Gay Marriage ban defeated in US Senate
Posted by Moonage on 07 Jun 2006 | Tagged as: 2006 US Senate Races, Legislative Process, National Politics, Political Correctness
Good.
I never was really worried about this one. I’ve been around long enough to know a political ploy when I see it. The Republicans only did this to define the parties for the upcoming races. That’s all. The reason I say this is a good part of Congress are laywers. Some are even constitutional law lawyers. Bottom line, especailly in the Senate, these people know the constitution better than the average Joe. It’s their job. What they know is the US Constitutuion does not guarantee ANYONE the right to be married. It’s not a gay/staight/andogynous issue. It’s purely a legal issue. Therefore, I imagine, any legislation regarding marriage on the federal level will be struck down by the Supreme Court. Now, the Republicans can stick to their core philosophy of smaller government and have a social issue for the elections. Now, if the Democrats had been smarter, they would have supported this ban 100% and allowed it to pass on to Congress. Congress is much more liberal than the Senate is. Most likely, it would have died in committee or even smarter yet, passed in such a way it could not be resolved in committee. Then, the Democrats would have neutralized the issue and gotten what they wanted as well.
Either way, it needs to be over. Marriage is not something to be defined by government. That includes judges as well. ( What’d he say? )
7 Comments »
on 07 Jun 2006 at 6:02 pm 1.American Phoenix
said …
There’s an inherent illogic in your comments and your analysis is superficial. (Sorry, I love you, but it’s true.) You say that any legislation on marriage could be struck down by the Supreme Court. While this is true, a Constitutional amendment is not mere legislation and the Supreme Court cannot strike it down. That’s precisely why it’s necessary. See Article VI of the US Constitution.
You say marriage is not something to be defined by the government, and yet the requirements of contracting a valid marriage have been defined by the civil government for hundreds of years. How old one can be, the status of any previous marriages, one’s physical health (remember the Wasserman test?), have all figured into the regulation equation at various times.
But marriage has always been a human institution that has been understood as being between one man and one woman. It’s not something that the civil law can completely redefine. Thus, the federal constitutional amendment would not change the definition, only ensure that it remains what it has always been from other people trying to redefine it.
If one group can redefine marriage in the way that they want, then marriage is meaningless. It can be redefined to be whatever anyone wants. The first federal cases in favor of polygamy and polyandry have already been filed in Utah. This is the next step and there is now a big push to recognize polyandry and abolish marriage completely in Sweden. Not that there is much left to abolish.
The judicial branch is one branch of our government. We now have a situation where 26 states have passed laws banning gay marriage and 19 states have passed state constitutional amendments banning same. The state laws are being overridden by state courts.
This happened in California and also in Massachussetts. In California, we voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 22 which banned gay marriage and it passed. As Gov’r Gray Davis went out of office, he signed AB 205 (he had previously vetoed similar legislation) which essentially enacted into law gay marriage in everything but name only.
If this happens at the level of the US Supreme Court, via the equal protection clause and the full faith and credit clause, then the people will have effectively been denied their right to legislate. Why do the majority of people have less right to their notion of marriage than unelected judges? The legislatures are also part of the government and they should be the most important part of the government. Striking down these laws is judicial activism among its very worst.
For a very interesting take on this issue, there is a current National Review Online article which I thought was quite good (even if they have been spotty on some other issues): http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWU1OGU3MDE4MDM4ZjQzZmNhOWJlZDI2OWIzMDE5ZmE=
For a good review of why gay marriage is a really bad idea and how it will further contribute both to depopulation, the breakdown of the family, and just plain bad parenting, see any article by Stanley Kurtz: http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=MjMxNA==
on 07 Jun 2006 at 8:51 pm 2.Moonage
said …
I don’t think there’s an inherent dislogic at all. I said any legislation. Authorizing a Constitutional Amendment is not passing legislation. It is authorizing the states to decide at that point. I was speaking specifically in regards to federal legislation. My point is a states’ rights issue. In the case of Prohibition, many states had already banned alcohol. Congress, recognizing this, used the popularity of the issue in this case to get the Amendment passed. That’s not the case in this situation. Therefore, I see it as a situation where Congress in effect is trying to compel legislation over the current desire of the states. Hope that makes sense.
“You say marriage is not something to be defined by the government, and yet the requirements of contracting a valid marriage have been defined by the civil government for hundreds of years.”
The key word there being CIVIL government, not federal. This is not a Constitutional issue. This is not something the federal government has any right to be involved in.
“If one group can redefine marriage in the way that they want, then marriage is meaningless. It can be redefined to be whatever anyone wants.”
