# The State of the CIVIL Union Address **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 21, 2004, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455 "2004-01-21T13:47:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/21 "2004-01-21T19:15:17Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > Alternatively, is it merely that you disagree with a potential interpretation of the constitution and wish to nip it in the bud by amending the constitution with your own? That’s exactly it. ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/22 "2004-01-21T19:16:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So if the Constituion generally says that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, and then specifically says that same-sex marriage are not a federal constitutional right, then the interpretation would be that to the extent the latter is an establishment of religion, it’s permitted. Permitted, if bigoted and an exceptionally fine example of double-speak. I’m reminded of the clause specifying that a black person’s vote was worth only half of a white person’s – nothing wrong with making that distinction, was there? :smack: ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/23 "2004-01-21T19:18:26Z")
I’m having a very difficult time figuring out how, specifically, permitting same sex marriages would, in any way, shape, or form, impact “the sanctity of marriage.” If, today, same sex marriages were permitted in each state, what would be the practical effect that has Bush, et al, in such a hysteria? I’m asking for specific, detrimental effects to our society. If Brittany Spears and her childhood friend can get drunk, get a license, get married, and have the whole thing written off as some sort of crazy, teen age prank, why can’t a monogamously coupled, mature, same sex couple, who may have already adopted children, and proven themselves law-abiding, tax paying, upright citizens get married? Who is doing more to “protect the sanctity of marriage?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/24 "2004-01-21T19:20:38Z")
> [@MrVisible](#): > > If my state then decides to recognize my marriage to my boyfriend, will we be able to file joint federal tax returns? If a gay friend of mine falls in love with and marries a Brazilian guy, will the immigration laws allow him citizenship? My off-the-cuff response: as long as you’re a resident of a state in which the marriage is valid, you’re entitled to federal tax status of a married couple. As long as you’re a resident of such a state, you can apply for citizenship for your foreign spouse (and, indeed, for a fiancee visa to get your foreign hottie here to marry him first). - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/25 "2004-01-21T19:24:29Z")
**Bricker** : If an amendment can be used to usurp the authority of the judiciary can it also be used to usurp the authority of the Executive branch? Can there be an amendment which states "All executive priveleges and authority heretofore extended to the President of the United States is hereby repealed? Can the legislature theoretically use the amendment process to make itself the sole branch of government? To me your proposed amendment sounds like an attempt by one branch of governement to strip another branch of its power. Am I wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/26 "2004-01-21T19:31:14Z")
> [@MrVisible](#): > > Let’s say an amendment passes that specifically says that the Constitution cannot be interpreted so as to imply a right to same-sex marriages. That then puts the ball into the states’ courts, right? > … > > So, if the amendment is passed, and gay marriage cannot be established through Constitutional challenge, when can it be established on a federal level? Well, if **Bricker’s** amendment gets passed, then gay marriage can be established on a federal level assuming Congress repeals DOMA, or passes a law saying that the federal government recognizes gay marriages. Part of the problem, though, is that the current proposed marriage amendment, authored by Rep Musgrave (R-CO), doesn’t just say what **Bricker’s** says. It says > [@](#): > > Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. If that amendment becomes part of the Constitution, then it would take an amendment to allow gay marriage on the federal level (or, from the look of it, on the state level, also.) ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/27 "2004-01-21T19:34:35Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > I’m having a very difficult time figuring out how, specifically, permitting same sex marriages would, in any way, shape, or form, impact “the sanctity of marriage.” If, today, same sex marriages were permitted in each state, what would be the practical effect that has Bush, et al, in such a hysteria? I’m asking for specific, detrimental effects to our society. This question has been asked so many times, it’s not funny anymore. Especially when the dull looks it generates on the faces of DoMA advocates just all start to look the same. I’ll make it quick… there isn’t an answer to your question. Because gay marriage simply isn’t a threat to the “sanctity” of anyone’s marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/28 "2004-01-21T19:35:36Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > **Bricker** : > > If an amendment can be used to usurp the authority of the judiciary can it also be used to usurp the authority of the Executive branch? Can there be an amendment which states "All executive priveleges and authority heretofore extended to the President of the United States is hereby repealed? Can the legislature theoretically use the amendment process to make itself the sole branch of government? > > To me your proposed amendment sounds like an attempt by one branch of governement to strip another branch of its power. Am I wrong? Theoretically, yes. In this case, however, no such usurption is happening. The judiciary’s power is to interpret what the law says. If the law unambiguously says something, they have not been stripped of their power. The judiciary’s power comes into play when the law is ambiguous, either on its face or as applied to a given set of facts, or when two unambiguous sections of the law conflict. You could just as well say that the Nineteenth Amendment stripped the power of the judiciary away. Before