# 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:** 5
**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 22, 2004, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/81 "2004-01-22T03:50:06Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Here’s a simple question for the states-rights people. > > Did _Loving v. Virginia_ establish that marriage was a constitutional right? I had a big long reply to this that got eaten. Here’s the Cliff’s Notes version: I agree with _Loving_’s equal protection rationale, but not its due process rationale, for essentially the same reasons I disagree with _Lochner_, _Roe_ and _Lawrence_. Also, _Loving_ does not seek to redefine the meaning of marriage, but only to eliminate barriers to the institution as it has historically been understood; a constitutional mandate for gay marriage would be a far more radical step than anything in _Loving_. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/82 "2004-01-22T04:01:26Z")
It’s sad that you miss the **and the people** part of that clause. BTW, I’m so impressed by your linking to threads where you are consistently wrong. I’m not impressed, however, by the same bullshit repeated over and over. > [@Dewey](#): > > This theory is, in essence, carte blanche for the judiciary to frolic along in any bit of social engineering they happen to fancy at the moment. Sorry, no thanks, I’d prefer to have a say in how I’m governed. Either you are stupid and can’t read or you’re intentionally dishonest. The principle I espouse is that the state must have a compelling reason for _any_ restriction of Liberty. The Courts don’t give rights, they only protect those endangered by the tyranny of the masses. What you espouse is that any fucking majority can impose it’s will on the minority without recourse if they aren’t infringing on one of the enumerated rights or a long-standing common law custom. That’s not good enough for modern men. I’m sorry but I want protection from a populace that voted in 1974 to make anal and oral sex among straight couples legal; but kept it illegal for gay people. What’s at stake is the idea of Freedom. You see the State as the ultimate good and the people as servants of that entity. Any Majority can rule as it will so long as it maintains it’s majority and doesn’t violate a small number of rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Your myopia is the reason behind the IX. I see a Free People as the ultimate good and state is there to serve and protect those freedoms. > [@](#): > > You really are pig-ignorant of history, aren’t you? Guess what? We’re talking about the Civil Rights Era and the present. Do try to keep up. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/83 "2004-01-22T04:03:47Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > “Everything not mentioned” is a right? Surely you can’t mean that. If I want to walk down the street naked, is that a constitutional right? I mean, sure, it’s not mentioned in there, but according to you that doesn’t mean a damned thing – it’s a right that must be subjected to “compelling reason” analysis. Yes, in fact, I do mean that. Unless the state can give a compelling arguement why you shouldn’t be allowed to stroll in the nude, then why shouldn’t you? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/84 "2004-01-22T04:42:22Z")
I’m sure this has been dealt with already, but it’s so stupid that I can’t possibly let it sit before reading the next 60+ posts. > [@Bricker](#): > > On the contrary, the President was right to raise the issue of a constitutional amendment. There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and it is an issue that belongs to the legislature of each state, not the state or federal courts, to create. THEN LET THE MOTHERFUCKING STATE LEGISLATORS AND/OR THE STATE VOTERS PASS A GODDAMN AMENDMENT TO THEIR MOTHERFUCKING STATE CONSTITUTIONS, JUST LIKE HAWAII DID. > [@](#): > > In short: sorry. Bush was right. In short: sorry. Bush was just sucking some other voter’s dick. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/85 "2004-01-22T04:48:12Z")
Okay, I should have read the next 60+ posts. But good god, Bricker, were you truly so pathetically ill-informed that you don’t know the Right Evil Bastards want a constitutional amendment to kill _all_ gay marriage laws? Are you simply not paying attention to the unmitigated hatred that Bush is sucking up to? ---
**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 22, 2004, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/86 "2004-01-22T04:54:17Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > It’s sad that you miss the **and the people** part of that clause. Read my post again; it’s in there in my discussion of the tenth amendment, and it’s implied in my discussion of the ninth amendment (i.e., because the people have other means besides constitutional amendments with which to secure their rights). > [@Homebrew](#): > > BTW, I’m so impressed by your linking to threads where you are consistently wrong. I’m not impressed, however, by the same bullshit repeated over and over. “Consistently wrong”? Far from it. No court has ever found the ninth amendment standing alone to be a source of substantive rights (indeed, outside of its enumeration among other amendments for “emanations and penumbras” purposes in certain decisions, it hardly gets mentioned at all). I defy you to find any credible legal scholar who considers the ninth amendment to be a substantive source of rights. This is, in fact, an area of total agreement between myself and the more liberal lawyers on this board. Tell you what: here’s [_Lawrence v. Texas_](http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-102.html). I’ll pay you $100 if you can find any mention of the ninth amendment anywhere in the case. It in no way forms any part of the court’s opinion. > [@Homebrew](#): > > Either you are stupid and can’t read or you’re intentionally dishonest. The principle I espouse is that the state must have a compelling reason for _any_ restriction of Liberty. The Courts don’t give rights, they only protect those endangered by the tyranny of the masses. For the most part, all laws represent some infringement of liberty. The standard you suggest essentially gives the courts veto power over all legislation, not because of anything in the constitution, but rather because their personal political viewpoints don’t find a given action’s justification to be “compelling.” > [@Homebrew](#): > > What you espouse is that any fucking majority can impose it’s will on the minority without recourse if they aren’t infringing on one of the enumerated rights or a long-standing common law custom. That’s not good enough for modern men. One wonders, given this attitude, why we even bother having an amendment process at all. Why, for example, pass women’s suffrage when you can have the courts do it for you? > [@Homebrew](#): > > What’s at stake is the idea of Freedom. You see the State as the ultimate good and the people as servants of that entity. Quite the opposite, really. I see the right of people to shape the course of the very societies they have to live in to be an important concern. Government should be the tool of the people, not the other way around. It is when the people are denied the right to decide matters for themselves that they become vassals of the state. > [@Homebrew](#): > > Guess what? We’re talking about the Civil Rights Era and the present. Do try to keep up. The obvious retort is “those who forget the past…” But more to the point: the arguments for _Roe_ and _Lawrence_ are quite indistinguishable from those set forth in _Lochner_. He who says one must say the other. And somehow I doubt you’d take kindly to the invalidation of minimum wage laws as unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/87 "2004-01-22T04:57:46Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Also, _Loving_ does not seek to redefine the meaning of marriage, but only to eliminate barriers to the institution as it has historically been understood; a constitutional mandate for gay marriage would be a far more radical step than anything in _Loving_. And there we have it. Behind all the bluster about state’s rights and the inviolability of his particular interpretation of the constitution lies the ultimate objection: That’s not how we’ve done it in the past. ---
**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 22, 2004, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/88 "2004-01-22T05:03:12Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Okay, I should have read the next 60+ posts. But good god, Bricker, were you truly so pathetically ill-informed that you don’t know the Right Evil Bastards want a constitutional amendment to kill _all_ gay marriage laws? Now **minty** , be fair – I’ve read arguments for and against _both_ types of proposals (e.g., Musgrave and Bricker amendments) in various op-ed pieces, and like **Bricker** I was unaware that anything had actually been drafted and presented by a member of Congress. While I’m sure there are _some_ conservatives who favor the Musgrave Amendment, there are others who favor Bricker Amendments, and still others who would rather not futz around with either amendment (I count myself in the latter category). ---
**Author:** ![NightRabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/bbce88/32.png) [@NightRabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NightRabbit)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/89 "2004-01-22T05:03:34Z")
This might be out in left field, but I don’t understand why some people are so insistent that state courts NOT decide this issue. It seems to me, please correct me if I’m wrong, that it’s the job of the courts to take over when current legislation is inadequate for a certain circumstance. In the case of MA, didn’t the courts order the state leg. to do something about the legal ambiguity in terms of state law? And it also seems that plenty of you are very keen on trying to tell the SCOTUS how do do its job. Just b/c they’re not interpreting the constitution to your exact specifications, suddenly they’re “too activist”? That’s their JOB. That’s what the founders set up the SCOTUS to DO. If the founders set up a branch of government specifically to INTERPRET the constitution, how can you claim that this interpretation is contrary to the founders’ wishes? And, regardless, I don’t know why we’re all getting