That is exactly what this legislation intended to do. To define it. What if in 20 years they decide to abolish it entirely? It is that very reason that I oppose allowing the federal government to get involved in the first place. Legislation tends to follow social trends and forces. The Constitution by its very design is opposed to that. It is the rock that keeps social trends from tearing the country apart. I don’t like using it outside of its intended purpose. Prohibition for all its merits proved bad for the country. Even though Prohibition was eliminated, my community chose not to allow alcohol in any form until 2004. The way things are now, communities in the form states can decide whether to allow gay marriages or not. Most have chosen not to. Mine turned it down overwhelmingly. 81% voted against it in Alabama yesterday. Just because it’s there in concept does not mean communities will rush to accept it. Utah’s had polygamy for 100 years due to religious pressures in the past. No other state has seen the need to allow it and very very few people in Utah go that route. Sweden allows a lot of things that are not allowed in the US, so comparing them to Utah isn’t really realistic.
My bottom line is marriage is a personal choice. Whether to get married or not. A lot of people live in sin. I did for a while. A lot of people get married for the wrong reasons and a lot of people get divorced. Marriage is defined by each person. Two gay people living together can be married in their own opinion. I know some who are more committed to each other than most straight marriages I know. So, the way it is now, it’s a personal decision. Local laws may dictate minimum requirements, but those norms are established on a local level that allow catering to religious and ethnic differences in the region. Federalizing marriage will set one standard for exactly what a marriage is. I don’t like that. Some day polygamist gays may rule Congress and decide that a man/woman marriage isn’t right.
Lastly, this type of legislation is sex discrimination in its purest form. If you ban gay marriages, you are discriminating against at least one of the intended in every single marriage are you not?
Bottom line, marriage is a personal choice between two people and in some cases ( if not most ), a religious element is involved. The method of getting married is 100% a personal choice that is very loosely dictated by local laws that only consider the betrothed’s legal age of consent under the law to be married or not. Marriage is a legally binding document and therefore someone has to be legal in order to sign it. I don’t think any states seperate the age of marriage from their age of consent. I could be wrong.
Bottom line, I don’t want big brother as my groom’s man.
on 08 Jun 2006 at 6:04 pm 3.American Phoenix
said …
You said:
“Therefore, I see it as a situation where Congress in effect is trying to compel legislation over the current desire of the states. Hope that makes sense.”
No, it doesn’t make any sense. Problem is that most states have either legislation or constitutional amendments banning gay marriage already. A federal constitutional amendment would prevent the federal courts, a branch of the federal government, from overturning those laws and state amendments. If you’re really for state’s rights, then you ought to logically be in favor of this amendment.
You continued:
“The key word there being CIVIL government, not federal. This is not a Constitutional issue. This is not something the federal government has any right to be involved in.”
The federal government IS the civil government. There’s no distinction there. If the federal government, through the US Supreme Court has the power to legalize sodomy, and state courts have the power to legalize gay marriage, then the state and the federal legislatures have every right to be involved in this issue, if only in response to make sure that the true will of the people is being done.
You continued:
“That is exactly what this legislation intended to do. To define it. ”
The amendment would prevent the courts from redefining it. That’s not quite the same thing. It would allow the majority of states to keep the definitions that they already have in place.
You continued:
“Sweden allows a lot of things that are not allowed in the US, so comparing them to Utah isn’t really realistic.”
It is a good predictor of where we are headed if we allow gay marriage to become legal. What has happened in the Scandinavian countries with respect to gay marriage will happen here, if gay marriage is legalized. It will take a while, but it will happen here. But it will be worse because more benefits are tied to marriage in the US than in Scandinavia. There will therefore be more discrimination by homosexuals against people of religious faith, in clear violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, if these laws are passed. It’s already happening in California.
You continued:
“Lastly, this type of legislation is sex discrimination in its purest form. If you ban gay marriages, you are discriminating against at least one of the intended in every single marriage are you not?”
Not all gender discrimination is illegal, even under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Certainly the 14th Amendment was not enacted with the idea that it would ever allow gay marriage. You can’t realistically read the constitution this way or you make the constitution absolutely meaningless. Further, you can’t really get past the fact that men and women exist in society and that it takes one of each to have children. Yes, there is artificial fertility, but this is only happening in less than 1% of all births. We are made of flesh, we have XX and XY chromosomes, and it takes one of each to make children. It takes one of each to raise healthy, well adjusted children although even this is not a guarantee. It’s a beginning and, I think, a pre-requisite.
You continued:
“Bottom line, marriage is a personal choice between two people and in some cases ( if not most ), a religious element is involved. The method of getting married is 100% a personal choice that is very loosely dictated by local laws that only consider the betrothed’s legal age of consent under the law to be married or not.”
That’s incorrect. The laws also consider a person’s previous marital status, as well as (in some cases) the health of the affianced with respect to sexually communicable diseases. Marriage has never just been a choice between two people. It has always involved a man, a woman, religious solemnization, and government sanction. That government sanction comes with strings attached. Not until this century has marriage ever been attempted to be redefined as between just two people or between two men or two women.
