# 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:** 3
**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, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/41 "2004-01-21T20:07:38Z")
**Homebrew** : It took me a little while to figure this out in prior threads about this issue but **Bricker** is just making technical statements about what the Federal government is allowed to do. He’s not a homophobe and he’s made it clear in the past that he has no wish to impose any restrictions on same-sex relationships or to abridge the rights therein. Really, he’s just saying that right or wrong, Congress has the legal _ability_ to do this and that it’s hard to make an on-point argument that the Constutution _guarantees_ a right to gay marriage. He’s not saying that this kind of amendment is necessarily a _good_ thing, just that it’s a _permissable_ thing. Of course, Bricker also thought that SCOTUS would not be able to find a Constitutional right to sodomy in the Texas case but they did. Unfortunately, Bush’s anti-gay amendment would not be subject to any sort of fair or dispassionate review. It may actually be possible to indefinitely cripple gay rights with a mean-spirited and bigoted amendment but SCOTUS can’t do anything about it. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/42 "2004-01-21T20:14:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the President is proposing; for my part, I support a federal constitutional amendment that says something like, “Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as to require the United States or any state to recognize same-sex marriages.” Why do you support such an amendment? What reason do you offer for making illegal for (for all intents and purposes) all time federal recognition of same-sex marriage? > [@](#): > > No, marriage is quite properly the province of the states, with the caveat that the Due Process Clause forbids the states from invidiously discriminating on the basis of religion or race when it comes to marriage, just as it forbids such invidious distinctions when it comes to any of their laws. Does not the Due Process clause prohibit discrimination based on sex? If a woman may marry me and a man may not, is not that man being invidiously discriminated against? Does not the Equal Protection clause prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation? Are you in favor of the immediate repeal of all federal benefits extended on the basis of marital status? If not, why not? > [@](#): > > You’re mixing apples and oranges. SCOTUS correctly decided _Loving_, because the miscegenation laws conflicted with the 14th Amendment, as I suggested above. And anti-SSM laws also conflict with the 14th Amendment. > [@](#): > > In all the cases you cite, marriage (for deadbeat parents and convicts alike) was limited to a union between a man and a woman. That is the historical common-law and statutory definition of the word, and nothing in the federal constitution suggests otherwise. And back we go to the miscegenation example. There is nothing in the plain text of the Constitution which specifically suggests that the statutory definition of “marriage” as “existing only between members of the same race” is not valid. The 14th Amendment does not contain the word “marriage” but the words of the amendment were interpreted to apply to marriages. > [@](#): > > To contend that the federal constitution requires otherwise is a stretch of Herculean proportions, and yet one that is not outside the bounds of possibility for the federal courts to make – thus the need for an amendment, to clarify beyond all doubt the meaning of the Constitution and remove all possibility that it could be interpreted otherwise. Your desire to support this mean-spirited amendment leads you to hyperbolic rhetoric of the worst kind. The idea that gay people should be afforded the right to enter into legally recognized marriages and that the constitutional right to marry found in case after case should apply to same-sex couples as well is a “stretch of Herculean proportions”? How so? And considering the language of some of the lower court decisions upholding Virginia’s miscegenation statutes (paraphrasing: “Almighty God separated the races and intended it always to be so”) is it not likely that 50 years ago someone might have described mixed-race marriages being afforded Constitutional protection “a stretch of Herculean proportions”? > [@](#): > > For the purposes of this thread, the harm is extending the federal constitution beyond the areas it was meant to cover, by applying an “interpretation” that is out of bounds. Cite that interpreting the Constitution to protect the right of same-sex couples to marry is “out of bounds”? Cite, considering the string of marriage decisions issued by SCOTUS, that the Constitution was not “meant to cover” marriage issues? > [@](#): > > My argument in this thread relates to the inappropriateness of discovering a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage when none exists. Well, yeah, unless you can articulate a reason why the Constitution doesn’t afford equal protection to same-sex couples in the same way it does mixed-sex couples, your argument boils down to “ick.” And one more time, before Loving the right to interracial marriage didn’t exist. Since you agree that the decision was correct, it seems odd that you would suggest that it’s OK for SCOTUS to discover some constitutional rights but not others. ---