in such a hoot about the so-called “Bricker” amendment. He’s not a senator (I don’t think…), he has no way of knowing whether or not that’s what Bush was talking about. It seems like all he’s saying is “Bush is right… oh yeah, I mean ONLY if he was talking about what I want him to be talking about.” If you say “Bush is right” then that’s what you mean- no later qualifiers allowed. If Bush would support any of my off-the-cuff, idealist amendments, then I’d think he was right, too! (Fat chance) ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/90 "2004-01-22T05:13:05Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Now **minty** , be fair – I’ve read arguments for and against _both_ types of proposals (e.g., Musgrave and Bricker amendments) in various op-ed pieces, and like **Bricker** I was unaware that anything had actually been drafted and presented by a member of Congress. While I’m sure there are _some_ conservatives who favor the Musgrave Amendment, there are others who favor Bricker Amendments, and still others who would rather not futz around with either amendment (I count myself in the latter category). And I’ve read proposals for constitutional amendments requiring Republicans to wear pointy hats and sing the French national anthem on demand. But are you really so ill-informed that you think the “Bricker amendment” is what Rove _et al._ are talking about? Face it, on this one, your guy is an asshole. ---
**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 22, 2004, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/91 "2004-01-22T05:14:59Z")
> [@MrVisible](#): > > And there we have it. Behind all the bluster about state’s rights and the inviolability of his particular interpretation of the constitution lies the ultimate objection: > > That’s not how we’ve done it in the past. Well, you know that’s the basis of the American court system, and the whole English Common Law tradition, right? ---
**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 22, 2004, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/92 "2004-01-22T05:18:01Z")
> [@MrVisible](#): > > And there we have it. Behind all the bluster about state’s rights and the inviolability of his particular interpretation of the constitution lies the ultimate objection: That’s not how we’ve done it in the past. Oh, Good Heavens. The post you were responding to involved my distinguishing _Loving_ in response to a specific question from a poster. The part you quoted was simply my pointing out a key factual difference between _Loving_ and the instant case, one that I think would make _Loving_ non-controlling in a federal lawsuit to mandate gay marriage on constitutonal grounds. That’s really just a bit of dry legal analysis in answer to a question. It isn’t really part of my position on the discussion at hand. (Indeed, as I noted, I think _Loving_ should have been solely decided on equal protection grounds, which would render the question of a “right to marry” moot). But just to clarify: it’s more like "that’s not how it’s been done in the past, _and if such a change in past practice is to be made, it should be made legislatively_. It remains ultimately a question of self-governance. That ain’t “bluster,” it’s the crux of my position. And BTW, I _support_ gay unions. I just think they should be put in place via ordinary democratic processes, and without a judicial gun held to the legislature’s head. Also, on preview, what **Captain Amazing** said (and far more concisely than I). ---
**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 22, 2004, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/93 "2004-01-22T05:24:54Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > But are you really so ill-informed that you think the “Bricker amendment” is what Rove _et al._ are talking about? Calling me ill-informed doesn’t make it so. Has Bush expressed support for the Musgrave Amendment, or for language like it? Or has he remained vague? I think the latter, though I’m willing to be corrected if I’m wrong. But it’ll take more than your “everyone knows” assertion to do so – please show me what, exactly, Bush or his administration have said on this. Like I said, there are competing proposals here (and plenty of conservatives who want avoid an amendment entirely). I’d like to know which one Bush is backing before I run off half-cocked. > [@minty green](#): > > Face it, on this one, your guy is an asshole. I totally agree if he backs the Musgrave Amendment. I even partially agree if he backs any amendment, because having the president speak on this can only serve to further federalize what is essentially a state-law issue. ---
**Author:** ![andygirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a9adbd/32.png) [@andygirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andygirl)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/94 "2004-01-22T05:38:25Z")
People, people, let’s get back to the issue at hand. Clearly if gay marriage is passed the sanctity of heterosexual marriage will be greatly diminished. Married men and women will use this opportunity to commit adultry willy-nilly, beat their children, abuse their pets, and write bad checks. Think of the children! ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/95 "2004-01-22T05:42:11Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > And BTW, I _support_ gay unions. I just think they should be put in place via ordinary democratic processes, and without a judicial gun held to the legislature’s head. Because that’s always the most effective way of securing the rights of a hated minority. _sigh_ ---
