The politics of this are pretty amazing… and let’s keep this thread to the POLITICS of the issue, not the religious viewpoint.
However, that said, the politics of mixing religion into the constitution if you feel that is what is taking place is appropriate.
Personally, I think there is a limit to the number of times you can raise the threat level and get people to care, if you know what I’m saying.
This is taking the pandering to a whole new low. Shameful and pathetic, really.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060605/pl_nm/rights_gays_congress_dc_2
[quote]
Senate takes up gay-rights ban amid criticism
By Andy Sullivan 34 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Urged on by
President George W. Bush, the U.S. Senate on Monday debated a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that both backers and opponents say has little chance of passage.
Bush, speaking out again on the hot-button election-year issue, and other advocates said the amendment would prevent “activist judges” from striking down existing state laws that prohibit same-sex marriage.
Opponents said the measure was a transparent attempt to shore up support among social conservatives before November’s congressional election, in a similar manner to 2004, at a time when Congress should be dealing with issues like high gasoline prices and the war in
Iraq.
“The reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another,” Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said.
“It’s this administration’s way of avoiding the tough, the real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day.”
Bush pressed the issue before supporters at the White House.
“State legislatures are trying to address this issue, but across the country they are being thwarted by activist judges who are overturning the express will of their people. And these court decisions could have an impact on our whole nation,” he insisted at the news conference.
The bill is not expected to win the 67 votes required for passage of constitutional amendments in the 100-member Senate. Bill sponsor Colorado Republican Sen. Wayne Allard (news, bio, voting record) has said he expects to attract 52 votes.
Because the measure seeks to change the Constitution, it faces the steep hurdle of winning passage in both the Senate and the House of Representatives by a two-thirds majority and then winning approval from at least 38 of the 50 U.S. states.
A gay-marriage ban failed in both houses of Congress in 2004.
Gay marriage has been a hot topic since a Massachusetts court ruled in 2003 that the state legislature could not ban it, paving the way for America’s first same-sex marriages the following year.
Forty-five states have passed laws or amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. Aside from Massachusetts, where gay marriages are fully recognized, six states and the District of Columbia offer same-sex couples some legal protection.
Allard said his amendment was necessary to prevent courts from overturning existing state laws, many of which enjoy broad public support. Legal challenges to gay-marriage bans are pending in nine states.
The Senate is expected to vote on Wednesday. The House will likely take it up before the August recess, a spokesman for House Majority Leader John Boehner said.
Several religious leaders joined Allard on Monday to argue that the ban is needed to counteract an array of social ills, from rising divorce rates to out-of-wedlock births.[/quote]
And a constitutional amendment banning same sex unions will counteract that…how exactly? “I was thinking of divorcing you and knocking up your little sister, but I guess I’ll hold off since gays can’t get married now.” Makes perfect sense to me.
[quote]
“Americans want our laws to send a positive message to our children,” said Matt Daniels, founder of the Alliance for Marriage Foundation.[/quote]
And writing discrimination into the constitution is a great example of a “positive message” alright.
Some thoughts…
Since when is the constitution the right place to decide which traditions are correct for society? Personally, I don’t believe in the tradition language at all – because traditions change over time whereas a constitutional amendment is meant to be a fairly permanent statement concerning the running of society.
Why should the constitution of a country deal specifically with something which appears to be a matter of peaceful personal relations between consenting individuals? This seems to be a dangerous derailment of the concept of a free society whether or not the excuse of advocate judges is raised.
How can possibly believe this amendment would not be an attempt to place a religious judgment directly into the constitition of the country? I mean, does anyone seriously suggest that this is not a religious statement? Neither tradition nor moral distaste for gay marriage warrants a constitutional amendment, only a fundamental belief of the wrongness, as espoused by religion, seems to qualify for this activity. Again, I don’t want a religious discussion on gays and homosexuality per se, but it does seem to be religion in politics.
Finally, isn’t this just an issue to be used to motivate the base? It will get all kinds of people fired up, because they do feel strongly about this, which will get them out there to vote and keep those damned democrats from screwing up society (in their minds). The question is, how many times can you yank these chains and have people respond?
People eventually get wise to such tactics. I think this president is systematically abusing all the hot buttons available to him, to the point that he is damaging the republican party in general. Nobody is going to believe it, trust it, or have any hot buttons left to be manipulated with by the time he is out of office.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Some thoughts…
Since when is the constitution the right place to decide which traditions are correct for society? Personally, I don’t believe in the tradition language at all – because traditions change over time whereas a constitutional amendment is meant to be a fairly permanent statement concerning the running of society.