it was enacted, the judiciary had the power to interpret the Constitution as requiring all citizens, both men and women, have the right to vote. Despite the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, the judiciary failed to interpret the Constitution in this way, and women were in some places denied the vote. The Nineteenth Amendment made it clear that the right to vote cannot be denied or abridged on account of sex, removing any interpretive role the judiciary might have had. This is entirely proper. > [@plnnr](#): > > I’m having a very difficult time figuring out how, specifically, permitting same sex marriages would, in any way, shape, or form, impact “the sanctity of marriage.” If, today, same sex marriages were permitted in each state, what would be the practical effect that has Bush, et al, in such a hysteria? I’m asking for specific, detrimental effects to our society. > > If Brittany Spears and her childhood friend can get drunk, get a license, get married, and have the whole thing written off as some sort of crazy, teen age prank, why can’t a monogamously coupled, mature, same sex couple, who may have already adopted children, and proven themselves law-abiding, tax paying, upright citizens get married? Who is doing more to “protect the sanctity of marriage?” Good thing I’m not arguing the question you raise. If each state permitted same-sex marriage, as you posit, I’d be fine with it. I’m not arguing the sanctity of marriage; I’m arguing the sanctity of federalism. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/29 "2004-01-21T19:37:36Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > If an amendment can be used to usurp the authority of the judiciary can it also be used to usurp the authority of the Executive branch? Can there be an amendment which states "All executive priveleges and authority heretofore extended to the President of the United States is hereby repealed? Can the legislature theoretically use the amendment process to make itself the sole branch of government? Sure. The Consitution can be amended to set up the government pretty much any way you want. Article V of the Constution: > [@](#): > > The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/30 "2004-01-21T19:37:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My off-the-cuff response: as long as you’re a resident of a state in which the marriage is valid, you’re entitled to federal tax status of a married couple. As long as you’re a resident of such a state, you can apply for citizenship for your foreign spouse (and, indeed, for a fiancee visa to get your foreign hottie here to marry him first). This is always a fascinating position to debate. The idea that a marriage is legal in one state and illegal in another presents such a wealth of bizarreness. For instance: If I can legally marry a man in AZ, but not in MO, then if I marry a woman in MO, is it bigamy? If I’m legally married in MA, but then move to WA and decide to divorce my husband, what happens to property jointly owned in WA? If the license comes from GA, but it’s not valid in CT, and my partner gets injured while we’re on vacation there, do I have the right to make medical decisions on his behalf? If I own assets in NY, which doesn’t recognize my marriage, and I die intestate, will my spouse be able to inherit those assets as well as those in our home state? Anyway, that’s just the fun part. My question, despite your patched-together off-the-cuff solutions, remains. At what point in this process do federal rights get extended to gay married couples? As soon as it becomes legal to marry in MA, for instance, will we be able to file jointly? Or will that take legislation? And will that legislation be able to be challenged on a Constitutional basis, seeing as the Constitution will specifically state that it cannot be interpreted so as to extend rights to gay couples? The state-by-state approach is a recipe for bureaucratic madness. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/31 "2004-01-21T19:41:18Z")
> [@Avalonian](#): > > This question has been asked so many times, it’s not funny anymore. Especially when the dull looks it generates on the faces of DoMA advocates just all start to look the same. > > I’ll make it quick… there isn’t an answer to your question. Because gay marriage simply isn’t a threat to the “sanctity” of anyone’s marriage. Of course, as applied to me, this is a strawman, isn’t it? I specifically and repeatedly have limited my argument to the federal constitutional question. So whatever dull looks may appear on others’ faces, I assure you that I retain the same interested, responsive, and alert demeanor as I did before your post. > [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Part of the problem, though, is that the current proposed marriage amendment, authored by Rep Musgrave (R-CO), doesn’t just say what Bricker’s says. It says > > > [@](#): > > > > Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. I do not support that wording. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/32 "2004-01-21T19:43:25Z")
> [@MrVisible](#): > > Or is this amendment simply a way of making sure that gay people are permanently disenfranchised? Of course that’s all it is. Really. You and the **Visihusband** are every bit as married as any straight couple. You cohabitate. You share expenses. You share your joys and concerns. You live. You Love. You do everything they do. The only difference is you can’t have the legal benefits. And it’s those benefits that the Brickers of the world don’t want you to have. They can’t stop you two from loving and living as fully as they do. But by god they can stop you from filing taxes jointly. It is mean and spiteful and anyone who supports this Amendment is a raging, sanctimonious asshole. Any attempt to justify the bigotry only further demonstrates their hyprocisy and deceit. They are lying if they claim their opposition stems anywhere but from bigotry. > [@Bricker](#): > > There is a federal right to sodomy, for example, despite it not being mentioned in the Constitution. This is more bullshit. The ruling was that the Constitution prevents the government from intruding on private relationships. It not that sodomy is protected _per se_ but that we reserve our liberties to do whatever the hell we want unless the government can demonstrate a sane reason to limit those liberties. > [@](#): > > _From Justice Kennedy’s Opinion in Lawrence_ > Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home,where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/33 "2004-01-21T19:45:13Z")