**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, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/43 "2004-01-21T20:16:35Z")
> [@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. > [@Homebrew](#): > > Well, Bricker, which time were you lying? How are either, or both, of those two quotes an example of lying? It’s unclear to me even now that Bush was referring specifically to the Musgrave amendment proposal, or more generically to the sort of amendment language I outlined above (let’s, for vanity’s sake, call that the Bricker Amendment). When I said Bush was right, I was referring to the generic support of an amendment along the lines of the Bricker amendment. If it develops that the President was speaking directly and specifically about the Musgrave proposed text, then I certainly withdraw the “Bush was right” characterization, since I’ve already made it abundantly clear that I don’t support that language. But I wasn’t lying; I was drawing on the words of the President’s speech and not inferring any additional proposals. I can certainly see how this would create confusion, though, and I hope that my statement above clarifies my position. > [@MrVisible](#): > > Ta-Daaa! > > Isn’t he amazing, folks? This is not an argument remarkable for its cogency. - Rick - 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, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/44 "2004-01-21T20:19:23Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > He’s not a homophobe and he’s made it clear in the past that he has no wish to impose any restrictions on same-sex relationships or to abridge the rights therein… Anyone who says > [@Bricker](#): > > I do not support the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions is, in fact, a homophobe. Anyone who dishonestly misrepresents _Lawrence_ as finding a “federal right to sodomy” is making a bigoted arguement. Lawrence is based on Liberty. Whether it’s sodomy or miscegenation, the state must show a reason to limit freedom. ---
**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, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/45 "2004-01-21T20:26:40Z")
If the Constitution can be interpreted to allow gay marriage, (otherwise, why would you need an amendment prohibiting such an interpretation?) and you have no objection to denying gay people the same rights as heterosexuals, then why support a Constitutional amendment prohibiting that interpretation? What damage will be done by “stretching” the Constitution? Will it tear? The damage that’s done by prohibiting people from marrying is obvious; there have been numerous examples of it posted all over these threads. While it may not be up to the government to eliminate all evil, it is up to the government to make sure that its citizens aren’t being harmed by its policies in a discriminatory fashion. I refer to your position as evil not because of the basis of your arguments, but because of the results. Your adherence to a strident and nonsensical view of the sanctity of the Constitution is causing you to support an amendment which would codify bigorty into the Constitution you so revere. This is not an argument remarkable for its cogency. Though it is remarkable for its amorality. ---
**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, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/46 "2004-01-21T20:32:46Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Why do you support such an amendment? What reason do you offer for making illegal for (for all intents and purposes) all time federal recognition of same-sex marriage? My proposal would not make federal recognition illegal. I t would merely ensure that federal recognition was not judicially compelled. The language does not forclose Congress from recognizing same-sex marriage, for example, or from passing legislation designed to harmonize the effects of same-sex marriage as recognoized by some or all states. > [@](#): > > Does not the Due Process clause prohibit discrimination based on sex? If a woman may marry me and a man may not, is not that man being invidiously discriminated against? Does not the Equal Protection clause prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation? No. No, it does not. That’s precisely the sort of jump I’m arguing against. The Equal Protection clause does not protect redheads, it does not protect left-handers, it does not protect Cubs fans, except to the limited extent of requiring a rational basis for laws singling them out. > [@](#): > > Are you in favor of the immediate repeal of all federal benefits extended on the basis of marital status? If not, why not? I am not in favor of it, because these laws serve a rational purpose: they (at least theoretically) provide financial inducements for marriage and children and families. And I believe these are valid uses of governmenttal influence. (And, as I’ve said before, I would support a civil union law at the state level to extend these benefits to same sex couples, and I would argue that residents of a state which permitted same-sex marriage be eligible for all those federal benefits). > [@](#): > > And anti-SSM laws also conflict with the 14th Amendment. No, they don’t. What case law supports this claim? > [@](#): > > And back we go to the miscegenation example. There is nothing in the plain text of the Constitution which specifically suggests that the statutory definition of “marriage” as “existing only between members of the same race” is