Why should the constitution of a country deal specifically with something which appears to be a matter of peaceful personal relations between consenting individuals? This seems to be a dangerous derailment of the concept of a free society whether or not the excuse of advocate judges is raised.[/quote]
The only thing that makes this even remotely plausible is that judges have been reading their own moral ideas into the Constitution without even bothering to actually amend it.
That both creates the fear that they will continue to do so on this specific issue, and legitimizes elevating policy disputes to the Constitutional level.
I generally don’t agree with the amendment because I don’t like elevating policy matters to the Constitutional level, and think it should be the provence of the states. But the lesson people took from Roe v Wade, and more recently from Romer v Evans, is that the USSC is perfectly capable of telling us the Constitution say something it does not on specific policy issues. So the politicians are being politicians and milking the idea for their own gain – but you can squarely thank the activist judges for making it possible.
This will never pass.
No one thinks it will pass.
This is an obvious attempt to reinforce the idea that Democrats are godless hedonists with no respect for family values.
This is a response to an increasingly degenerate Senate and House that have given up power and any shred of respect they might have once enjoyed. The executive and judicial branches are doing all the heavy lifting, these days.
If you can’t remove “activist judges,” how do you get laws passed? How do you deal with a zealot who essentially holds unchecked veto power over any law he doesn’t like, and has lifetime tenure?
I think the answer to this is not to create an ad hoc amendment for gay marriage, but rather (perhaps) setting term limits or introducing other democratic reforms into the judiciary…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The only thing that makes this even remotely plausible is that judges have been reading their own moral ideas into the Constitution without even bothering to actually amend it.
That both creates the fear that they will continue to do so on this specific issue, and legitimizes elevating policy disputes to the Constitutional level.
I generally don’t agree with the amendment because I don’t like elevating policy matters to the Constitutional level, and think it should be the provence of the states. But the lesson people took from Roe v Wade, and more recently from Romer v Evans, is that the USSC is perfectly capable of telling us the Constitution say something it does not on specific policy issues. So the politicians are being politicians and milking the idea for their own gain – but you can squarely thank the activist judges for making it possible.[/quote]
I do understand your point, and it is what the president harped on during his speeches. However, I think this is another example of the president crossing an important line.
As for activist judges, I know they are the favorite targets of republicans these days, they are constrained by some things that make their decisions for them.
One of those things is the precept that all “men” are created equal. If this is the case, then how do you make rules that disallow a certain class of “men” from participating in some institutions of society?
I’m sure that a long time ago in the past the whole concept was never imagined, but the principles of equality and access to all sort of drive the decision. I’m not sure there is anybody to blame at all.
I guess, as this amendment plan would do if it had a hope of succeeding, you could amend the constitution to proclaim that all “men” are created equal as long as they aren’t gay, at which point they are open for active state approved discrimination.
Suddenly, you become the land of the free for everyone who isn’t gay, and then there is no “activism” by judges who are making decisions you don’t like.
In this case, I don’t think the issue was activism, but instead an appropriate interpretation of the principles contained in the constitution. How can you claim everyone is equal, and that the government is separated from any particular religion, if the federal government were to decide gay people were not, in fact, equal?
I think activism is just a buzzword used to charge up people like yourself who will accept any excuse to be charged up without putting much thought into matters.
Sort of like the majority of the populace.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
This will never pass.
No one thinks it will pass.
This is an obvious attempt to reinforce the idea that Democrats are godless hedonists with no respect for family values.
This is a response to an increasingly degenerate Senate and House that have given up power and any shred of respect they might have once enjoyed. The executive and judicial branches are doing all the heavy lifting, these days.
If you can’t remove “activist judges,” how do you get laws passed? How do you deal with a zealot who essentially holds unchecked veto power over any law he doesn’t like, and has lifetime tenure?
I think the answer to this is not to create an ad hoc amendment for gay marriage, but rather (perhaps) setting term limits or introducing other democratic reforms into the judiciary…[/quote]
Great post, more or less sums up how I feel.
[quote]vroom wrote:
One of those things is the precept that all “men” are created equal. If this is the case, then how do you make rules that disallow a certain class of “men” from participating in some institutions of society?
I’m sure that a long time ago in the past the whole concept was never imagined, but the principles of equality and access to all sort of drive the decision. I’m not sure there is anybody to blame at all.
I guess, as this amendment plan would do if it had a hope of succeeding, you could amend the constitution to proclaim that all “men” are created equal as long as they aren’t gay, at which point they are open for active state approved discrimination.
Suddenly, you become the land of the free for everyone who isn’t gay, and then there is no “activism” by judges who are making decisions you don’t like.
