I don’t think I said you did.
All I said was, essentially, that even a just cause needs temperate spokesmen. Assholes like Mockingbird don’t exactly move the ball forward, and only discourage others from helping.
No, my argument is that religion and civil liberties can peacefully coexist.**
The FFC clause would not apply to Vermont’s gay unions even if they were called “marriage” for dry reasons of constitutional law. See, e.g., Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979): “[T]he Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.” The definition of marriage is one such legitimate state public policy interest.
"My sister told me at Christmas, ‘You have Satan inside you!’ So I ran with it. At dinner I said, ‘Mom… Could I please have some more turkey? I’m eatin’ for two…’
“At the mall: ‘Lady with Satan! Come on, let me through, I’ve got Satan inside me!’”
- Suzanne Westenhoefer
Why should we have to compromise on equal rights?
God, the potential for truly horrible jokes riffing on that post is astoiunding.
Especially if one brings up strap-ons…
Again, that’s specious reasoning. The question of Nevada being sued in California’s court trying to impose its tort law on California has nothing to do with restricting rights to one set of citizens based on their sexual orientation.
You might as well argue that a state with miscegenation laws (let’s ignore Federal statutes for the moment) need not recognize mixed-race marriages from another state as one such “legitimate state public policy interest.”
Because the compromise suggested doesn’t affect your substantive access to the civic benefits of marriage, and because the compromise will get you further faster. You give up next to nothing and gain a great deal.
I cited to Nevada v. Hall because (i) it’s of relatively recent vintage, and (ii) it states the rule concisely.
But the courts have held the FFC clause doesn’t apply to many facets of family law. See, e.g., Estin v. Estin (state may continue enforcing support order even after an out-of-state divorce purportedly terminated it), Olmstead v. Olmstead (state need not honor another state’s statute legitimizing children born out of wedlock), and Hood v. McGhee (state need not respect another state’s adoption proceedings in determining land inheritance).
The simple fact is the FFC clause just does not apply to these types of internal social policy choices (indeed, this is precisely why many of these areas are today governed by the adoption of uniform laws at the state level).
**
Miscegenation statutes are unconstitutional under the equal protectiion clause, so the FFC clause doesn’t even enter into the picture.
As I said before, possibly somewhere else: like everyone else, I was extremely happy when we got civil unions here in Quebec. I certainly wasn’t going to say “take them and stuff them.” But I certainly didn’t stop working for marriage either. Some is some; but all is all.
Dewey,here; have a glass of wine to get that camel you swallowed while you were gnat-straining out of your throat.
I’m confident that you know and can report accurately to us the law as it is currently understood. Now, grasp this idea: we are arguing on the basis of moral and ideally legal principles, not on the basis of the law as it currently reads.
Between Scott v. Sandford and 1867, the supreme law of the land said that no black man could be a citizen of the United States. Prior to Loving, it was public policy in many states that there could be no interracial marriages.
There is no question about the legality of those two situations – they were the settled law of the land, as it then stood. If you are prepared, however, to defend them as therefore right, we have nothing further to say to each other on this or any other legal issue – save that I would urge you, as a friend whom I like and respect despite his apparent pettifoggery, never to leave M&A and enter general practice, or you will be likely to encounter real-live pillorying and boycotts, and possibly even physical violence, beside which the worst Pitting will seem like third-grade playground insults.
If, on the other hand, you see yourself as setting forth the law as it is but agree with us that it should be changed, then kindly lend your legal expertise to explaining how best to accomplish those ends, given the social climate of today’s America, the present make-up of Congress and the Administration, and the present SCOTUS membership.
Because, while I can grasp the points you are making, the appearance you are presenting is a parallel to the kindly Southern preacher who counseled the blacks to be content with slavery and he would do his best to preach to their masters not to be abusive of them. (And yes, that was hyperbole. I’m using it to drive a point home.)
Not quite. The claim was made that the FFC clause would demand recognition of gay marriages, and that for this reason it is inappropriate to term gay unions as anything but “marriage.” That is a legal claim and it demands legal analysis.
It is also completely, totally, utterly false. The definition of marriage – like the definition of legitimacy or the validity of an adoption – is an internal state policy choice that is not subject to the FFC clause. The overwhelming weight of legal authority supports that construction. That being the case, the impact of calling a gay union a “marriage” versus a “civil union” has exactly zero to do with the degree to which other states must honor that arrangement.
If you want to argue for a broader reading of the FFC clause – that is, if you want to suggest that it should require a state to honor nontraditional marital arrangements which are legal in another state – fine. But that is not the law as it stands, and therefore it is wholly irrelevant to determining the effects of the “marriage” versus “civil union” label debate. Your implied claim that, for instance, Vermont’s gay couples would, as a matter of FFC, have to have their unions honored if only that union was termed a “marriage” is plainly false.