not valid. The 14th Amendment does not contain the word “marriage” but the words of the amendment were interpreted to apply to marriages. Because the text and the legislative history of the Amendment made clear that the intent was to eradicate invidious distinctions between persons of different races – to make the government color-blind, in essence. There is no such intent or legislative history as regards homosexuals or same-sex unions. > [@](#): > > Your desire to support this mean-spirited amendment leads you to hyperbolic rhetoric of the worst kind. Let’s be clear: I support the Bricker Amendment, not the Musgrave Amendment. > [@](#): > > The idea that gay people should be afforded the right to enter into legally recognized marriages and that the constitutional right to marry found in case after case should apply to same-sex couples as well is a “stretch of Herculean proportions”? How so? And considering the language of some of the lower court decisions upholding Virginia’s miscegenation statutes (paraphrasing: “Almighty God separated the races and intended it always to be so”) is it not likely that 50 years ago someone might have described mixed-race marriages being afforded Constitutional protection “a stretch of Herculean proportions”? Sure. Undoubtedly they would have… but they would have been ignoring the text and legislative hsitory of the Fourteenth Amendment, which, again, was clearly targeted at eliminating racial distinctions. There is no similar support for eliminating same-sex marriage distinctions. > [@](#): > > Cite that interpreting the Constitution to protect the right of same-sex couples to marry is “out of bounds”? Cite, considering the string of marriage decisions issued by SCOTUS, that the Constitution was not “meant to cover” marriage issues? Well, it’s imposssible to cite an “out of bounds” claim, since this is my advisory opinion. Indeed, if I believed the matter were a settled one, I’d not be in favor of my amendment. I’m arguing that this is how the constitution SHOULD be interpreted, and I’m trying to ensure that no contrary interpretation survives by making it explicit in the text. > [@](#): > > Since you agree that the decision was correct, it seems odd that you would suggest that it’s OK for SCOTUS to discover some constitutional rights but not others. Legislative. History. And. Intent. Of. The. Fourteenth. Amendment. You show me some sign that the drafters and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment were keen to permit same-sex marriage, and I’ll happily reconsider. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/47 "2004-01-21T20:33:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Horse shit. Supporting a constitutional amendment to ban for all time federal recognition of same-sex marriage is a mighty fucking “strong position on the wisdom of permitting same-sex marriage.” ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/48 "2004-01-21T20:57:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The Equal Protection clause does not protect redheads, it does not protect left-handers, it does not protect Cubs fans, except to the limited extent of requiring a rational basis for laws singling them out. I of course was not discussing redheads or left-handers or Cubs fans. I was discussing gay people. [Romer v Evans](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=U10179) > [@](#): > > Held: > > Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Pp. 4-14. > (a) The State’s principal argument that Amendment 2 puts gays and lesbians in the same position as all other persons by denying them special rights is rejected as implausible. The extent of the change in legal status effected by this law is evident from the authoritative construction of Colorado’s Supreme Court - which establishes that the amendment’s immediate effect is to repeal all existing statutes, regulations, ordinances, and policies of state and local entities barring discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that its ultimate effect is to prohibit any governmental entity from adopting similar, or more protective, measures in the future absent state constitutional amendment - and from a review of the terms, structure, Page II and operation of the ordinances that would be repealsed and prohibited by Amendment 2. Even if, as the State contends, homosexuals can find protection in laws and policies of general application, Amendment 2 goes well beyond merely depriving them of special rights. It imposes a broad disability upon those persons alone, forbidding them, but no others, to seek specific legal protection from injuries caused by discrimination in a wide range of public and private transactions. Pp. 4-9. > > (b) In order to reconcile the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise that no person shall be denied equal protection with the practical reality that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, the Court has stated that it will uphold a law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class so long as the legislative classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end. See, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319 -320. Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment is at once too narrow and too broad, identifying persons by a single trait and then denying them the possibility of protection across the board. This disqualification of a class of persons from the right to obtain specific protection from the law is unprecedented and is itself a denial of equal protection in the most literal sense. Second, the sheer breadth of Amendment 2, which makes a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, is so far removed from the reasons offered for it, i.e., respect for other citizens’ freedom of association, particularly landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality, and the State’s interest in conserving resources to fight discrimination against other groups, that the amendment cannot be explained by reference to those reasons; the Amendment raises the inevitable inference that it is born of animosity toward the class that it affects. Amendment 2 cannot be said to be directed to an identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. **It is a status-based classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit**. Pp. 9-14. (emphasis added) > [@](#): > > I am not in favor of it, because these laws serve a rational purpose: they (at least theoretically) provide financial inducements for marriage and children and families. Every court of which I’m aware which has ruled on the issue has explicitly ruled that the state’s interest in encouraging marriage and protecting children do not constitute a rational basis for restricting marriage to mixed-sex couples, and indeed serve as arguments in _favor_ of recognizing such relationships. Would not a child being raised by a same-sex couple (which by some estimates number about 1,000,000) benefit from federal and state programs designed to aid her married parents? > [@](#): > > And, as I’ve said before, I would support a civil union law at the state level to extend these benefits to same sex couples, and I would argue that residents of a state which permitted same-sex marriage be eligible for all those federal benefits. So what it comes down to is that you want to keep the word “marriage” for yourself. Too damn bad. > [@](#): > > You show me some sign that the drafters and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment were keen to permit same-sex marriage, and I’ll happily reconsider. Show me some sign that the drafters of the Amendment were keen to permit interracial marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/49 "2004-01-21T20:58:02Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > Anyone who says [they do not support the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions] is, in fact, a homophobe. My, my, it must just be homophobe land out there to you, **Homebrew** , given that **Bricker** ’s position (pro-gay-union, anti-gay-marriage) is one shared by such sinister archconservatives as [Hillary Clinton](http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=5036) and Jesse Ventura. > [@Homebrew](#): > > Anyone who dishonestly misrepresents _Lawrence_ as finding a “federal right to sodomy” is making a bigoted arguement. Lawrence is based on Liberty. Whether it’s sodomy or miscegenation, the state must show a reason to limit freedom. Good Lord. It is no more dishonest to state that _Lawrence_ estabishes a federal right to sodomy than it is to state that _Roe_ establishes a federal right to abortion. It’s an accurate statement of what the decision actually does, and it’s a hell of a lot more meaningful than completely nondescriptive alternative you propose. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/50 "2004-01-21T21:03:47Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Horse shit. Supporting a constitutional amendment to ban for all time federal recognition of same-sex marriage is a mighty fucking “strong position on the wisdom of permitting same-sex marriage.” It’s a good thing that **Bricker** has never proffered support for such a thing. Are you even bothering to read his posts? **Bricker** is saying his amendment would guarantee that the states could make their own calls on gay unions, and the federal government would recognize those calls accordingly. His proposed amendment would not prevent federal statutory recognition of same-sex marriages; it would only prevent the judiciary from mandating that states provide gay unions under the federal constitution. ---
**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, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/51 "2004-01-21T21:06:14Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Horse shit. Supporting a constitutional amendment to ban for all time federal recognition of same-sex marriage is a mighty fucking “strong position on the wisdom of permitting same-sex marriage.” Yeah, but Bricker doesn’t support an amendment banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage. He supports an amendment saying there isn’t a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Rep. Musgrave supports the amendment banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage, and Bricker has said he’s opposed to such an amendment. ---
**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, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/52 "2004-01-21T21:08:08Z")
Oh goody, the time honored _Tu Quoque_. Yes, Hillary and Jesse are bigots in this matter. But do they support an Amendement to enshrine their bigotry? _Lawrence_ does more than protect sodomy. It gets the government out of the bedroom, where it never belonged in the first place. ---