In this case, I don’t think the issue was activism, but instead an appropriate interpretation of the principles contained in the constitution. How can you claim everyone is equal, and that the government is separated from any particular religion, if the federal government were to decide gay people were not, in fact, equal?
[/quote]
Actually, the answer is much more simple. Equality under the law only means that the law cannot discriminate based on certain categories, and sexual orientation is not among them.
On a more pragmatic analytical level, one can easily argue that a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman doesn’t discriminate against either a man or a woman, because any man can marry any woman. Just because someone can’t do what he wants doesn’t make the law itself discriminatory.
But that’s all semantics really. I’m against the amendment on federalist grounds, and on my dislike of elevating policy on specific issues to the Constitutional level.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I think activism is just a buzzword used to charge up people like yourself who will accept any excuse to be charged up without putting much thought into matters.
Sort of like the majority of the populace.[/quote]
No, activism describes courts not paying heed to the text of what’s in front of them, or what a document meant when it went through the supermajority procedures that give it the “supreme law of the land” status in the first place. Just because courts decide that society’s values have changed doesn’t mean they have – and if they have, there’s this great amendment procedure that is currently being tossed about and either advocated or denounced by various politicians for political gain.
But getting to toss aside actual thinking about the issues in order to accuse your opponents of politics, now that’s deep… And for you, vroom, familiar…
[quote]nephorm wrote:
This will never pass.
No one thinks it will pass.
This is an obvious attempt to reinforce the idea that Democrats are godless hedonists with no respect for family values.
This is a response to an increasingly degenerate Senate and House that have given up power and any shred of respect they might have once enjoyed. The executive and judicial branches are doing all the heavy lifting, these days.
If you can’t remove “activist judges,” how do you get laws passed? How do you deal with a zealot who essentially holds unchecked veto power over any law he doesn’t like, and has lifetime tenure?
I think the answer to this is not to create an ad hoc amendment for gay marriage, but rather (perhaps) setting term limits or introducing other democratic reforms into the judiciary…[/quote]
I think this is true – I think term limits for federal judges are an excellent idea, especially with the increased life spans now versus when the Constitution was written. I don’t think anyone envisaged “life” terms equalling 40 years on the bench.
They would have to be decently long to still insulate the judiciary from electoral politics – say 15 year terms.
Or this proposal for 18-year limits, which I’ve linked to before:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_04_03-2005_04_09.shtml#1112946058
[quote]vroom wrote:
One of those things is the precept that all “men” are created equal. If this is the case, then how do you make rules that disallow a certain class of “men” from participating in some institutions of society?[/quote]
There is no right to marriage - it must created first. “Men” are free to participate in marriage as it is currently defined. But the point is - we can make rules disallowing people from participating in certain institutions if we want to - unless prohibited by a superior law.
But there is no discrimination - homosexuals are not being ‘denied’ anything. There is no such institution to deny them.
Marriage is a positive right, like welfare rights - one that comes with parameters. Homosexuals aren’t being denied ‘freedom’ by not being able to marry a gay lover any more than I am being denied the right to welfare assistance because I don’t qualify for it. Polygamists don’t get to legally marry the way they want to - are they being denied of something? No.
You have a misunderstanding of what ‘equality’ means.
In this case, where an institution does not politically exist, homosexuals are perfectly empowered to try and change their circumstances by way of changing people’s minds - the political process. That is equality under the law.
When a judge mandates that there must be a gay marriage counterpart as a matter of ‘equality’, he or she has subsituted his/her will for that of the political process - a no-no.
Nonsense, Vroom - all you show is that you don’t know the context of what it means. Some questions - most questions - are political questions, not legal ones. Gay marriage is a political question, one that should be decided in the political arena. When a judge decides to answer a political question, he has ceased to become a judge in the system that we have.
It is funny that your painfully predictable go-to move is always to arrogantly chastise people for ‘not putting enough thought into something’ - especially when it is clear someone like Boston has forgotten more than you will ever know on a topic like this.
As is, I don’t like the Amendment. I think it has been introduced for political reasons, and I think it will fail on both passing and achieving the desired political effect. I would consider supporting an Amendment if there was a USSC decision creating gay marriage, but we are nowhere near that and it may never happen. This Amendment is an enormous waste of time and resources.
[quote]vroom wrote:
The politics of this are pretty amazing… and let’s keep this thread to the POLITICS of the issue, not the religious viewpoint.
[/quote]
Not only will this not make it to amendment consideration I don’t think most states will turn it into law–well maybe the more conservative religious states.