You continued:
“I don’t think any states seperate the age of marriage from their age of consent. I could be wrong.”
Some do. You can get married before the age of consent in some states IF you have your parents’ permission.
on 08 Jun 2006 at 10:29 pm 4.Moonage
said …
We seem to have two different translations to this legislation. Here is the text of the legislation:
“SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment’.
`SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’.”
If it is not allowing any state to allow marriage by anyone other than a man and a woman, how is that protecting states’ rights? It’s not very flexible, and I don’t see how it allows state legislatures to amend it in any way. All it is saying that a state may not be forced to allow anything else. It’s not giving the state the option to choose. If a state chooses to allow gay marriages, it runs smack into that first line. You’re arguing it protects the states rights. I don’t see that at all.
on 08 Jun 2006 at 11:42 pm 5.American Phoenix
said …
You asked:
“If it is not allowing any state to allow marriage by anyone other than a man and a woman, how is that protecting states’ rights?”
The second part says that neither the federal constitution nor any state constitution shall be construed to require… What that means is that a court - whether the US S.Ct. or a state S. Ct. - cannot interpret constitutional amendments that say marriage is between one man and one woman to mean something else. The amendment actually protects state’s rights from being obliterated by activist judges. Keep in mind that in the places where gay marriage is legal, no one has actually voted for it. It’s all been put into place by judges. That’s how it protects state’s rights. Furthermore, in order to get a constitutional amendment passed, it has to show a national consensus, something that there currently is, despite the Senate vote. If the national consensus changes, the Article V process can be used once again, although I doubt that in this case, it will come to that. This is not another case of Prohibition.
Further, I’m not so sure that state’s rights is the best framework for this discussion, just as I think the abolition of slavery shouldn’t have been a “state’s rights” issue either. We’re talking about fundamentals of human nature. The right to be free and not a slave is certainly a component of human nature. Certainly being male and female is also part of human nature - gender is not something you can simply redefine. In the same way I don’t think that marriage is something that anyone can simply redefine at will.
on 09 Jun 2006 at 8:46 am 6.Moonage
said …
I think it is purely a states’ rights issue since it is not something addressed in the Constitution. Secondly, abolition did what the original wording of the Constitution directed, made all men created equal. Up until that point, only certain people were considered “men”. Slavery in itself was a violation of the Bill of Rights. This amendment on the other hand, says gays can not have the same rights as a man/woman relationship under the law. The two situations are exactly opposite in intent. That’s why I don’t like this amendment. Now, if they had left the wording as such that “if a state chooses to define…..”, then it’s purely a state issue. But they didn’t do that, they define marriage in such a way that some people will be discriminated against whether the state wishes to define it that way or not. I’m for protecting people’s rights, not taking them away no matter how much I disagree with their lifestyle. And, if every single person in, let’s say Hawaii, felt that gay marriage was OK, it wouldn’t matter under this amendment because it defines marriage as a man/woman relationship regardless of whether a judicial court attempts to define it for them. All this is doing is taking the decision making authority from the courts to Congress and compelling a different definition of the law than what the courts are opting for. The courts are not saying gay marriages are legal, they are saying you can not ban them. There is a difference there. This amendment is not saying something can not be banned, it is saying something can. I’m an old dog conservative in I believe in smaller government. Government telling me who can and can not get married is about as intrusive as you can get. And, the bottom line is anyone can sign a piece of paper and go through a ceremony, that doesn’t mean they are truly married and other forces much more important than the legal system will judge whether it is a marriage or not. The legal aspects of marriage should not be the compelling reason to make this an issue as most of those issues can be covered by other means. So, I don’t look at the legal implications of being married as being much of an issue at all. I know too many men and women running around “married” that truly are not in the purest interpretation of the word. Gay “marriages” IMO are no more or less a “marriage” than those heteros who haven’t loved each other for years. So, the intrusion of the government into this situation bothers me more than the possibility of two gay people standing together and saying “I do”. Some day, as I said, the tide may turn and they may allow people to marry their dogs so long as one is male, and one is female. I just think it’s best we not go that route in the first place and use EITHER the judicial system OR the legislative branch to dictate perceived ethical values. As long as the courts say you can not discriminate against gays by banning gay marriages, I’m OK. If the courts say you have to allow them to marry, then I’ve got the exact same issue as I do with this amendment and THEN this amendment would have more justification.
on 09 Jun 2006 at 9:46 am 7.Moonage
said …
I think you’d enjoy this discussion even more:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_05_28-2006_06_03.shtml#1149167310
These people are very qualified lawyer and some have expertise in the topic. I have relied on their interpretation of this issue, but obviously in a layman manner. Be sure to follow the comments as well, some of the commenters are as qualified as they are. I love that place even if I’m not a lawyer.