**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, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/53 "2004-01-21T21:13:09Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Rep. Musgrave supports the amendment banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage, and Bricker has said he’s opposed to such an amendment. Not really. Bricker said Bush was right. The Musgrave amendment is the one being considered by Congress, not Bricker’s. Therefore the Musgrave amendment is the one Bush is right about, according to Bricker. He’s weaseling now that he’s been called on it. ---
**Author:** ![Tars\_Tarkas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tars\_Tarkas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tars_Tarkas)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/54 "2004-01-21T21:20:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Let’s be clear: I support the Bricker Amendment, not the Musgrave Amendment. Too bad the Musgrave Amendment is the one that will likely be passed. It’s a big waste, and will just get wiped out by another Amendment in 30 years time which will force you to accept gay marriage. We’ve already done that before with another stupid issue, why do it again? > [@](#): > > You show me some sign that the drafters and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment were keen to permit same-sex marriage, and I’ll happily reconsider. I doubt the drafters and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment were keen to permit interracial marriage, either. Nor were the drafters of the First Amendment keen to permit internet porn. That’s why we have judges to interpret laws ---
**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, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/55 "2004-01-21T21:22:50Z")
I understood that the Court has already held that the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. Why, then, wouldn’t a proposed amendment limiting that right, be un-Constitutional? ---
**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, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/56 "2004-01-21T21:27:34Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > I understood that the Court has already held that the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. Why, then, wouldn’t a proposed amendment limiting that right, be un-Constitutional? Because the Constitution can’t be un-Constitutional. When an amendment gets passed, that amendment becomes part of the Constitution, equal to every other part of it. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/57 "2004-01-21T21:31:02Z")
> [@lightingtool](#): > > To hijack a bit, since when is our government care about a religious institution?\* I always understood that the term “marriage” was strictly a religious thing. If this amendment were to be proposed and passed, wouldn’t it violate the whole separation of church and state thing? You understand incorrectly; marriage originates as a civil contract. According to some research **Northern Piper** did a while back ( [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3935253&highlight=Marriage+England#post3935253](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3935253&highlight=Marriage+England#post3935253) , sorry, I still haven’t figured out how to make URLs work) “in England, at least, the church only had a monopoly on marriage from 1753 to 1837, a period of less than a century”. (This should be relevant for common-law purposes, and thus have an immediacy and cultural continuity lacking in some people’s opinions of the facts of recorded ancient marriages.) My religion does not have a marriage ceremony or rite; it holds to the principle that marriage is a human social, and thus civil, contract. Nonetheless, I am married in the eyes of the law, and I am sick and tired of politics trying to “protect” my marriage by destroying it. I am reminded of my dark mutterings when DOMA was in the works. “My marriage doesn’t need defending. Sorry to hear about yours.” ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/58 "2004-01-21T21:33:10Z")
> [@MrVisible](#): > > If the Constitution can be interpreted to allow gay marriage, (otherwise, why would you need an amendment prohibiting such an interpretation?) and you have no objection to denying gay people the same rights as heterosexuals, then why support a Constitutional amendment prohibiting that interpretation? > > What damage will be done by “stretching” the Constitution? Will it tear?[/h] The Constitution clearly _allows_ gay marriage – it is utterly silent on the question, and absent a constitution prohibition, the states can do what they wish. The only question is whether it _mandates_ gay marriage. Why, then, an amendment prohibiting such an interpretation? The short answer is, “because we’ve been paying fucking attention for the past fifty years.” The Constitution says absolutely nothing about the ability of a state to restrict contraception, to restrict abortion, to engage in particular types of sexual activity – but that hasn’t prevented courts from somehow magically finding those rights anyhow. Indeed, if the courts had made the slightest effort to curb their own power over the past fifty years, such an amendment would indeed be widely deemed entirely unnecessary. Tragically, faced with a judiciary that is willing to effectively write in new provisions of the constitution wholesale, those of us who prefer our government to be “by the people” are forced to support measures designed to spell out what the constitution _doesn’t_ say. > [@MrVisible](#): > > The damage