News-Record.com

The Defensive Marriage Act was passed in Bill Clinton's administration with his total support. Unfortunately some judges seem to think that they can change it to suit their agenda or should I say the agenda of a few. It is feard that a challenge will be made to this Act and heard by the Supreme Court and stuck down, forcing those states who do not wish to recognize same sex marriages to do so.
Example Mass same sex couple moves to Minn where same sex marriage is not recognized would be forced by the court to recognize the marriage. President Bill Clinton felt it was up to the states to decided and the majority have decided that marriage should be between man and woman by hugh majorities and he was correct. Unfortunately there are judges who would override the will of the people to satisfy the agenda of a few. Thus you have a call for a Federal Constitutional amendment. It did not pass as I had predicted but it did draw attention to the issue of what the will of the majority was and still is.
Just as in so many other issues it is the fringe groups be they farleft or farright who wish to push an agenda and judges who will continue to attempt to write the law instead of interpret the law.

It seems that the farleft would have people believe that this is an issue only in the US. Here is an article concerning the subject in Australia. It is the third article in the column: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/index/0,20671,7583,00.html

Thanks, mrp. I agree proponents of same-sex marriage will try to use federal authority to trump states, so opponents eventually will have to use federal authority in response. Unless the Supreme Court finds a constitutional problem with traditional definitions of marriage, which may never happen, I would not support an amendment to the constitution.

Irrespective of my personal views on the matter, I have a hard time seeing how opponents of same-sex marriage get around the equal-protection clause (of the 14th Amendment) and the full-faith-and-credit clause (which basically says states must respect one another's laws -- a position with both philosophical and practical benefits in terms of consistency). But then, I am not a lawyer. Anyone got an explanation?

Careful, you're making arguments for why opponents have an interest in amending the constitution.

Personally, I don't think it's an equal protection issue, although that could be argued strongly in federal court. Full faith and credit, maybe.

Al-Zarqawi was not only a terrorist mastermind, he was himself a vicious killer who may have personally beheaded helpless captives.* Doug

I also agree to some extent that this was a political game by the president and congressional conservatives to stir up an issue for the November elections.* Doug

Yes to both answers Doug! Wait until tomorrow when Bush claims that Al-Zarqawi was married to his chief spiritual adviser who got zap too. Bush will reveal the civil marriage contract written in English for us see thus promoting why we should only speak in English in this country. Talking about a come back for the Republican congress agenda.

Lex:

I would argue that the 14th applies to current laws being applied with equality to all individuals. Historically we know what the equal protection clause was intended for.

The Constitution and its framers could not envision a time when something immoral would be pushed to equate with something sacred.

If a man and a woman were denied the right to marry then equal protection would apply. But since by definition, only a man and a woman can enter into marriage, the denial of marriage to members of the same sex is the only logical conclusion to be made.

Why are we having this conversation? An apple cannot be an orange. Two plus one cannot equal four.

Jeff, we do indeed know what the 14th Amendment's equal-protection clause was *historically used for*. What I'm talking about is what it *says*, which is what the courts tend to pay more attention to these days.

[[by definition, only a man and a woman can enter into marriage]] Yes, but is that definition consistent with the equal-protection clause? Does the state have a compelling public interest in drawing a distinction between hetero and same-sex marriage when it has dismissed many distinctions between men and women in other areas of the public sphere as invidious? If so, what is that compelling public interest?

For that matter, inasmuch as marriage historically has been a church sacrament, a property arrangement or both, why does the secular state play any role in it anymore? If it's a sacrament, state involvement would appear to violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment (and a ban on gay marriage would violate the free-expression-clause rights of those religious traditions that don't have a problem with gay marriage). And if it's a property arrangement, why shouldn't people who are gay be able to enter into a contractual arrangement just as other people do?

I'm not defending gay marriage here. I'm just trying to think like a lawyer, or a Supreme Court justice, might have to think (although I obviously am neither). I raise these questions because I think they're the same questions the Supreme Court would have to raise. And I have yet to hear an answer to them that I'm confident the Court would accept.

That's why we're having this conversation.

Lex:

Very good questions raised in your post. I understand where you are coming from.

First, I would argue that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the family. Only a man and a woman can produce a child. No matter how far a field we go in distorting words and natural processes, that is fact. Men and women are equal as individuals. Thus the state has moved to negate man's inclination to dominate women. But marriage is a joining of two individuals for a distinct purpose. As we see so often in society, marriage is not even respected or needed by vast numbers of people today. I think those of us who view marriage in its traditional sense deserve to retain our respect and awe for its intended purpose.

Second, as is the most important element of this debate, people of the same sex who desire to live in an immoral sexual relationship and pursue the trappings of polite society can already achieve contractual benefits via civil unions. So I go back to why do some want to make an apple an orange or two plus one equal four?