The idea of defining marriage to specifically shut out two consenting individuals will not work due to the general belief of most Americans that all persons should have equal access to the law. Defining institutions in such a way not only compromises these beliefs but will further allow us to change the definitions of institutions that we already consider just; for example, rewriting definitions that that take inherent rights away from women, minorities or certain age groups.
I do believe that we can define marriage but it must be done in a way that does not discriminate–and it needs to be done so at a federal level to keep states from discriminating against human beings. For example: marriage is defined as a between two consenting individuals of legal age. This will throw out the nonsensical arguments made by many that a man could marry an underage goat if he wanted to, for example.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
This Amendment is an enormous waste of time and resources.[/quote]
Not when your only goal is riling up the base, deflecting attention from Iraq, and keeping control of Congress despite your party’s abysmal performance…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
It is funny that your painfully predictable go-to move is always to arrogantly chastise people for ‘not putting enough thought into something’ - especially when it is clear someone like Boston has forgotten more than you will ever know on a topic like this.
[/quote]
Piss off lightweight, I was trying to tweak Boston…
Okay, instead of just annoying everyone, how about another question?
Theoretically, if you lived in MA, wouldn’t you be pissed if your state was suddenly denied the ability to make laws on this issue?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The idea of defining marriage to specifically shut out two consenting individuals will not work due to the general belief of most Americans that all persons should have equal access to the law.[/quote]
Utter nonsense. Forty states have enacted laws denying the recognition of same-sex marriages.
[quote]Defining institutions in such a way not only compromises these beliefs but will further allow us to change the definitions of institutions that we already consider just; for example, rewriting definitions that that take inherent rights away from women, minorities or certain age groups.
I do believe that we can define marriage but it must be done in a way that does not discriminate–and it needs to be done so at a federal level to keep states from discriminating against human beings.[/quote]
First, that would be impossible using your version of ‘discriminate’. If the law should accommodate ‘consenting individuals’, why would you then discriminate against those consenting individuals who would prefer to go beyond the magic number of two partners? Aren’t you discriminating against them by arbitrarily limiting a marriage to two people?
Second, the federal government has no power to pass a law to dictate to states how a marriage will be defined. The DOMA doesn’t do that, and that is why there is a constitutional amendment being proposed - Congress doesn’t have the power you think it does.
But, by your definition, you would still be denying equal access to those consenting adults that would like the union to be more than two people. How do you square that, given your strong desire not to ‘discriminate’?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Piss off lightweight, I was trying to tweak Boston…[/quote]
Poor Vroom - can dish but no can take?
And - “lightweight”? Seriously? No one buys that one, and I am having a grand chuckle at your expense and your desperation. See, your problem is you can’t make arguments without feeling the need to ‘tweak’ someone, but when someone ‘tweaks’ back, you start crying.
Want to tweak someone - go for it - but stop sniveling when someone returns fire.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Not when your only goal is riling up the base, deflecting attention from Iraq, and keeping control of Congress despite your party’s abysmal performance…[/quote]
Well, see, that is my point - I don’t think it is going to work. I think the voters are feeling a little riled up about the current state of affairs and I don’t think this distraction will purchase much.
[quote]vroom wrote:
The politics of this are pretty amazing… and let’s keep this thread to the POLITICS of the issue, not the religious viewpoint.
However, that said, the politics of mixing religion into the constitution if you feel that is what is taking place is appropriate.
Personally, I think there is a limit to the number of times you can raise the threat level and get people to care, if you know what I’m saying.[/quote]
I, in no way, agree with gay marriage, but I don’t believe it is a federal issue. The States should be the ones to decide. The Evil Empire we call British Columbia has way too much power. We need to bring back more State autonomy.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Piss off lightweight, I was trying to tweak Boston…
Poor Vroom - can dish but no can take?
And - “lightweight”? Seriously? No one buys that one, and I am having a grand chuckle at your expense and your desperation. See, your problem is you can’t make arguments without feeling the need to ‘tweak’ someone, but when someone ‘tweaks’ back, you start crying.
Want to tweak someone - go for it - but stop sniveling when someone returns fire.[/quote]
Didn’t take long for people to get vroom’s number.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Okay, instead of just annoying everyone, how about another question?
Theoretically, if you lived in MA, wouldn’t you be pissed if your state was suddenly denied the ability to make laws on this issue?[/quote]
Here is the thing - I would absolutely be pissed off about it.
Now, be consistent, though - would you be pissed off if it was the Supreme Court taking away the states’ right to make its own laws on the issue and not an Amendment?
I would - just the same as I would be angry if a constitutional amendment took away the state’s right. But I would be less angry about the amendment for the sole reason that if such a thing got passed - it takes an incredible amount of widespread support - at least I would know the supermajority wanted it.