And as I said, they will remember the lowest depths to which the Republicans resorted in 2004.
You guys are gonna lose on this one, big time, unless you rip your fundamentalist backbone out and toss it over the side as well. And with that goes your braincase. I repeat: You’re f@<ked.
It is certainly an interesting argument, and one that is being used both in the lawsuits and in the Mass. decision (albeit construing the Mass. constitution). However, if “equal protection” is construed as broadly as you posit, I’m interested in how incest and bigamy (or anti-polygamy) laws are Constitutionally valid.
And don’t give me that “I’m outraged that you would try to equate a gay relationship with those sick people practicing incest or polygamy.” Tell me why incest and bigamy laws don’t deny equal protection under your analysis.
Perfectly obvious. Being gay is a characteristic, not a vice. If you wish at some other time to discuss whether or not a tendency to bigamy and incest is inborn, rather than chosen, we can do so. I’m sure we can have a lively discussion if you can get over your tendency to change the subject.
When gay people tell me that theirs is a situation of birth, that they have no choice in the matter, I believe them, I have no reason not to. I, for one, realize very well that it is hard enough being odd, much less queer.
Even if I were to consider being gay a malign or unfortunate characteristic (which I most emphaticly do not), it is entirely unjust to punish people for conditions over which they have no control. To withold freedom, community and acceptance, in any form is to punish. Isn’t that what we do to criminals? Isn’t thay why we do it to criminals? To punish?
Might as well punish people for being left-handed.
Don’t you see though that saying “X is a vice, so we can treat that differently than Y which is a characteristic.” is precisely an argument that is used against gay marriage?
Plus, the post said (essentially) that “equal protection means we have to treat everyone equally,” not “equal protection means we have to treat everyone equally that is not engaging in a vice. People engaging in a vice we can treat unequally.”
Or how about this for another example. People in the military are allowed to possess and operate rocket-propelled grenade launchers. Under equal protection, why oughten everyone have that right?
Polygamy is a vice? Have you suddenly become a “fundie”? I don’t believe it! Surely you can either make a non-religious case against it, or simply embrace it as another variation on the family. What’s the saying-- It takes a village… how much better if the whole village is related?
And here I was hoping to read some of your flowery prose raking the Democrats over the verbal coals for their new found love of “states’ rights”. Isn’t that supposed to be a code phrase for something else? No comments about Kerry slithering up to that lothesome phrase from the dark ages of racial politics? Well, he can always fall back on the reason he gave today in an interview as to why he doesn’t “believe in” gay marriage: “Because I just don’t.” Hey, can’t argue with that! Hearing him say that he never in his career supported gay marriage (as though that were some virtue), you’d think he just came out of a viewing of The Passion and was trying to emulate Peter: “I never know him, I tell you, I never knew him.”
It’s going to be nasty campaign, but we’ve both been saying that all along…
As much as I disagree with Bush about this whole amendment issue, and as much as I see him using the issue politically, he sure was unusually coherent of speech today talking about it. If he doesn’t firmly believe in this, he sure is doing a great job acting as though he does.
Not around here, we don’t take kindly to weak arguments in these here parts. Them kind get run out of town on a rail, mostly.
Not even close. The key word is “equal”. If the protection of the law can be nuetered due to a condition over which one has no control, it is not equal. A law forbidding left-handed people from marrying would be unjust, as well as absurd. A law forbidding gay people from marrying anyone would be equally unjust.
By now, you’re probably embarassed that you said this. Being of generous inclination, I’ll overlook it.
And this just in: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/25/politics/25AMEN.html?ei=5062&en=dbfee68cfc1f13b2&ex=1078290000&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=
Suggesting the possibility that GeeDubya is already waffling on this, perhaps this trial balloon didn’t fare any better than his Buck Rodgers proposal. I’d like to believe the Log Cabin Republicans scared him off. I don’t believe it, but I’d sure like to.
To bastardize my driver’s ed teacher:
“Because possessing and operating heavy armament is not a right, it’s a privelege.”
i was joking at first, but I think there actually may be something to it. What if all social interaction is treated as though it is a privelege? That is, you are allowed to interact with your neighbor only insofar as you agree to abide by certain rules. By this reasoning, sexual intercorse is also a privelege. If it is proven that your behavior has caused harm to another person, then that priveledge may be taken away. (E.G. If Uncle Ernie touches Tommy in a bad way, and Tommy can prove to a court of law that Uncle Ernie did so, then Uncle Ernie gets locked up where he can’t touch Tommy anymore.)
Oh wait, I’m hijacking my own thread.
Uhh… Amendments. Right.
This amendment is DOA the minute it hits the floor of the senate. There is no way it could get the required majority. I bet Bush won’t say another word publically about the matter unless forced to address it in a press conference setting.
There is no slippery slope here. There exists a legal union between two people which gives certain rights to the successor of that union to property, securities, et cetera.
Men and women have it. Women who wed women don’t. Men who wed men don’t. If marriage is a legal status between two people, why can’t any two–two–people have it, besides the fact that God tells you you can’t? It’s a legal contract in the eyes of the law, not a religious one. So where is the damned problem?
Marriage is a contract between two people. Make that same contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, and you’re coloring outside the lines. That’s horseshit.
You want to go multi-species, or underage, or polygamist, I fail to see how you’re going to get a foot in the door so long as you keep the terms of the contract to two adult people. But perhaps I’m being too reasonable.
