?

Log in

Anderson, don't talk out loud. You lower the IQ of the whole street.

Preach!

Preach!

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Writing
"How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?"

-- Steve Simon, Minnesota Lawmaker, in his speech on why a gay marriage ban should not be added to the state constitution.







"It will be interesting when this issue finally hits the Supreme Court. I expect it to be entertaining.

First, we do not live in a theocracy, so religious arguments are moot.

I am not a gay rights advocate; I support the US Constitution, and this IS a Constitutional issue. Gay couples (whether or not we agree with them, they ARE couples) are being denied the rights that we take for granted as married couples. The right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, the tax policy benefits afforded married couples and the right to inheritance, for a few examples.

I support the US Constitution - ALL of it. I don't pick the provisions I like.

AMENDMENT XIV
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What part of "NO STATE shall make or enforce ANY LAW" or "DENY ANY PERSON" is unclear?

Gay couples do NOT have the same rights as married straight couples, thus the equal protection clause is being violated. Yes, they can go to a lawyer and have documents drawn up, but that imposes a financial burden on them that straights do not have to bear. Again, it violates the equal protection clause.

Also consider the full faith and credit clause - Article IV, section 1. All states must recognize the "public acts, records and judicial proceedings" of every other state. Since 5 states allow gay marriage, all other states are COMPELLED to recognize those. They don't have to allow gay marriage to take place, but they do have to acknowledge those from other states as legal. This is the same principle that allows people to run off to Vegas to get married and still be married when they return home. Full faith and credit. So if any of those 5 states do not have residency laws, we already have gay marriage by default.

I used to suggest civil unions to give the same rights as marriage, but “separate but equal” has already been struck down.

For those that claim this is a states rights issue, the Constitution is superior to any state law or state constitution. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." So if the Supreme Court rules that bans are unconstitutional, it does not matter what any state puts in their constitution.

So if/when this issue is taken up by the Court, I will find it entertaining, either watching a conservative court jump through hoops to find such laws constitutional, or watching the far right scream about "activist courts" if they actually follow the Constitution.

That's assuming they would even take it. It would not surprise me if they refused to take it.
1) The conservatives would not want to be on record as having to outlaw DOMA laws.
2) If the Supreme Court took it, any ruling would likely apply nationwide, whereas refusing the case leaves the ruling only applying to the states in whichever circuit court the case comes from; I would assume the California case is the most logical one at this point."


To add another point: I think the "state's rights" issue was put to bed in the 1860's.
  • this is AMAZING.
  • While religious arguments should have no bearing on our laws, this is an excellent retort that only highlights how variable religious beliefs can be. The comment from Yahoo is also a brilliant rationalization.
  • I saw this via a blog yesterday, but didn't get to post about it. I was a bit uncomfortable with bringing up the "nature or nurture" question, because it's irrelevant as I see it, but asking the other members to give a hard look at their "moral force" of their argument in regards to gay marriage is valid.

    I also agree they're going to be on the wrong side of history, but I so want someone calling out Conservatives on gay marriage and abortion not being real issues that must be addressed right now with the fervor they're giving to them, but distractions to get reactions instead of action for real problems. They figured this out in the 80s and keep falling back on "family values" while both families and values have changed around them.

    As a person living in state that rushed to get a "No Gay Marriage!" bill passed ASAP (and wow, did I almost bite off my tongue during the months leading up to it), I know exactly why they don't want to recognize marriages performed in other states. Having to do so would give rights they've bitterly fought against gays having, and it opens a door for gay marriage to exist in the state even without it being legal to perform here.

    I recall a case recently where someone was married in a state where gay marriage wasn't legal, but the minister and all the paperwork was filed in a state where it was, thanks to Skype. They're legally married in that state, so there's not even the need to travel to Vegas or anywhere else. I foresee a cottage industry of Skype marriage if the Fed pushes all states to comply with recognition as they're supposed to be doing anyway.

    After that, it's just a matter of time before people get over it and allow gay marriage in other states so they can keep all the money from the marriage industry local, including the fees for a marriage license.
    • It still bothers me that so many arguments are religious, and it's a civil rights issue. How are these right-wingers not seeing the delineation? Republicans are supposed to be less government, lower taxes and a strict Constitutional interpretation. Separation of Church and State; Full faith and Credit. It's all right there!

      And it WAS the 80's when the religious conservative hijacked the party. Other than him being involved in that whole messy Watergate thing, Nixon's beliefs and platform most closely resemble my own and what I'd like to see

      As for Skype Marriage--BRILLIANT! I can't wait to see that argued in the Supreme Court. I wonder if it will get there before the case for the constitutionality of Gay Marriage will.

      Living in Las Vegas, I don't WANT to everyone getting married online. And it STILL boggles me as to how this city, purported to be Marriage Capital of the World--and also named Sin City for all of the dirtybadwrong things we can get away with doing here--doesn't see how much of a BOON it would be to what is arguably the WORST economy in the country right now. People aren't coming here for a "family friendly" experience (no matter WHAT anyone tries to say), and I honestly do not think it will impact tourism except TO HELP boost revenue in the hotels and casinos that will book gay marriages, and for the city/county/state to make MINT in licensing fees.

      It makes NO SENSE to me. I just...argh! Sometimes I hate being a Libertarian.

      • I think the hard right wingers read the Constitution like they read their Bibles; skim it for stuff they like or can use to their advantage and ignore the rest.

        Up until the 80s, the area where I live would have been considered a "Yellow Dog Democrat" stronghold. After Reagan was elected, it was like someone flipped a switch. These days, there are often many elections where Republicans run completely uncontested.

        What annoys me is the ones who have no problem with Freedom of Speech as long as it's for them. You cannot speak against them. Ever. We're talking shunning in both public and private life. If you dare say you're a Democrat or anything other than Republican, it's akin to saying you're Atheist. Just isn't done if you don't want worry about a witch hunt to find some bogus reason to fire you.

        I think Skype marriages are going to turn out to be a way to chip away at marriage inequality. Such marriages if performed for a man and woman are legal, and are often seen in cases where someone's in the military or something along those lines. If legislators try to pull a "You must be present to marry!" rule to prevent it, it could create some serious backlash from people who might not otherwise have a stake in the gay marriage issue.

        On a tangent, but still amusing to me how people say how things should be based on religious beliefs instead of law, my county is "dry" but a few towns are now "wet" and it's been increasing in recent years.

        On a trip to a beer/wine place with my father for his stash of beer, he commented about how this shop had parking out front, but it's just regular storefront parking on the street and not in a parking lot, so there aren't many spaces. There is a lot in the back, where you can practically do a drive through. My father said he asked once if the front or back door was used most frequently. "Oh, the back door is mainly just for the Baptists." ;)
  • (no subject) - delphia2000
  • Why am I getting a, 'this video is no longer available' message? *pounds*

    Edit: Here is it on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMLkr8r30Ew

    Edited at 2011-05-05 09:23 pm (UTC)
  • That was an excellent vid and the comment you re-posted was very eloquent. Thanks hon. :)
Powered by LiveJournal.com