If you don’t want to discuss the law, don’t bring up legal principles. **
Step One: Go watch Schoolhouse Rock’s “I’m Just a Bill.”
Seriously. The law should be changed in the same way laws are typically changed: by recourse to the legislature. That entails lobbying, public debate, and general politickin’.
I’m also not sure why you are befuddled by my position on this. I think I’ve clearly stated – indeed, clearly stated OVER AND OVER – that civil unions are both desirable and appropriate, and that giving on the label attached to such unions would be a productive legislative compromise. Really, what’s the mystery here? **
Not only is it hyperbolic, it’s deeply offensive and inaccurate to boot. Far from suggesting that gay people just lay down and accept their lot in life, I’ve suggested quite the opposite. I’ve suggested the vigorous pursuit of a legislative solution, and suggested a negotiation strategy that I think would be productive. I’m left to wonder just what in the hell you’re reading here, because it sure isn’t my posts.
That’s a bit facile.
To some in the religious right, the battle over gay rights in general and same-sex marriage in particular is more critical than the Cuban Missile Crisis. The radical will will not let go of the notion that marriage with all of its attendant rights and privileges belong and and will always belong to heterosexuals. What is the number one argument they raise against SSM? That it cheapens and degrades “real” marriage. What is their argument against domestic partnership laws? That they cheapen and denigrate “real” marriages. There is no compromise to be found with these people.
There is no analogy here. The 1964 Civil Rights Act extended rights. DOMA restiricted rights that didn’t even exist yet.
Ya know, the rest of the country got used to the idea of judicial review back in 1803. Happy 200th birthday, Marbury v. Madison!
Dewey:
You are generally right 99% of the time, IMO, but I think the problem that you are missing is not essentially a legal one.
Gay marriage by another term is saying “ride the back of the bus.” It serves no purpose but to belittle gay people. This is why it would be acceptable to some people.
In and of itself, it serves no useful purpose to make such a distinction, other than to give a hook to bigots.
Explain the utility of doing it outside of that context, and perhaps I’ll reconsider.
The state is in the marriage game, and the state should not discriminate, so SSM should be permitted.
Religions are in the marriage game, and certain churches permit SSM, so one particular branch of a religion should not block another branch’s SSM.
The state is in the marriage game, and the state should not discriminate on orientation, so SSM should be permitted.
Religions are in the marriage game, and certain churches permit SSM, so one particular branch of a religion should not block another branch’s SSM.
Either way, state or church, SSM should be not be prohibited.
Anything less than full equality, including the right to marriage, is nothing more than shameful prejudice and discrimination.
Sorry. Cat attacked.
It is important for a nation to not get trapped by its own constitution, particularly if that constitution was drafted by men from a bygone age.
For example, in Canada, with a constitution that includes a charter of rights that is only a few years old, there are provisions to protect against gender discriminaiton, so it was not a very big reach for the courts to find analogous grounds to protect gays. Ultimately, this approach led to SSM in Ontario, and will shortly lead to SSM throughout Canada.
In this respect, the USA is somewhat tangled up in its older constitution, which was drafted in an era when women had no political rights, and gays were beneath contempt. Quite simply, the American constitution may provide stability, but when it comes to gender rights, including gay rights, it’s stability lends itself to turgidity.
I expect that the USA will eventually follow along with the direction that Canada and some European nations are taking, but I also expect that this will take quite some time. Just as many middle-eastern nations are held back by their religion and their traditions, so too is the United States, though to a far lesser degree now that women have been accorded political rights. With time, patience, and a lot of effort, I hope that both will see their way through to treating all people equally.
To which I can only say: I disagree. The hard-core religious right makes a lot of noise, but they aren’t a majority of the voting populace, not by a longshot. And there are plenty of decent religious moderates who are perfectly willing to extend civil benefits to gay relatioships but are uncomfortable with terming that arrangement as “marriage.” You should be building bridges with such people, not pushing them away. **
You miss the point, namely that building consensus on prickly domestic issues takes time, effort and persuasion. Rome wasn’t built in a day. **
And nothing in my post indicated any sort of discomfort over judicial review as a judicial function. But let’s face it: this is a battle you’re unlikely to win in the federal courts. The recent Lawrence decision includes language that basically says “this decision does not apply to gay marriage.” This is a battle that must – and should – be fought in the legislature.
I think I’ve already explained the rationale for compromise, and it doesn’t entail “giv[ing] a hook to bigots.” Unless you see those who view civil marriage in part as civic recognition of a religious institution as “bigoted.”