that’s done by prohibiting people from marrying is obvious; there have been numerous examples of it posted all over these threads. Perhaps less obvious, but no less real, is the damage done to our notion of self-governance and to American federalism when the judiciary seeks to create, rather than merely interpret, the provisions of the Constitution. > [@](#): > > I refer to your position as evil not because of the basis of your arguments, but because of the results. Your adherence to a strident and nonsensical view of the sanctity of the Constitution is causing you to support an amendment which would codify bigorty into the Constitution you so revere. **Bricker** ’s position, which I share, is not nonsensical. It recognizes the centrality of the consent of the governed in our Constitutional order, and recognizes that the Constitution, as the people’s document, should only be changed by the people themselves. Neither would the Bricker Amendment “codify bigotry.” It would simply allow each state to be guaranteed the ability to chart its own course on this particular issue. ---
**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, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/59 "2004-01-21T21:39:35Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > Not really. Bricker said Bush was right. The Musgrave amendment is the one being considered by Congress, not Bricker’s. Therefore the Musgrave amendment is the one Bush is right about, according to Bricker. He’s weaseling now that he’s been called on it. But, after I posted the Musgrave language, Bricker made it clear that he doesn’t support that amendment, and that if Bush does, Bricker disagrees with him. I’m willing to take him at his word that he just misunderstood what Bush was endorsing, because even from his first post in the thread he said, “I support an amendment saying there’s no constitutional right to gay 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, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/60 "2004-01-21T21:54:42Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > Not really. Bricker said Bush was right. The Musgrave amendment is the one being considered by Congress, not Bricker’s. Therefore the Musgrave amendment is the one Bush is right about, according to Bricker. He’s weaseling now that he’s been called on it. In the second post - the first reply to the OP - I said: > [@Bricker](#): > > On the contrary, the President was right to **raise the issue** of a constitutional amendment. This clearly indicates I wasn’t considering an existing proposal, which, in fact, I was unaware of. I took Mr. Bush’s words at their face value, and assumed he was talking about an amendment he was proposing, not endorsing an existing proposal. When you, **Homebrew** , asked me: > [@Homebrew](#): > > Then why the hell are you and Bush voicing support for an Amendment that would take that option away from the states? I replied, consistent with the above: > [@](#): > > Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the President is proposing; for my part, I support a federal constitutional amendment that says something like, “Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as to require the United States or any state to recognize same-sex marriages.” > > In other words, if a state wants to, by all means let 'em – but if a state does not want to, the federal constitution will not force them to. This was all before the existing proposal of Rep. Musgrave was even mentioned. It’s absurd and dishonest for you to now suggest that I am NOW weaseling, having been called on it, when way back in the quoted posts, I made my position clear. Subsequent to that, of course, I made my position crystal clear, when I explictly disavowed support for the Musgrave language. For you to continue to paint my position otherwise is, again, dishonest. Once more: I do not support language forbidding state recognition of same-sex marriage. I support language ensuring that same-sex marriage is not considered mandated by the Constitution. Do not waste time, henceforth, arguing against anything other than the above position, at least insofar as you are directing your comments to me, because I am not, nor have I ever been, defending any other position. > [@Captain Amazing](#): > > I’m willing to take him at his word that he just misunderstood what Bush was endorsing, because even from his first post in the thread he said, “I support an amendment saying there’s no constitutional right to gay marriage.” Thank you. The only thing I would add is that it’s STILL unclear to me that Bush was supporting the Musgrave amendment, as opposed to a general amendment along the lines of my proposal. If he is, in fact, specifically supporting the Musgrave language, I disagree with his position; if he is supporting a generic amendment process along my lines, then, obviously, I think he’s right. > [@Tars Tarkas](#): > > Too bad the Musgrave Amendment is the one that will likely be passed. It’s a big waste, and will just get wiped out by another Amendment in 30 years time which will force you to accept gay marriage. We’ve already done that before with another stupid issue, why do it again? If, as you say, the Musgrave Amendment passes, it WILL be too bad - in fact, it will be a terrible mistake, and will further enshrine a wrong-headed approach to federal power. This is why I don’t support it. - Rick [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455.md?page=4)