Well, perhaps it was our own John Mace who has ridden to the rescue by boldly flaying the hypocrisy of the Democrats, and forthrightly condemns thier political maneuvering. Those scoundrels, ducking this little pissant of an issue rather than risk the future of the nation on Quixotic principle!
Poor little George has gone to all the trouble of digging this bear pit of an issue, and Kerry won’t fling himself into it? Boy, some poeple, huh?
I fail to see where all the angst is coming from on either side. Personally, what any small group of people voluntarily do amongst themselves is not my business. I have yet to hear any right granted to heterosexual couples which could not be claimed by homosexual couples with a little paper work. I also have not heard any good reason not to allow any small group of willing adults to enter into an arrangement where such things have a default assumption.
I understand that marriage is a useful institution. I believe that it is important. I also understand that it has mostly been assumed to be between one man and one woman. I’m not sure, however, why this should be the case for all time to come.
I understand (or at least empathize with) the frustration that gays feel toward the current system. The default assumptions that their relationship is less committed than a heterosexual one is laughable. Commitment is determined by actions, not by sexual orientation. However, why take this battle to such extremes? Why not simply make it easier for gay couples to claim the rights that they can claim? I know that gay marriages have been going on for some time (although not legally recognized). But if sexual orientation does not effect the depth of commitment, does legal recognition? If all they are looking for is a way to file jointly, why not get some clever tax lawyer to figure a way to do so? Passing out illegal marriage licenses seems like a good way to piss everyone off.
As for the ammendment which will be proposed, we may want to withold judgement until we see the text which is voted on in Congress.
In 2000, 43% of women voted for George W. Bush. And about 47% of women voted for the Republican candidate in their Congressional district. (Source: Voter News Service.)
In November 2002, Republican candidates for the House got 50% of women’s votes. 56% of married women voted for the GOP. 43% of Asian women voted Republican. (Source: United Press International.)
I’ll go out on a limb here and say that bigamy/polygamy is not a vice either, and there is no real reason (save one I will get to) not to lump it into this whole marriage debate. The default state of primates and most human societies has been that polygamy is allowed (at least polygyny but I will extend to polyandry is a matter of fairness).
The exception is of course that the legal instiution of marriage is very much set up for a two-person system. Inheritance and durable power of attorney and the like goes to one person. The institution of marriage allows two committed individuals to legally make decisions about one another. Extending this to multiamorous relationships is IMHO fair but will definitely require clarification.
Incest is a whole other bag o’ chips. The default human condition is to abhor incest. It is a true instinctual adaptation which prevents the homozygosis of deleterious recessive loci that each of us carry. Simple 'nuff. Same thing with pedophilia and all of the other sexual vices that can safely be ignored.
The thing is that our society is just not ready for polygamy to be legalized, while I think we have reached a critical mass of people who support gay marriage. Just like a critical mass, this seemingly happened overnight. This country has crossed an invisible threshold, and a few singular events (the San Francisco mayor opening the doors and the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision) have now started the reaction. Think of it as Rosa Parks on December 1, 1955. In today’s media hypersaturation, we can expect things to move a lot faster.
I bet if you take the same poll after a week of being exposed to this rhetoric of “writing discrimination into the Constitution,” you will find support for the amendment much, much lower.
Sofa King
While I happily would share your optimism, and hope that in 30 years this country will be a country of a Republican party along the lines of today’s centrist Democrats and an active left wing similar to Europe’s, I can’t help but notice other more ominous things that may prevent this forever. We are becoming more anti-intellectual, more knee jerk, too complacent, less critical, more cynical, and less hopeful. Some days, I wake up and think that the USA has been dominant for too long, and needs a good boot in the ass to wake up and smell the coffee. Not like 9/11 – that made most Americans retreat further into an insular shell and continually murmur to themselves “USA #1” over and over again. Something like what happened when people got really worried in the 1980s that the Japanese were economically kicking our ass. That reasonably gentle prodding led to a restructuring of American industry which led to the longest prolonged economic upturn (IIRC) in our history.
We need something like that, but on a social and cultural front.
I was merely trying to point out that the rightness/wrongness of the issue has nothing to do with poll numbers. Just because a majority of people support an immoral act doesn’t make it right to do so. Your citation seemed like an attempt to appeal to authority, in a case where no such authority exists.
Eh, they’ll just shamelessly brazen it out, as they always have. Look at how long Strom Thurmond was in office, and how nobody gave two toots about his own bigoted past (I don’t recall folks going “I can’t vote Republican until they toss Strom out”, do you?).
The only thing Bush’s announcement did today was remind folks that the Republican party is one of intolerance and inequality. But nothing has really changed; it’s the same position they’ve held for the last hundred years or so.
Hey now!
Daniel
Nah, Georeg didn’t have to dig the trap. The MA judges and the SF mayor did that for him. Bush just gave the press a reason to stampede Kerry into it.
Apology accepted. 
I’m not quite sure what I have said here that’s shemeful, gobear. All I did was highlight spectrum’s own form of bigotry and intolerance. You seem to have the mistaken impressions that I am: a) in favor of this proposed amendment, and b against legal recognition of gay unions (or marriages, or whatever you wish to call them). I am not. Nor do I see how any reasonable interpretation of my simple statements here have led to to these assumptions. I am sorry if I alarmed you. Perhaps you could tell what you see there so that I may explain further and reassure you that my libertarian Republicanism remains as strong as ever.