June 06, 2006

If You Can't Support The Federal Marriage Amendment

Could you support this proposal from Dafydd of Big Lizards -- what he calls the Defense of Marriage Amendment (DMA)?

1. For federal purposes, marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

2. The Constitution of the United States of America shall not be construed to require any state, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as or like a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Now let's consider what this would do -- it would not prevent any state in the union from allowing for homosexual marriage or domestic partnerships that are th functional equivalent. It also would not allow the US Constitution to be misinterpreted (a la Lawrence v. Texas) to require homosexual marriage nationwide or to allow the policy decisions of a state that permitted homosexual marriage to compel recognition of such marriages in any other state under the FUll Faith and Credit Clause. In other words, it would serve to Constitutionalize the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Since the existance of the DOMA is one of the reasons for opposing the FMA, and since many of those opposing the FMA use either federalism or the existance of the DOMA to justify their position, those two arguments become irrelevant.

Unless, of course, those are merely fig-leafs intended to cover their support for homosexual marriage.

And if it is, don't the American people have a right to know?

Posted by: Greg at 12:38 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Marriage is nothing more than a contract between the state and two people, the religious bullshit is... well bullshit. Who the fuck cares if two dudes or two women want to commit to each other, exactly what impact upon your personal life will their decision make?? Fucking asshats.

Posted by: someone at Tue Jun 6 13:37:22 2006 (8ruhu)

2 Ah, a certain profane troll has returned to my site -- but his comment actually provides the seeds of his own answer.

Marriage is nothing more than a contract between the state and two people

Well, civil marriage, at least. And if we accept the definition here given, then it is decided the business of each and every one of us how marriage is defined. After all, the state involvement in that contract makes EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US a party to that contract -- after all, government ("the state") exists because of a social contract entered into by "we, the people", and only at our sufferance. Therefore "we, the people" have a very real stake in what sort of arrangements the state enters into -- and have every right to act to ensure that those which violate our own sense of propriety and our own will are NOT permitted.

The state action in recognizing marriage is going to obligate each and every one of us to behave in a certain way towards the couples (or groups -- after all, the same arguments that support homosexual marriage support group marriage), extending them certain benefits and relating to them in a certain manner REQUIRED BY LAW.

If two men or two women or a group of consenting adults wish to commit to each other, I have no problem with them doing so -- but I do have a problem with being obligated to them by state recognition and institutionalization of that relationship. It is obligation which is imposed upon me by that state involvement that I object to.

So if two guys want to commit to each otehr, that is fine. If two women want to make a life together, that's great. But when that state action draws me in, it most decidedly does impact me and my life, and it becomes my place to have a say in the issue.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 6 14:25:59 2006 (qqHbr)

3 The state action in recognizing marriage is going to obligate each and every one of us to behave in a certain way towards the couples (or groups -- after all, the same arguments that support homosexual marriage support group marriage), extending them certain benefits and relating to them in a certain manner REQUIRED BY LAW.

So what I hear is you making a case for the dissolution of marriage in general. Figures, since your state did just that not long ago with the porly worded atrocity they put in their constitution.

r groups -- after all, the same arguments that support homosexual marriage support group marriage

Patently false. You either have very little idea of the legalities of the institution of civil marriages or you are maliciously misleading people in hopes of causing grevious injury to those you hate. Many of the legal contracts involved in civil marriage are self-limiting to two and exactly two parties, not because of arbitrary language choice but rather because there are certain agreements that can only exist between two parties without creating a legal paradox. Unlike gender specifications, a COUPLE (and only a couple) is fundamental to what marriage is from a legal standpoint.

If two men or two women or a group of consenting adults wish to commit to each other, I have no problem with them doing so

Which stands in direct contradiction to everything you've ever said on the issue.

but I do have a problem with being obligated to them by state recognition and institutionalization of that relationship. It is obligation which is imposed upon me by that state involvement that I object to.

And please share with us the exact impact another person getting to be with the person they love in the hospital has on you. Please share how another's marriage hurts you so bad, or how (other than the sheer glee you take in other's misery) denying peopel the right to protect their families helps you.

Posted by: dolphin at Wed Jun 7 03:54:05 2006 (dvSGO)

4 I would replace "between persons of the same sex" with "other than a union of a man and a woman."

It's kind of a minor point, but it would make the two sections more consistent. Once they've undefined marriage, there's no reason to think the number element will be respected any more than gender.

Posted by: Nick at Wed Jun 7 16:40:41 2006 (iPZUW)

5 nce they've undefined marriage, there's no reason to think the number element will be respected any more than gender.

Spoken like someone who has not the first clue what is involved in civil marriage. The "gender element" is arbitrary. The "number element" is inherent in the legal contracts that are created at the instance of civil marriage. Polygamous marriage in the US won't happen because it shouldn't but because it can't.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 8 03:06:29 2006 (dvSGO)

6 Dolphin -- if the gender element is arbitrary, then so is the number element. After all, who says that the two-person aspect of marriage is inherent while the two-gender element is not?

In fact, the number element is actually MORE EASILY viewed as arbitrary, given that polygamy has from time to time and place to place been an accepted part of the Western tradtion, while, while the same cannot be said of same-sex couplings.

And given the reasoning found in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, I don't see how a future Court can do anything other than recognize polyamorous marriage if same-sex homosexual marriage is defined as a right.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 8 08:59:37 2006 (q3iIU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
12kb generated in CPU 0.0126, elapsed 0.0186 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0133 seconds, 35 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]