That’s exactly it.
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:
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?”
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
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states "All executive priveleges and authority heretofore extended to the President of the United States is hereby repealed?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?
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
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.)
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.
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.
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
Sure. The Consitution can be amended to set up the government pretty much any way you want. Article V of the Constution:
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.
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.
I do not support that wording.
- Rick
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.
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.
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
Well, Homebrew?
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.
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?
Actually, you’re thinking of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which says, to start off:
(This is later amended by Section 2 of the 14th amendment.)
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.
Well, Bricker, which time were you lying?
-
I don;t agree that my position represents despicable evil. But, assuming arguendo that it does…
-
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.
-
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
Ta-Daaa!
Isn’t he amazing, folks?