> [@MrVisible](#): > > And will that legislation be able to be challenged on a Constitutional basis, seeing as the Constitution will specifically state that it cannot be interpreted so as to extend rights to gay couples? My proposed amendment language merely means that the Constitution cannot be interpreted as REQUIRING the recognition of same-sex marriage. It would not forbid Congress from passing legislation that recognized it for limited or full purposes. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/34 "2004-01-21T19:48:32Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > And it’s those benefits that the Brickers of the world don’t want you to have. They can’t stop you two from loving and living as fully as they do. But by god they can stop you from filing taxes jointly. > [@Bricker](#): > > My off-the-cuff response: as long as you’re a resident of a state in which the marriage is valid, you’re entitled to federal tax status of a married couple. As long as you’re a resident of such a state, you can apply for citizenship for your foreign spouse (and, indeed, for a fiancee visa to get your foreign hottie here to marry him first). Well, Homebrew? ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/35 "2004-01-21T19:51:18Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > Of course that’s all it is. Really. You and the **Visihusband** are every bit as married as any straight couple. You cohabitate. You share expenses. You share your joys and concerns. You live. You Love. You do everything they do. The only difference is you can’t have the legal benefits. > > And it’s those benefits that the Brickers of the world don’t want you to have. They can’t stop you two from loving and living as fully as they do. But by god they can stop you from filing taxes jointly. Well, yeah, sure. I knew that. It’s just fun watching them try and explain how they can support something so despicably evil and still try to maintain their image of themselves as being fair and good. Ethical backflips, convoluted amoral reasoning disguising itself as legal concerns, and fullthroated waffling are always entertaining. As long as I’m getting dumped on, I may as well make the dumpers keep me amused. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/36 "2004-01-21T19:53:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I do not support that wording. Unfortunately, I think you’re in the minority among the people who support a federal marriage amendment there. It seems like a lot of them do support that wording, or something substantially similar. And it seems to me your argument isn’t just a federalist argument (although it is), but also a substantive due process argument, because most of this “legislating from the bench” that you’re mentioning comes from that rationale. So, I guess my question would be, why should the amendment focus on gay marriage, when all the other “legislating from the bench” (constituitonal right to abortion, birth control, family planning, sodomy, etc.) is still allowed? ---
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/37 "2004-01-21T19:56:06Z")
> [@Avalonian](#): > > Permitted, if bigoted and an exceptionally fine example of double-speak. > > I’m reminded of the clause specifying that a black person’s vote was worth only half of a white person’s – nothing wrong with making that distinction, was there? :smack: Actually, you’re thinking of [Article I, Section 2](http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_transcript.html) of the Constitution, which says, to start off: > [@](#): > > Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (This is later amended by Section 2 of the [14th amendment](http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_amendments_11-27.html#14).) Slaves, for purposes of calculating taxes and representation, were counted as 3/5[sup]ths[/sup] of a free person. Slaves were not given the right to vote. Other than that, I agree with your sentiments. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/38 "2004-01-21T19:58:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, Homebrew? > [@Bricker](#): > > My off-the-cuff response: as long as you’re a resident of a state in which the marriage is valid, you’re entitled to federal tax status of a married couple. As long as you’re a resident of such a state, you can apply for citizenship for your foreign spouse (and, indeed, for a fiancee visa to get your foreign hottie here to marry him first). > [@](#): > > =Bricker]In short: sorry. Bush was right. Well, Bricker, which time were you lying? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/39 "2004-01-21T20:00:49Z")
> [@MrVisible](#): > > Well, yeah, sure. I knew that. It’s just fun watching them try and explain how they can support something so despicably evil and still try to maintain their image of themselves as being fair and good. Ethical backflips, convoluted amoral reasoning disguising itself as legal concerns, and fullthroated waffling are always entertaining. > > As long as I’m getting dumped on, I may as well make the dumpers keep me amused. 1. I don;t agree that my position represents despicable evil. But, assuming arguendo that it does… 2. I don’t agree that the role of the federal constitution is to weed out all instances of despicable evil. Even though a given action may be wrong, even evil, it doesn’t follow that it is forbidden by the federal constitution; even though a given action may be morally compelling, just, and righteous, it does not follow that it is ordained by the federal constitution. There are some areas in which the constitution is simply silent. This is one. 3. It’s unclear to me where I have waffled or ethically backflipped. Ethics are not mandated by the Constitution. I have (in this thread) taken no strong position on the wisdom of permitting same-sex marriage. I have merely consistently decried the attempt to shoehorn a REQUIREMENT for it into the existing Constitution. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/40 "2004-01-21T20:05:34Z")
**Ta-Daaa!** Isn’t he amazing, folks? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455.md?page=3)