**Author:** ![Largo62](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/45deac/32.png) [@Largo62](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Largo62)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/96 "2004-01-22T07:33:32Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > …as soon as y’all get over being abominations and all. Unfortunately, the same tradition that defines certain people (or at least their practices) as abominations says if your neighbor works on the Sabbath he should be put to death, or if your son is intractable you should take him to the elders to be stoned (to death, that is). Society has outgrown the latter two moral idiocies, why shouldn’t it at long last outgrow the former? By the way, **Larry** , I know you didn’t say anybody was an abomination. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/97 "2004-01-22T07:57:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. From your wording here, **Bricker** , one might be forgiven for suspecting that you either: a.) believe that the current laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage do not meet your standards for describing them as being “singled out”; or, b.) believe that the requisite rational basis for such singling out has been met. Would you be good enough to share which (if either) of the above applies? And your reasoning? If it’s the rational basis thing, I _do_ hope that it doesn’t boil down to “that’s how we’ve always done it.” I’m usually inclined to view such arguments as attempts to avoid reasoning. For what it’s worth, BTW, the current administration appears to be playing the cards pretty close to the vest _vis a vis_ the Musgrave amendment. Yahoo, Google, and Ask Jeeves all fail to come up with a single direct quote from either Bush or Rove that addresses Mrs. Musgrove’s proposal. I see it as a pretty disciplined effort to maintain political cover. ---
**Author:** ![Deucalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8baadc/32.png) [@Deucalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deucalion)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/98 "2004-01-22T08:46:03Z")
Some questions for those who are in favour of an amendment. For those of you who are in support of the amendment primarily because of judicial activism, why not support an amendment that prevents laws which discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation instead? Then you wouldn’t have to worry about liberal interpretations, the right to gay marriage would be clearly present. I personally don’t see a problem with interpreting laws inline with the social conscience so long as the side of liberty is taken. Past interpretations were affected by peoples’ views and if such views are dated and would have influenced the decisions then they should be taken into account when looking at precedent. If you support it because you are in favour of states’ rights, why do you think states’ rights should take precedence over human rights? It’s one thing to restrict alcohol or shopping hours, but sexual orientation is a matter of identity. Crucial freedoms and rights should not be abridged without need. There is no benefit in states having the option of discriminating against non-heterosexuals unnecessarily, so an amendment that allows or requires such discrimination has no benefit either and there is definitely no need for it. There must be more pressing states’ rights issues than this. And for anyone who wants it because they don’t think homosexuals deserve equality… could you please find a smoke detector and swallow what’s inside the bit with the black & yellow sticker on it? Thankyou. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/99 "2004-01-22T13:16:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals > ‘We ought to codify that’ > Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Posted: 5:46 AM EST (1046 GMT) > > WASHINGTON (CNN) – President Bush indicated Wednesday he opposes extending marriage rights to homosexuals, saying he believes marriage “is between a man and a woman.” > > Bush said it is “important for society to welcome each individual,” but administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals. > > **"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another,"** Bush told reporters at a White House news conference. “And we’ve got lawyers looking at the best way to do that.” So much for the Bricker amendment. But feel free to keep sticking you fingers in your ears and going lalalalalala when it comes to the Right Evil Bastards. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455/100 "2004-01-22T13:17:37Z")
Sorry, forgot the link to the story: [http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage/index.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-state-of-the-civil-union-address/225455.md?page=6)