What I am arguing for is a compromise. I am willing to accept civil unions and the pedantic benefits that flow from it, if those on the other side are willing to accept the traditional definition of marriage.

The problem is that a compromise is not going to happen because most in the fray want all or nothing. That will be a long battle.

Finally, it is the intrinsic nature of acting like a lawyer that causes most of the problems in society.

Could it be that those who champion same-sex marriage or civil unions aren't just "thinking like lawyers", but rather are thinking like responsible, loving adults who wish to protect their would-be spouses from financial uncertainty and even health insurance hell? (And don't go there, slavering rabid religious gay-haters.)

Why should government give ANY chosen adult, uncoerced relationship its imprimatur? Get the courts and the legislatures out of the matchmaker biz. Don't tell me it's for ensuring propagation of the population (hence, the tax base); the states sanction marriage between infertile couples, young and old. Hell, you can get free condoms at the government health center!
Why not let 'em breed like rabbits?

Definitions are NOT for eternity, in any language or court of law.
That's why we have courts! Judges must decide how to interpret meanings out of the tangled way language and laws are applied. Then, their own language is reinterpreted by later judges. Definitions and composition of "marriages", throughout points of history, have taken on a variety of meanings and structures in different cultures.

Ah, but you will protest, not in "ours". Who gets to decide what is "our", U.S. culture? The people, who change their minds over time. The Constitution, then, may be amended, fine and dandy. But it is a properly very high hurdle.

And if the 14th or the full-faith and credit clauses are reinterpreted to allow same-sex by a challenge to Clinton's "defense" law, so be it. If the law stands, fine; it seems to have worked thus far for the vast majority of states. Bush and company are plainly vying for get-out-the-vote reaction for the fall elections. 'Twas ever thus in politics.

What is "marraige" anyway? Is it mainly a contract for finacial reasons; is it for emotional succor? If private affection is the only true reason for marriage, why bother with all those silly inheritances, insurance beneficiaries and other ramifications?

I would like to see heterosexual marriages no longer "legally" recognized, just to put everyone on the same playing field financially. I have no illusons heterosexual alliances, tenuous as they are, will fall from atop the social graces ladder. But in the system we have, it's more than a sacred cow; one group of people is getting far more favorable treatment for their sexual orientation (and some would argue race and class---many young black women today do not prefer to marry, ever). "Show me the hegemony!"

For the record and on the record, I am happily married & straight.

[[Careful, you're making arguments for why opponents have an interest in amending the constitution.]]

Uh, no, I'm asking questions. But that is kind of my point: I don't see any basis in the Constitution for any kind of ban on gay marriage.

[[First, I would argue that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the family. Only a man and a woman can produce a child. No matter how far a field we go in distorting words and natural processes, that is fact.]]

OK, but how does allowing gay marriage harm the family? Does it make those who wish to marry for the purpose of producing children any less able to do so?

[[But marriage is a joining of two individuals for a distinct purpose.]]

Says who? Show me anywhere in the law or the Constitution where it says that the purpose of marriage is procreation.

[[As we see so often in society, marriage is not even respected or needed by vast numbers of people today. I think those of us who view marriage in its traditional sense deserve to retain our respect and awe for its intended purpose.]]

And what's stopping you? Again: How does legalizing gay marriage prevent you, or anyone else, from respecting and holding in awe the institution of marriage? How does it in any way infringe on your rights?

[[Second, as is the most important element of this debate, people of the same sex who desire to live in an immoral sexual relationship and pursue the trappings of polite society can already achieve contractual benefits via civil unions.]]

Uh, no, they can't in most communities.

[[What I am arguing for is a compromise. I am willing to accept civil unions and the pedantic benefits that flow from it, if those on the other side are willing to accept the traditional definition of marriage.]]

"Pedantic" benefits? How 'bout legal and practical benefits? Although we're actually closer to agreement here than you might think. I think the state needs to get out of the marriage business and treat all adults equally, married and unmarried alike. Religions could then marry, or refuse to marry, whomever they chose. I think this is the only approach consistent with both the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

[[The problem is that a compromise is not going to happen because most in the fray want all or nothing. That will be a long battle.]]

Perhaps, but this is not merely because one side or the other is being unreasonable. A lot of people, and not just in the area of gay marriage, object to their rights' being circumscribed by what they see as the prejudices of others, particularly in the absence of any evidence that their exercising their rights harms society. And the text of the Constitution doesn't seem to allow for much compromise here, either.

[[Finally, it is the intrinsic nature of acting like a lawyer that causes most of the problems in society.]]

Finally, cheap shots at lawyers not only add nothing to the substance of your argument, they also call your good faith into question. Beyond that, I'm the wrong person to be making them to.

Hello! Cool guestbook, interesting information. Keep it UP.
Thank you!

Hello! Cool guestbook, interesting information. Keep it UP.
Bye.